Summit results II: Heiligendamm process – Small step but no substitute for global governance reform

The Heiligendamm process, for which the German government received the approval of it G8 partners — is a small step, but certainly no substitute for a democratic reform of the global governance system. Furthermore according to the world economic declaration, the G8 are to maintain a „new partnership“, a „new form of detailed cooperation“ and above all a “new form of topic-driven dialogue” in the next two years with the so-called Outreach 5 countries (O5), China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. The German government proposed the OECD as platform – limited to the next two years. The OECD was originally greeted with scepticism, then finally accepted, once it was assured that it only pertained to “technical facilities”.

The topics of this Heiligendamm process are exclusively those that interest the North, resp. the G8: innovation and patent protection, freedom of investment, common responsibility for Africa (this conceals the intention of dragging the O5 into the OECD as donors) and finally the issue of who will contribute how much to reduction of CO2 emissions. Just before Heiligendamm, the O5 countries issued various signals that they wanted to improve co-ordination among each other in terms of stronger South-South co-ordination. However, it is currently unclear what the specific interest of the O5 in the new co-operation with the G8 is. Nonetheless it is remarkable that the joint declaration by the G8 Presidency and O5 is far more moderated in tone than the G8 original.

For the German government, the O5 approach was the “compromise” between the status quo and the earnest attempt to expand the G8 or even to replace it with a truly representative body. However, not only the „G8 partners“ — even the chancellor herself — wanted to maintain the anachronistic G8 construction. The arguments given miss the point (either that it is just a “small intimate circle” or that the G8 represents a “community of values" worth preserving). This is just a crutch that has been employed; a placebo that is miles from the global governance reform that belongs on the agenda.

Guest Comment: The dilemma of G-8 protest

By Jens Martens

One winner of the G-8 summit is already certain, before the helicopters of heads of state and government have landed: It is the movement of globalisation critics in Germany. In advance of the summit it reached unprecedented public mobilisation and media exposure. The hopes of attac activists that the G-8 summit would be a kind of “Niehans' therapy” for the globalisation critics have been fulfilled.

The other side of the coin: By virtue of their massive protest actions, the civil society groups gave the heads of state and government media attention that their press offices and media consultants could never have reached alone. When referring to the G-8 — even if critically — they give credence to the institutional standing of this exclusive club instead of delegitimising it. When they address volumes of demands such as „save the climate“, „cancel the debts“, „solve the problems of Africa“ to the G-8, then they reinforce the illusions of omnipotence and unintentionally help style seven men and a women as saviours, a role that neither can nor should play.

When the G-8 is so pushed to the centre of the globalisation debate, it is no wonder that even the demands for “democratisation” of the global governance system fixate on the G-8 as institution. However, the opening of the G-8 for a handful of regional powers (esp. the O5), repeatedly demanded, and photo opportunities with a few African heads of state do not make this “members only” club either more democratic or more representative. Meetings of the G8 sherpas and the German chancellor with hand-picked civil society representatives may raise the standing of the NGOs involved and convey to the public a greater readiness for discussion and openness, however they distract from the structural deficits in representativeness and transparency, more than overcoming these deficits.

Demanding that the G-8 be replaced by a new body where the South is assured equal representation and participation by civil society organisations is guaranteed is also superfluous. Such a body need not be invented: it is already there in the form of the ECOSOC, The UN Economic and Social Council which has been in existence for more than 60 years. Power politics has prevented this council from performing its duties. That is because the G-8 are a minority among its 54 members. (The Never-ending Story of ECOSOC Reform: L-27 as emerging alternative to G-8? >>> WDEV 5/Dec 2006). Hence it is no wonder thy have never seriously attempted to vitalise the council and equip it with authority. Only recently the governments in the UN General Assembly resolved to strengthen ECOSOC. Civil society organisations could remind governments of the resolutions when the council meets again. It convenes in Geneva four weeks after the Heiligendamm summit. Activism there is tedious and neither spectacular nor impressive for the media – but in the long-run perhaps "more permanent" than a mere colourful flash in the pan on the perimeter of Heiligendamm.

Jens Martens is co-publisher of WDEV and director of Global Policy Forum Europe in Bonn.

Guest Comment: Concert of great powers or democratic global governance?

By Thomas Fues and Sachin Joshi

More urgent than ever, the upcoming meeting of the most important industrialised countries in Heiligendamm is faced with the question on the future of the summit architecture. The phenomenal rise of the emerging powers, particularly China and India, has called into life a new geography of the global economy and international politics, which can no longer be dominated by the West. (The military hegemony of the US is a separate though connected issue.) Nobody has recognized this more clearly than the Bush Administration as meticulously analyzed by US political scientist Daniel Drezner in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Mostly unnoticed by the international public, the US wants to integrate China and India into multilateral institutions (e.g. IMF, WTO) and install a new triad of great powers. It is the European countries which are disturbed since they deny their loss of influence in the „Asian century“ and cling to obsolete privileges.

What can Europe do to prevent a new concert of great powers and to support democratic global governance? In its attempt to prevent the ‘concert’ the worst answer would be if the EU itself were to strive for great power status by building up military capacities. This would tear the Union apart; a European torso could not master this task. The right approach, however, would be if the EU would become the leading force for an equitable world order and thus would increase its reputation and influence in the world. In other words, support democratic global governance. This would imply that European countries withdraw from antiquated positions of power in order to allow for the new powers to gain more leverage. For example, EU states should pool their voting rights and seats in the IMF and agree to a substantial reduction. Also, Europe should be represented with a single seat in a reformed summit architecture, as in the proposed „L20+“ of heads of state and government from North and South. If Europe is not ready for a voluntary relinquishment of power and sustainable change of course, it will be faced with a concert of great powers consisting of the US, China and India, which will undermine the foundations of the United Nations and block democratic global governance for a long time to come.

The EU leaders have the right opportunity to discuss their strategy to support democratic global governance at Heiligendamm. The question however remains, whether they will take the first step forward.

Dr. Thomas Fues is a senior economist at the German Development Institute (GDI) in Bonn; Sachin Joshi is a researcher in New Dehli and is currently attending GDI's Global Governance School.