Eser Şekercioğlu is a visiting scholar at the Center for Policy Studies at Sabanci University in Istanbul.

The Role of the G8 in the G20 Era

The Pittsburgh decision that the G20 would be “the premier forum for international cooperation” was welcomed by the Turkish public — at least as far as public media commentary and elite editorials were concerned. It appears that most commentators consider the issue settled. There was little coverage concerning the timing of the G8 and G20 summits. The media coverage leading up to the summits was mostly centred on the bilateral meetings arranged by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Only a couple of influential columnists voiced their preference for the prominence of the G20, expressing that the G20 Framework was important to coordinate the global economic recovery. Nevertheless, the coverage on the relative importance of the G20 vis-à-vis the G8 was markedly weaker than during Pittsburgh and London summits. 

G20 Conflict or Cooperation

About a week prior to the Toronto summit, news concerning signs of discontent among the G20 members began to circulate in the Turkish media. First, a message from the US secretary of the treasury, Timothy Geithner — warning that the world should not look to the United States for solutions anymore — found its place in the financial pages. Second, a few influential papers covered the pre-summit disagreement between US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on how best to reform the financial sector. 

During the summit, Geithner’s criticism of the European Union and Japan’s export-led recovery strategies and Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega’s comments about the United States and Europe’s focus on austerity measures instead of stimulus, strengthened the sense that the Toronto G20 Summit lacked the cohesion and unison exhibited earlier in Pittsburgh and London. The pre-summit coverage on conflicts among members was reinforced by the early post-summit coverage: influential papers focused on the decision not to impose a common plan on financial reform, allowing countries to deal with the banking system at their own pace. Market commentators welcomed this development with tongue-in-cheek approval.

While any drastic decisions would likely have shocked the market, and general commentary was positive, several pundits pointed to the lack of unison among the more influential members of the G20. In general, however, disagreements between the European Union and the United States on one side, and the developing-country members who depend on exports to them on the other, were lost in a crowded agenda of domestic as well as international issues. Turkey and Brazil’s concerns over how austerity measures and recovery plans that rely on cuts in public spending will affect their export markets could have been an especially important topic of focus.

The G20 Framework 

The Turkish media — in terms of news coverage, commentaries and editorials published — has a rather superficial approach to international economic problems. G20 meetings and the role of the G20 are not discussed, even in a semi-scholarly fashion. While media commentators are positive about the willingness of G20 members to make the G20 the premier forum for international economic cooperation with their “Framework,” there is little public engagement on the subject. In the last month, the public’s focus has shifted to the increased terrorist activities of the Kurdish separatists — resulting in several military and civilian deaths in recent weeks — and the brewing conflict with Israel over the humanitarian aid flotilla bound for Gaza. This was reflected in the summit coverage as well. Erdoğan’s meeting with President Barack Obama and their correspondence on Turkish-Israeli relations have generated more coverage than the summit itself. Significantly, most of the summit-related news was found in the financial pages, while coverage of the Erdoğan-Obama meeting and anti-globalization demonstrations appeared on the covers. In contrast, during the London G20 Summit, related news could be found in the political pages and produced commentary from a wider range of commentators.

G20 Record of Achievement

Oddly enough, the Turkish public has yet to rate the performance of the G20. In this commentary and the previous installments, the low levels of public engagement in Turkey have been stressed. For average Turkish citizens and therefore those commentators who address the Turkish public, the G20’s performance and ability to deliver on its promises is very low on the priority list. Although the G20’s ability to make and implement decisions is likely to have significant effects on the economic recovery, there is little public interest in the G20. The prices at the marketplace and availability of jobs seem to be practical problems far removed from the technical and complex world of policy coordination at the international level. The relatively smooth and unexpectedly swift recovery of the Turkish economy (as far as macro-level indicators are concerned) has likely contributed to the lack of scrutiny on the part of media pundits as well. With the more immediate and important issues of increased insurgent activity in southeastern Turkey and the crisis with Israel, it is not surprising that the G20 does not occupy a more prominent place in the Turkish public’s collective mind.