The G20 is the new big tent for countries that have moved up to the A-list of global economic power.
But missing from the G20 membership is the world’s top diplomat, United Nations Secretary Ban Ki-moon.
South Korean-born Ban, a passionate advocate for poverty eradication and the environment, will be in Toronto for the summit this weekend. But he’ll be at the sideline, not the head table, when leaders chew over critical global financial issues of debt, international banking and an “exit plan” from massive economic stimulus packages.
Some say that’s no accident, and that the head of the UN, which represents 192 countries — many of them poor — is unlikely to be included anytime soon in the group that represents some 85 per cent of the world’s gross national product.
“The multiple crises of the past few years have taught us that we cannot fix one part of the global economic system while neglecting others,” Ban wrote in a letter to G20 leaders in advance of the summit. “We must design recovery from the ground up. This must be led by growth that is inclusive, green and based on healthy populations.”
Ban, who grew up in rural South Korea and launched a stellar career by winning an essay contest, was chosen as UN chief because he appeared to be “more secretary than general” — a technocrat who would focus on bureaucratic reform and toe the lines taken by the organization’s main supporters in the West.
But he has stepped into the role of the world’s conscience, promoting the kinds of reforms that set some high-powered leaders’ teeth on edge, and launching an early warning system of pending crises in countries where the UN works.
“The UN sees the crises that affect the poor,” says Ayca Ariyoruk of the United Nations Association of the U.S. in New York. “Somebody has to be at the G20 to remind them of that, and the UN is perfectly situated to do it.”
Except that Ban will be a guest, not an official participant at the G20 meetings, speaking only when spoken to. If the last summit in Pittsburgh is anything to go by, it’s unlikely that he’ll be invited to high-level one-on-one chats.
In Pittsburgh he attended official dinners and a plenary session. But he was able to speak only at a final lunch, urging the leaders to remember that “more than one-third of the world’s population, and more than 85 per cent of the world’s countries are not represented here.”
Some feel that’s only fitting — and that too many voices would turn into a tower of babble.
“The G20 agreed to become like the G8, a forum where real leaders would really talk to each other,” says John Kirton, director of University of Toronto’s G8 Research Group. “Their basic decision was that international civil servants should behave the way civil servants do back home.” In other words, seen and not heard.
Ban has tried to break out of that bind, says Andrew Cooper, a distinguished fellow of Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo.
“In 2008 it was clear that he wanted to have his own summit akin to the G20 in New York,” he said. “But the (George W.) Bush administration wasn’t going to give ownership of the G20 to the UN.”
Ban’s attempts to take the lead in climate change have met with only moderate success, though his two-year-old project to build a global monitoring system that reports on the impact of crises on the world’s most vulnerable people is gaining impact.
“I firmly believe the secretary-general should be part of the G20,” says Kathryn White, executive director of the United Nations Association in Canada. “It’s a group of nations not an institution, and it needs to have legitimacy. The idea of staying small enough to be effective has merit. But the UN brings the voices of smaller countries that will not be invited to the table. Until the secretary-general is a full G20 member, it’s missing a vast opportunity.”