The world has seemed in panic. International media, as if unanimously, have been reporting the dramatic fall of shares in worldwide stock markets, believed to have been affected by the declining credit rating of the United States and the debt defaults in Spain, Italy and Portugal.
Time and again the international community has looked to the Group of 20 (G20) when the world is on the verge of economic crisis.
Since the formation of G20 Leaders Group meeting in 2008, the G20 has gained more significance in the international arena.
The would-be economic crisis in 2008-9 has arguably been managed well by the G20 countries and thus has brought the group into a higher profile.
At the same time, the existence of G20 has never been far from criticism. From the “new face of G7” to the “new form of world oligarchy” are some of the cynical phrases addressed toward the group.
For those who criticize G20 as the “new form of world oligarchy”, they would argue that multilateralism is the best form of world forum in addressing global challenges.
The rationale is due to the democratic nature of multilateralism, which involves most, if not all, countries in negotiating and decision-making.
Whether this criticism and argument are valid enough, let us look at the matter from the following perspective.
There is no doubt that multilateralism, such as the UN or World Trade Organization (WTO), inherit an unrivaled status.
The UN, for example, has existed since the end of the World War II. The UN has also dealt with so many global challenges, from disarmament, human rights, economic development to intellectual property. It deals with issues ranging from nuclear non-proliferation to waste problems.
At the same time, the UN also inherits internal challenges due to its “democratic” nature.
It is well known among multilateral negotiators that decision making in the UN forums is not that simple.
Decision-making can easily be stalled by only stating, “My delegation does not have the instruction from the capital”.
Even when decisions have been made, implementing them will be other challenges. There is a joke among the multilateral negotiators that what they do is just like “writing in the sky”. The works are there but difficult to sense.
This is therefore one of the strengths possessed by the G20. The group merely has 19 countries plus a representative of the European Union.
Negotiating and making deci-sions in the group will not be as complicated as in the UN.
And in terms of worldwide representation, G20 membership accounts for 85 percent of the world’s economy and two-thirds of the world’s population.
As G20 is much more lenient in its informal bureaucracy, it certainly holds global economic and political power.
From a political point of view, G20 members range from a superpower (the United States) or great powers (the UN Security Council P-5 countries), middle powers (such as Australia, Canada and Japan) and emerging economies (such as Brazil, India and Indonesia).
When those countries collaborate, the world will adjust to their direction.
Whether or not this phenomenon justifies the perception that G20 is a “new form of world oligarchy”, only time will tell.
On the other hand, it is worth reiterating the popular political theory of Robert Michels known as the iron law of oligarchy. Michels (1911) concluded that bureaucratic organizations always lead to oligarchy.
Even though the theory is mostly used in the discourse of political parties and national governments, arguably it is applicable to international relations.
In this regard, the argument stating that the G20 is a new form of world oligarchy may have a valid point. Whether it is acceptable or not in the world of diplomacy, it is another issue.
Even in multilateralism there is an “oligarchy”. Making decisions in multilateral forums often need a group comprising heads of regional groupings or countries being entrusted by others in representing them.
In that situation, negotiations are mostly carried out by a small group. Once decisions are made, they are brought to the bigger setting, the so-called multilateral fora.
Usually in this final stage the draft decisions will be easily endorsed or merely undergo minor changes.
In conclusion, even within the context of international relations such as the G20 or in multilateralism, oligarchy exists. Negotiators may not declare it, but they cannot deny that it is there.
Source: www.thejakartapost.com
Time and again the international community has looked to the Group of 20 (G20) when the world is on the verge of economic crisis.
Since the formation of G20 Leaders Group meeting in 2008, the G20 has gained more significance in the international arena.
The would-be economic crisis in 2008-9 has arguably been managed well by the G20 countries and thus has brought the group into a higher profile.
At the same time, the existence of G20 has never been far from criticism. From the “new face of G7” to the “new form of world oligarchy” are some of the cynical phrases addressed toward the group.
For those who criticize G20 as the “new form of world oligarchy”, they would argue that multilateralism is the best form of world forum in addressing global challenges.
The rationale is due to the democratic nature of multilateralism, which involves most, if not all, countries in negotiating and decision-making.
Whether this criticism and argument are valid enough, let us look at the matter from the following perspective.
There is no doubt that multilateralism, such as the UN or World Trade Organization (WTO), inherit an unrivaled status.
The UN, for example, has existed since the end of the World War II. The UN has also dealt with so many global challenges, from disarmament, human rights, economic development to intellectual property. It deals with issues ranging from nuclear non-proliferation to waste problems.
At the same time, the UN also inherits internal challenges due to its “democratic” nature.
It is well known among multilateral negotiators that decision making in the UN forums is not that simple.
Decision-making can easily be stalled by only stating, “My delegation does not have the instruction from the capital”.
Even when decisions have been made, implementing them will be other challenges. There is a joke among the multilateral negotiators that what they do is just like “writing in the sky”. The works are there but difficult to sense.
This is therefore one of the strengths possessed by the G20. The group merely has 19 countries plus a representative of the European Union.
Negotiating and making deci-sions in the group will not be as complicated as in the UN.
And in terms of worldwide representation, G20 membership accounts for 85 percent of the world’s economy and two-thirds of the world’s population.
As G20 is much more lenient in its informal bureaucracy, it certainly holds global economic and political power.
From a political point of view, G20 members range from a superpower (the United States) or great powers (the UN Security Council P-5 countries), middle powers (such as Australia, Canada and Japan) and emerging economies (such as Brazil, India and Indonesia).
When those countries collaborate, the world will adjust to their direction.
Whether or not this phenomenon justifies the perception that G20 is a “new form of world oligarchy”, only time will tell.
On the other hand, it is worth reiterating the popular political theory of Robert Michels known as the iron law of oligarchy. Michels (1911) concluded that bureaucratic organizations always lead to oligarchy.
Even though the theory is mostly used in the discourse of political parties and national governments, arguably it is applicable to international relations.
In this regard, the argument stating that the G20 is a new form of world oligarchy may have a valid point. Whether it is acceptable or not in the world of diplomacy, it is another issue.
Even in multilateralism there is an “oligarchy”. Making decisions in multilateral forums often need a group comprising heads of regional groupings or countries being entrusted by others in representing them.
In that situation, negotiations are mostly carried out by a small group. Once decisions are made, they are brought to the bigger setting, the so-called multilateral fora.
Usually in this final stage the draft decisions will be easily endorsed or merely undergo minor changes.
In conclusion, even within the context of international relations such as the G20 or in multilateralism, oligarchy exists. Negotiators may not declare it, but they cannot deny that it is there.
Source: www.thejakartapost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment