G8: Quietly Into That Good Night

There were a record 40 heads of state on hand for this year’s Group of Eight (G8) summit, by far the most inclusive meeting in the 35-year history of the organization - and also the strongest signal yet that its relevance on the world stage has passed.

The group met for the first time in Rambouillet, France, in 1975 with just the heads of state of the then-G6 in attendance and an agenda to focus on the worldwide recession and energy issues tied to the Arab oil embargo against the US two years earlier. This year, the agenda was not so different: The world is again in the grips of a major economic crisis, and energy issues as they relate to climate change are again a central issue. What has changed over the last generation is that the small group of large and wealthy countries is no longer the best forum to confront these issues.

Advocates of the G8 argue that the group’s share of the world’s GDP has remained more or less around 40 percent over the last 35 years, which is true (though, to be fair, two and a half countries have been added to the ranks since then with the addition of Canada and the Russian Federation, plus Germany’s reunification). But effectiveness is more than a question of economic clout.

The power of the G8 host country to set the agenda for the talks and the fact that the host rotates in an established order (Italy hosted the talks this year and will be followed, in order, by Canada, France, the US, the UK, Russia, Germany and Japan, before returning to Italy in 2017) allows countries to promote specific agendas for domestic audiences, which reduces the effectiveness of the forum.

This year, for example, the talks were moved from the previously announced site in La Maddalena, Sardinia, to the earthquake-stricken city of L’Aquila as a way to show solidarity with the residents of the city and win approval points at home. And the negotiations in L'Aquila were regularly interrupted for photo-ops between Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and high-profile figures like US President Barack Obama or German Chancellor Angela Merkel as a way to boost Berlusconi’s standing in Italy after a series of sex-related scandals and his pending divorce.

More importantly, the economics have shifted over the last generation. According to International Monetary Fund statistics, the world’s economy was almost five times larger at the end of last year than it was in 1975, but international trade has increased by a factor of 12. Back then, 20 countries accounted for at least half a percent of the world’s total GDP; today it is 35. And as the world’s economy becomes less centralized it becomes less effective for a small group of countries to act unilaterally to make decisions that are relevant on a worldwide level.

The downside of multilateralism is that with too many countries it is too difficult to reach a consensus. Just a glance at the efforts to build an international accord to confront climate change or to hammer out rules for international commerce within the World Trade Organization is enough to illustrate that forging any agreement among nearly 200 countries is nearly impossible. But with a group as small as the G8 there is the valid question of whether decisions made in that context can be effective.

A small expansion could be the answer. France and the UK have lobbied for several years to invite five key developing economies to the group, the so-called Outreach Five: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. Germany and Italy support that plan but would like to have Egypt added to the group. And even without formal invitations, an increasing number of non-member states have been invited starting in 2000 when the Outreach Five was formed and three members of the African Union sat in on the talks. That trend reached a head in L’Aquila, when no less than 32 non-member heads of state appeared for at least one day.

Adding five or six new countries to the mix would transform the group into the G13 or G14. But at that point, it is fair to wonder what advantages it would offer compared to the G20, a group created by the G8 a decade ago and comprising all the G8 members, the Outreach Five, plus the EU and major emerging economies Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Turkey.

Already, several leaders in L’Aquila said a lack of progress there raised the stakes at the next G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in September. For several years now, diplomats have signaled that it’s within the G20 and not the G8 that significant decisions are made, with the G8 reduced to a preparatory role. Perhaps it is time to eliminate the G8 all together and finally let the G20 take its place.