Peter Draper is a research fellow at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA).

The Role of the G8 in the G20 Era

The Times newspaper* had coverage of the G8 and G20, but only in the context of increased African representation in the latter. The main thrust was on the reform of representation in these two forums.

On June 28, Business Day, the premier business paper, unequivocally stated as a matter of fact that the G20 had replaced the G8 as the premier international policy coordinating forum. While mention of the G8’s hand in global financial reform was made through a statement that German President Merkel had lobbied her G8 counterparts to pursue solid fiscal policies, the paper clearly relegated the G8 to security issues. This was evident in the way the two summits were reported: the story on the G20 was more prominent and focused on financial reform, while the G8 story appearing on the same page focused on security issues, particularly the sinking of the South Korean warship, allegedly by North Korea. 

Both papers failed to shed any real light on the relationship between the G8 and the G20, although Business Day did make a clear declaration as to the status of the two with regard to international policy issues. 

On June 29, Business Day had several articles on the G20, but none of them touched on this issue. One can assume that the G8’s relevance has been decidedly downscaled by the paper, and they find it more worthwhile to report on the G20. The June 30 edition of Business Day also reported on the G20, but there was nothing on the role of the G8.

G20 Conflict or Cooperation

The Business Day report of June 28 magnified the level of conflict within the G20 by referring to the deal struck on endorsed targets as a “tightrope deal,” illuminating the extent of divergence and pointing to a potential unravelling of the deal in the future. The article exposed the divergence of opinion between developing and developed countries, with reports of developing countries, such as Brazil, condemning the deficit targets in the final deal as being “draconian,” “difficult” and “exaggerated.” Probably unintentionally, the article suggested that the biggest gap to be bridged was the one between the United States, who favoured growth, and Europe, who favoured budget cuts. In essence, the core of the story was the divergence among the G20 countries and the uneasy deal that was struck at the Toronto summit.

Business Day continued with this line of reporting in the June 30 edition. Although the stories carried in this edition had different angles, at the core of each story was the G20 leaders’ failure to reach consensus. By implication, the level of disagreement has to be a judgment on the failure of the summit, although this is not stated outright in any of the articles. An Engineering News article on the value of the G20 also exposed the rifts among the G20 countries, portraying them as irreconcilable.

The G20 Framework

The Times made no mention whatsoever of the Framework specifically. References are made to economic growth, but they are in the context of President Zuma’s report on South Africa’s position at the summit. The question of how this relates to the Framework is not covered, as the Framework itself was not mentioned. 

A similar analysis can also be applied to the three post-summit editions of Business Day. Although references are made to economic growth and recovery, there is no specific mention of the Framework and any connections to the Framework have to be drawn from the reader’s own prior knowledge.

Overall, both outlets clearly decided not to concentrate on the technicalities of the summit, instead choosing to concentrate on what they perceived to be contentious issues — that is, those that were “newsworthy.” The articles do not offer much knowledge to the reader and presuppose the reader’s familiarity with the minute details of the G20. 

G20 Record of Achievement

The main thrust of The Times article, which relays the positions of President Zuma and the South African government, was on the need for equal representation at the G20, while Business Day focused on divergence in policy options for growth and recovery at the G20 summit. The G20’s record of achievement in relation to the Canada summit did not receive any coverage.

On the other hand, the stories carried by Business Day on June 29 seemed to stress that the G20 had not achieved anything at this summit, compared to other summits; the judgment on achievement was focused more on the Toronto summit than on the G20’s general record of achievement. The Toronto summit was condemned for the lack of a “decision” in its declaration. In all four articles related to the G20 in the paper, the leaders were criticized for failing to engage in frank dialogue and come up with decisive measures going forth. The key to this criticism lay in the G20 decision to agree to disagree. Although the G20’s record of achievement was really a non-issue, the style of reporting would seem to suggest that past summit decisions, as opposed to achievements, have been very laudable.

Engineering News reported on June 28 that analysts are becoming increasingly skeptical of the G20’s role as the manager of the world economy and, in general, the article cast doubt on the continued viability and sustainability of the G20. The article posited that the Toronto summit highlighted issues that have long remained unresolved, leading to the assumption that the G20 has a record of failure.

General Observations

Three observations come out of the articles consulted:

1. The Toronto G20 Summit was perceived by the media to not have achieved much;
2. The publications all agreed that the conflict or divergences among the members seem to have been more sharply exposed at this recent summit; and
3. The media was not largely concerned with the technicalities and minute details of the G20, such as the Framework, preferring to focus on issues that were more “newsworthy,” notably disagreement among the members.

* The papers referred to above are: Business Day, June 28, 2010, p. 6; Business Day, June 29, 2010, p. 2–3, 5, 8 and 10; Business Day, June 30, 2010, p. 2; The Times, June 28, 2010, p. 12. Other newspapers consulted include Business Report (no coverage) and The Mail & Guardian (Friday edition — no coverage). Engineering News, an online news service, also had a story available at:
www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/do-little-g20-summit-leaves-markets-unperturbed-2010-06-28.