With the London and Pittsburgh summits the G20 has come of age. The management of the global economic system at the head of state/government level has decisively shifted from the G7/G8 grouping to the more inclusive G20. But like its predecessors, the G20 does not have a secretariat – no headquarters, no secretary general, and no dedicated bureaucratic apparatus to support its work. Instead the G20 is to be managed by rotating the chair’s responsibilities among the members (Guardian). Placing responsibility with this system of rotating leadership is a mistake. Instead the G20 should establish a secretariat.
Rotating G20 leadership suffers from the same competence and coordination problems as the rotating European Union presidency. In terms of competence, rotation means the institutional leadership is exposed to sheer luck of the draw. Every member nation does not have the depth and breadth of expertise and diplomatic skill to successfully lead the G20 for a year. For instance compare the EU’s rotating presidency system’s results. The recent Czech presidency of the European Union was not exactly covered in glory. The Czech prime minister remarked that Obama’s stimulus package was “a way to hell” that will “undermine the stability of the global financial market.” The Times reported that, “The comments were greeted with embarrassment by many Europeans who believe that the Czech leader does not represent a European consensus.” The head of the Socialist group in the European Parliament remarked that the Czech prime minister had “not understood what the task of the E.U. presidency is”. The Lisbon Treaty plans to replace the EU’s rotating presidency to resolve these competence and coordination issues. Another example of rotating chairs gone wrong, Italy’s preparations for the G8 summit this year were strongly criticized as chaotic, with the US intervening in the final weeks before the summit to organize the agenda (Guardian, Independent). Rotating leadership needlessly exposes an institution to instability.
A secretariat places responsibility in a reliable home, secretariats are better able to coordinate because that is their domain of expertise. Furthermore, a secretariat would have longer time horizons. In 2010 South Korea is set to coordinate the G20, in 2011 France will take up the task. One year is not enough time to get a coherent agenda organized and implemented, let alone successfully monitoring or reporting on whether participating nations have lived up to their commitments. Even a weak secretariat is capable of acting as the conscience of the institution. Nations sometimes get into a habit of mutual disarmament with regard to leveling criticism – even a weak secretariat could help nudge G20 members towards implementing the grand gestures of the communiqués. The fact of monitoring by an expert figure alone means agreements have a higher likelihood of being implemented. For instance, guarding against protectionist measures and meeting past foreign aid commitments are two areas ripe for secretariat level nudging. What expert figure could criticize Italy for falling woefully behind its Gleneagles G8 commitments when Italy was hosting the G8 this year? A chair is fairly unlikely to criticize itself, certainly not in the terms Italy deserves for delivering a paltry 3% of aid pledged in at Gleneagles (Guardian, Independent).
A G20 secretariat would also serve a crucial mediating role. Similar to the UN’s role in situations where there is skepticism as to motives, the G20 secretariat can say and propose things individual states cannot say or propose. For instance, South Korea proposing an agenda item on North Korea is different from a G20 Secretary General proposing a discussion of North Korea. With the prospect of the G20 taking up any pressing global issue from the environment to trade, a secretariat could contribute to meeting global problems with global solutions (Brookings).
Finally, a G20 secretariat creates another prestige post in international politics. Basically, there are not enough top jobs to go around. The nationality of the heads of major international institutions is a petty matter, once a post becomes vacant however it’s a big deal. Witness the wrangling over the UN Secretary General post (NPR, VOA). In the economic sphere, the problem was solved by dividing two top posts between Americans and Europeans, with the managing director of the IMF being a European and the president of the World Bank being an American. The G20 has purportedly ended the European-American compromise, with future heads of the IMF being selected without regard to nationality (Reuters). I do not think prestige and symbolic fights such as these are so easily resolved – the rotating G20 chair itself is an attempt to resolve this type of conflict. Unfortunately, too much is sacrificed by way of coordination and stability using the rotating resolution.
Creon Critic 