Is the G20 summit an effective force for international policy development?

Donald Trump proclaimed this year’s G20 summit a “wonderful” success, and praised its host, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the way in which she handled onerous discussions between member countries.
The G20 is the most recent addition to a series of post-World War II initiatives, aiming for an alignment of international economic policy. It has often been lauded for its achievement in bringing together the world’s largest economies and building between them strong discourse. The streets of Hamburg however, tell us a different story.
On the 7th and 8th of July the nation saw a city in utter chaos as anti-capitalist protests descended into rioting and violence, leaving almost 500 police officers injured; a firm rejection of the G20 as a legitimate forum for international cooperation and policy development. It certainly indicates that global summits, and the G20 in particular, are a far less successful platform for discussion than world leaders would have us believe.
Global concerns
The G20 has been criticised in the past for its lack of transparency and disregard for minority voices. It could certainly be argued that frustrations arise out of world leaders failing to efficiently respond to increasing global concerns. There seems to have been very little development of the G20’s project countering base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), with few specific details presented in the Leaders’ Declaration. Going into the summit, the European Union stated that those jurisdictions unwilling to cooperate with the G20’s plans to reverse abusive tax practices should bear the consequences. The Leaders’ Declaration does not state exactly how measures against such jurisdictions are to be achieved, or how the rebel jurisdictions are to be punished; it simply indicates that defensive measures will be considered.
This may simply be the case because tax related discussions have been overshadowed by other policy considerations, for instance climate change and the G20’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. Even with climate change high on the agenda at the summit, the G20 has provided us with very little substance on how they wish to continue tackling this growing concern. When Angela Merkel was questioned at her press conference on whether Trump and the remaining leaders had ended their discord regarding the Paris Agreement, she answered evasively, stating that all parties had made their positions known.
In other words, no progress had been made, and it is at this point that we notice a pattern begin to emerge. The published communique has in fact glossed over key differences within the international community rather than attempt to address them. The G20 nations cannot hope to address shared global problems If they are unable to negotiate and resolve internal conflicts efficiently and transparently.
It appears that the G20 participants do take a lacklustre approach to resolving very real, and very complicated policy concerns. However, there are arguably so many potential topics up for discussion, and with so many countries and institutions coming together with different agendas, it is impossible for major development to take place across all areas.
This is illustrated by the UK Prime Minister Theresa May who, in contrast to other Western European leaders, was reluctant to take a strong stance on climate change, and instead expressed the need to tackle terrorism financing.
Lack of substance
The complete lack of substance offered by the leaders in attendance suggests that the summit itself is nothing other than superficial and extravagant. Summits provide leaders with ample opportunity to pit themselves against one another, and personality contests ensue. There has been a great deal of engagement and interest surrounding the summit, but not for the reasons one might expect. Rather than policy, far greater interest has been attached to the way in which key figures such as Trump and Putin, key and divisive figures on the world stage, interact with one another.
At a time when countries across the globe share challenges such as terrorism and global warming, international cooperation has never been more crucial. Summits such as the G20 are key to achieving worldwide economic stability, despite their flaws. To build on its previous achievements, the G20 must make two changes. It must first limit the number of agendas up for discussion, focusing instead on fewer key areas of common interest, and must face internal conflicts openly and directly, rather than attempting to skirt around them. These changes are essential to successfully “shaping an interconnected world”.
Emilia Lazarevic is a student in the Faculty’s School of Law and recently attended the G20 Summit as part of the GLOSS scheme.
