“The formation of the G20 group of world leaders is likely to be the most lasting institutional consequence of the global financial meltdown of 2008,” writes Gideon Rachman, a columnist for the Financial Times, in the Economist’s The World in 2010. Rachman outlines the G’s jostling for preeminence – from the G2 to the G77 – and evaluates their prospects for gaining influence on the international stage.
It’s a race between the G2 (the US and China), G3 (plus Europe), G13 (the G8 and Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) and the G20. The G8 will continue to decline into irrelevance as it no longer represents the great and emerging powers and the G77 has no chance.
Should the G2 lead the way? Rachman writes, “The G2 is unlikely to become the world most important international forum in 2010. For different reasons, it currently suits neither America nor China to elevate the status of the G2.” This, of course, is not to say that the relationship between Washington and China is not vital for the world.
The G20 is the likely winner in 2010, but that’s not the end of the story. The G20 has an advantage in that it already exists (unlike the G3 or G13) and represents 85 percent of the world’s output, but the “groups virtue – its size – is also its problem.” With over 30 leaders around the table at the last summit in Pittsburgh, it feels a little like a mini-UN and may not always be able to act decisively.
As powers rise and fall, a new international system will emerge.
Image from the Economist.
