Group of seven
27 April 2007
Article written by the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Ambassador Celso Amorim, published in Valor Econômico on 27 April 2007.
Very much like political scientists and journalists, diplomats enjoy coining new terms to explain new processes that keep cropping up. Some years ago it was fashionable to speak about ‘coalitions of variable geometry’ to refer to groups of countries that forged alliances here and there for various reasons that either lasted or did not. Currently, we see a proliferation of 'Gs', which have become part and parcel of diplomacy. The G-7 emerged in 1970s as an informal grouping of 'the seven richest countries in the world'. Gradually, the G-7 expanded its activities, arranging numerous periodical meetings in various areas and convening annual summits. After the Russian Federation was welcomed to the group in 1998, the meetings took the G-8 format, despite the fact that the seven countries continue to meet separately to deal with themes concerning the economic sphere.
The G-7 does not have either a fixed structure or permanent administration. The country that holds the presidency is also responsible for deciding the summit agenda and its organisation. The basic idea is that, once a year, the leaders meet to debate the main international issues and to reach informal agreements on measures that can be adopted individually but in a co-operative fashion.
Obviously, the original format of the G-7, as a club of the rich countries is no longer adequate for the 21st century. We are facing a period of grave challenges in the international scenario; some of which have long been with us: hunger and poverty, social exclusion, environmental damage, human rights violations, weapons of mass destruction and conflicts in various regions. Our world remains deeply unequal and unfair. In order to face these numerous and interrelated challenges, it is necessary to develop initiatives that are co-ordinated and pursued in solidarity. In this context, there are many mechanisms that States can use to try and manage the international order.
Informal mechanisms such as the G-7/8 do not exclude the need to strengthen the multilateral system and to broaden the participation channels of the developing countries in the formal decision-making contexts. The UN Security Council needs to be urgently expanded in order to increase representativity, legitimacy and efficiency. These have been the aims of the actions of the G-4 of which Brazil is a member along with Germany, India and Japan.
In the World Trade Organization (WTO), the launch of the G-20 (yet another 'G') changed the pattern of trade negotiations and introduced an innovative element in its decision system, which once belonged exclusively to the richer countries, achieved by way of the participation of developing countries.
However, it is quite natural for both of these formal and informal mechanisms to interact continually. Since 2003, on the initiative of the French President, Jacques Chirac, host of the Evian Summit, leaders of the developing world have been invited to participate in sections of the G-7/8 summits. On that occasion President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva brought his concern about fighting hunger and poverty to the discussions, which has been gaining more prominence in the international agenda.
During the 2005 Gleneagles Summit in Scotland the focus was on climate change. A sketch of the G-8+5 format (South Africa, Brazil, China, India and Mexico) was made at that Summit, the purpose of which was to pursue the expanded dialogue with the developing countries further.
Last year at St Petersburg, Brazil took the lead in coordinating the drafting of the declaration of the developing countries. It added the issues of international trade and mobilization of financial resources to the three main topics of the summit (energy security, education and infectious diseases).
The forthcoming G-7/8 Summit will be held in Heiligendamm in Germany from 6th to 8th June. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has accepted the German invitation and will participate similarly to the other four countries of the expanded dialogue. The themes that will be examined include climate change, renewable energies, investments and intellectual property apart from the state of affairs of the African continent. Despite the fact that the trade negotiations are not formally part of the agenda, it is very likely that they will be discussed in the light of the most recent spin-offs of the Doha Round of the WTO.
It is important to highlight the fact that a perception that great global issues cannot be debated without the participation of developing countries is now consolidating amongst the rich countries. As for the matters that affect the global economy, for instance, any format that excludes BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China) simply will not work.
The G-7/8 expanded dialogue must be improved and structured on a more permanent basis. Ideally, this process will lead to the creation of a new 'G' (we do not yet know whether it will be a G-11, G-12 or G-13) without detriment to formal multilateral arrangements.
The fundamental issue is the fact that there has been an increasingly clearer view that the so-called global governance holds no future, if the discussions remain restricted to the wealthiest countries. Neither is it wise or practical to ignore the wishes of more than two-thirds of mankind.
Very much like political scientists and journalists, diplomats enjoy coining new terms to explain new processes that keep cropping up. Some years ago it was fashionable to speak about ‘coalitions of variable geometry’ to refer to groups of countries that forged alliances here and there for various reasons that either lasted or did not. Currently, we see a proliferation of 'Gs', which have become part and parcel of diplomacy. The G-7 emerged in 1970s as an informal grouping of 'the seven richest countries in the world'. Gradually, the G-7 expanded its activities, arranging numerous periodical meetings in various areas and convening annual summits. After the Russian Federation was welcomed to the group in 1998, the meetings took the G-8 format, despite the fact that the seven countries continue to meet separately to deal with themes concerning the economic sphere.
The G-7 does not have either a fixed structure or permanent administration. The country that holds the presidency is also responsible for deciding the summit agenda and its organisation. The basic idea is that, once a year, the leaders meet to debate the main international issues and to reach informal agreements on measures that can be adopted individually but in a co-operative fashion.
Obviously, the original format of the G-7, as a club of the rich countries is no longer adequate for the 21st century. We are facing a period of grave challenges in the international scenario; some of which have long been with us: hunger and poverty, social exclusion, environmental damage, human rights violations, weapons of mass destruction and conflicts in various regions. Our world remains deeply unequal and unfair. In order to face these numerous and interrelated challenges, it is necessary to develop initiatives that are co-ordinated and pursued in solidarity. In this context, there are many mechanisms that States can use to try and manage the international order.
Informal mechanisms such as the G-7/8 do not exclude the need to strengthen the multilateral system and to broaden the participation channels of the developing countries in the formal decision-making contexts. The UN Security Council needs to be urgently expanded in order to increase representativity, legitimacy and efficiency. These have been the aims of the actions of the G-4 of which Brazil is a member along with Germany, India and Japan.
In the World Trade Organization (WTO), the launch of the G-20 (yet another 'G') changed the pattern of trade negotiations and introduced an innovative element in its decision system, which once belonged exclusively to the richer countries, achieved by way of the participation of developing countries.
However, it is quite natural for both of these formal and informal mechanisms to interact continually. Since 2003, on the initiative of the French President, Jacques Chirac, host of the Evian Summit, leaders of the developing world have been invited to participate in sections of the G-7/8 summits. On that occasion President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva brought his concern about fighting hunger and poverty to the discussions, which has been gaining more prominence in the international agenda.
During the 2005 Gleneagles Summit in Scotland the focus was on climate change. A sketch of the G-8+5 format (South Africa, Brazil, China, India and Mexico) was made at that Summit, the purpose of which was to pursue the expanded dialogue with the developing countries further.
Last year at St Petersburg, Brazil took the lead in coordinating the drafting of the declaration of the developing countries. It added the issues of international trade and mobilization of financial resources to the three main topics of the summit (energy security, education and infectious diseases).
The forthcoming G-7/8 Summit will be held in Heiligendamm in Germany from 6th to 8th June. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has accepted the German invitation and will participate similarly to the other four countries of the expanded dialogue. The themes that will be examined include climate change, renewable energies, investments and intellectual property apart from the state of affairs of the African continent. Despite the fact that the trade negotiations are not formally part of the agenda, it is very likely that they will be discussed in the light of the most recent spin-offs of the Doha Round of the WTO.
It is important to highlight the fact that a perception that great global issues cannot be debated without the participation of developing countries is now consolidating amongst the rich countries. As for the matters that affect the global economy, for instance, any format that excludes BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China) simply will not work.
The G-7/8 expanded dialogue must be improved and structured on a more permanent basis. Ideally, this process will lead to the creation of a new 'G' (we do not yet know whether it will be a G-11, G-12 or G-13) without detriment to formal multilateral arrangements.
The fundamental issue is the fact that there has been an increasingly clearer view that the so-called global governance holds no future, if the discussions remain restricted to the wealthiest countries. Neither is it wise or practical to ignore the wishes of more than two-thirds of mankind.