Thomas Fues is head of the training department at the German Development Institute in Bonn.

The Role of the G8 in the G20 Era

There is the clear sense in the German media that the G20 has taken over from the G8 as the premier forum of global policy coordination. Typical headlines have included: “How the G6 turned into the G20”* (Aachener Zeitung, June 25, 2010) and “From G8 to G20” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 26, 2010). The G20 is generally perceived as the relevant addressee for key German and European proposals on a global tax on financial transactions as well as a worldwide levy on banks. 

The G20 is seen as focusing mainly on economic and financial issues; however, the G8 still draws considerable attention as a platform for like-minded industrialized countries to align their positions on critical foreign policy challenges — for example, North Korea and Iran, on which the G20 definitely would not be able to reach a consensus (Spiegel Online, June 26, 2010; Die Zeit Online, June 26, 2010). The German public also turns to the G8 in reference to global development and poverty alleviation. German newspapers have extensively covered reports from international NGOs that document how G8 countries have reneged on their promises towards the developing world (Sueddeutsche Zeitung, June 26, 2010: Frankfurter Rundschau, June 26, 2010). Responding to public concerns, the German government is apparently involved in an initiative with South Korea to establish a G20 working group on development. If successful, this would further strengthen the effectiveness and legitimacy of the G20, possibly rendering the G8 redundant at a later point in time. 

Public opinion in Germany on the future of the G8 — its present reach confined to foreign policy and development — is divided. Some influential media want to hold on to the old format, as the G20 is judged to be too heterogeneous and unwieldy for meaningful consensus,  as Handelsblatt Online (June 26, 2010) stated, “those declared dead often live longer.” In contrast, an editorial from the Financial Times Deutschland (June 26, 2010) opined that the G8 is not really needed any longer since the development budgets of industrialized countries are shrinking anyhow, and foreign policy coordination can be handled without costly and time-consuming summits.

There is also a uniform trend in the public debate that acknowledges the disempowerment of the G8 in economic and even foreign policy arenas, which might eventually lead to open rivalry between the UN Security Council and the G20 (Die Welt, June 28, 2010). According to this view, member states may find it preferable to turn to the G20 as a flexible, informal forum for the representation of national interests, one that is not constrained by the rigid modalities of UN decision making. Germany, in particular, may be inclined to focus on the G20 rather than on the UN Security Council, where it lacks influence. A different perspective is articulated by one of the most influential daily newspapers. Sueddeutsche Zeitung (June 28, 2010) recognizes a new momentum for the reform of the UN Security Council emanating from Toronto. A special European summit will try to define common positions on strengthening the UN and on collective regional representation in the UN Security Council.

G20 Conflict or Cooperation

The main thrust of G20 coverage by German media before the Canadian summits emphasized the deep divisions on key economic issues between Germany and most European countries on one side, and other member states on the other: “Conflict will be everywhere in Toronto,” (Spiegel Online, June 25, 2010). Chancellor Merkel was portrayed as the most prominent adversary of President Obama in her insistence on budgetary restraint over further stimulus measures. In referring to his country’s traumatic historical experience with excessive deficits and high inflation, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäeuble had criticized the United States with unusually harsh wording: “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing,” (Handelsblatt, June 25, 2010). In coverage of the event, German media seem relieved that the transatlantic confrontation that was initially feared did not materialize. The summit document’s non-binding commitment towards halving budget deficits by 2013 was widely interpreted as an unexpected victory for Merkel, though commentators assume that states will renege on implementation (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 28, 2010). The rejection of the German-French proposal for a global tax on financial transactions and of the worldwide levy on banks supported by European and other countries did not come as a surprise to informed observers. German media now expect an initiative at the European or Eurozone level and hope for later support from other continents (Frankfurter Rundschau, June 28, 2010).

Notwithstanding the extensive disagreements, German media still views the G20 as an indispensable platform for global policy coordination, which just needs more time to develop effective mechanisms for working in concert with the rising powers of the South. The initial period of trust building with only limited agreement is seen as a necessary investment for future convergence (Die Welt, June 28, 2010). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (June 28, 2010) identified the lack of willingness by industrialized countries to listen to rising powers as the most serious danger for the G20. This clearly goes against European intentions for strong banking regulation and a tax on financial transactions. One could read from the statement a certain satisfaction that the European aspiration for comprehensive global economic governance will continue to be frustrated by the free market leanings of powerful developing countries.

The G20 Framework 

German media generally expect the G20 to assume responsibility for global well-being and to support the provision of global public goods. However, the “Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth” did not, to the knowledge of the author, receive any explicit coverage during the Toronto summit. This may be explained, in part, by a growing uneasiness among public observers about lofty declarations that are not translated into meaningful political steps. Critical voices in the media predict the return of neo-liberal ideas: governments are not getting serious about the regulation of the banking sector and are beginning to cut budgets at the expense of the poor, with the aim of strengthening global competitiveness (Frankfurter Rundschau, June 28, 2010). More mainstream commentators have sharply criticized the missed opportunity for effective financial regulation, without which the systemic crisis will deepen in the years to come (Handelsblatt, June 28, 2010; Financial Times Deutschland, June 28, 2010).

G20 Record of Achievement

German media have, so far, paid little attention to the implementation record of the G20. This may be explained to some extent by the view that the new summit architecture still needs more time to deliver on its pledges. However, the Toronto Summit Declaration was received with reservation, due to a diffuse distrust in the G20’s implementation effectiveness. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung is an exception in this regard, giving a detailed account of implementation progress on past G20 decisions. The paper’s overall assessment comes across quite positively: “At the technical level, which is more important than political disagreements, many innovative G20 ideas have already been put into practice” (June 23, 2010). 

* All translations are the author’s own.