RSS

The Hokkaido summit, which once again belied expectations, and the recent dispute between American presidential candidates as to whether Russia should be excluded from the Group of Eight revived the debate on the possibility of a G8 reform. A recent survey by Colin Bradford of the Brookings Institution reveals that only 15 percent of experts and officials involved with the Group of Eight think that it is providing the "global steering mechanism" they think the world needs. The international press accuses the group of producing "pseudo results" and failing as an agent of global governance. Changing economic reality confronts the G8 with important questions concerning its goals, mandate, and country composition. It seems as though some kind of reform is essential if the G8 is to have a real impact on global developments and tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century. Existing proposals for change can be divided into two main groups.

G8 enlargement

Pro:

• Many European commentators dismiss the G8 as a "Western talking shop" and call for an enlargement in order to make it more inclusive and representative.
• Advocates of an enlargement think G8 summits cannot solve global problems as long as the most important emerging economies are missing from the table.
• Russia has to stay in the G8, and India and China have to join in order to fight nuclear proliferation effectively.

Con:

• Opponents of this scenario claim that an expansion of the body would completely damage the informal atmosphere of the meetings and opportunity for constructive consultation by world leaders.
• Moreover, the group has always expanded slowly and one member at a time and so a rapid growth would be an unprecedented, potentially destabilizing, step.
• Many European commentators point to the fact that none of the potential candidates meet all of the de facto membership criteria such as commitment to open democracy, global reach, and the ability to substitute old-style hard power with civilian non-nuclear power.

G8 contraction

Pro:

• Those who favour G8 contraction claim that the current format is bloated and unwieldy: despite the group's name, G8 summits currently involve participants from as many as 31 countries and 11 multilateral organizations. What was originally a private meeting of a few world leaders has evolved into an inconclusive, massive public relations event. Smaller gatherings would be much more effective; transaction costs and the number of possible veto points that stop consensus would be reduced.
• There is no rationale for the representatives of France, Germany, Italy, UK, and EU to appear separately in the group: G8's five European members should be combined and given one seat to simplify the group's proceedings.
• Rights defenders agree with Senator John McCain who proposes to exclude Russia from the Group of Eight to punish it for restricting political freedoms. For the same reason, China should not be allowed to join.

Con:

• Skeptics claim this scenario is rather unfeasible: it is difficult to imagine that Germany, France, Italy, and the UK would willingly rid themselves of an independent voice in this powerful group.
• If the Group of Eight was contracted, its voice on the international scene could get even weaker than it is now and its legitimacy might be questioned.

Below we present the four most prevalent G8 reform scenarios which have been considered. We encourage you to vote on what you think is the best option for the future of the G8. You can now cast a vote on the right hand side of our page.

L20: upgrade the existing G20
This scenario suggests upgrading the G20 - a group created nearly ten years ago which brings together members of the G8, representatives of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as finance ministers of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia and Turkey, in order to form a new "Leadersgroup," abbreviated L20. The greatest strength of the contingent L20 would be the highly representative nature of its membership: according to Brookings Institution L20 countries would account for 63 percent of the world's population (in contrast to the G8 which currently represents less than 14 percent) and almost 80 percent of global economic output. The L20 would therefore be in a position to tackle global problems.

G13: G8 + the "outreach 5"
Most European commentators agree that the G8 should grant full and permanent membership only to the most important emerging economies: the BRICSAM five (Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Mexico). The Brookings survey by Colin Bradford reveals that 63 percent of experts and officials involved in the international reform favour the G8+5 model. This so called "Outreach 5" has already been included in the G8 discussion on the issues of climate change, clean energy and sustainable development.

G9: leading market democracies
This proposal is based on the perception of the group as a club of leading market democracies: this means countries which roll back political freedoms - Russia or China - should be excluded. In turn, Brazil and India should join the group as full members.

G3: exclusive club
Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post suggests that the US, the EU and Japan should form a G3 which would go back to the original idea of an intimate closed-doors gathering of the most powerful Western and like-minded countries. Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute in his publication "Abolish or Transform It" has suggested an alternative scenario with a G3 involving the United States, the EU and China, which would unite world's three greatest economic powers.

No reform
There is also a strong case that the Group of Eight does not need reforming at all. John Kirton, director of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, claims that for the last 34 years the G8 has been an increasingly effective, responsive, and legitimate agent of global governance and therefore there is no reason to reform it. Those who offer reform strategies in a shotgun fashion, he writes, show little consideration for how coherent and effectual the group is. He also maintains that their proposals are rarely accompanied by in-depth analysis or proof that reform would enhance G8's performance at all.


Cast your vote in the poll to the right. If you are not a member of the Atlantic Community yet, please join us here, it will only take a second.


Anna Wojnilko holds a Master's degree in British Studies and is currently an editorial intern at atlantic-community.org.