DOCSLIB.ORG

Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs GT_2013_buch_englisch_rinke_schneckener_satz_neu.qxd 24.09.2012 13:03 Seite 3 World Orders and Peace Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs Bernhard Rinke / Ulrich Schneckener Informal multilateral governance formats, such as "coalitions of the willing" or "clubs" like the Group of Eight (G8) and Group of Twenty (G20), are gaining influence in world politics, at least according to the popular perception. In practice, these clubs compete for political attention, concepts and resources. Whether this trend will make tackling global problems any easier in the medium term remains to be seen. What we can say, for now, is that the pressure of problems in many fields – whether in security, financial, development, climate or energy policy – has increased, without commensurate political capacities having developed to manage these problems at a global level. On the contrary, in many policy fields, largely disconnected parallel processes exist in different formats. This results in duplications, proliferating summits and communiqués and an overabundance of government and private funds, initiatives and programmes – inside and outside the United Nations (UN) system. To that extent, global governance is characterised by a highly fragmented, heterogeneous structure which is shaped by different modes of managing and steering political processes, whose legitimacy and effectiveness must now be critically reviewed. Figure 1: Clubs formed by the industrial and newly industrialised countries 21 GT_2013_buch_englisch_rinke_schneckener_satz_neu.qxd 24.09.2012 13:03 Seite 4 Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs The informalisation of multilateral decision-making processes. These may governance produce issue-specific regimes and/or inter- nationally binding legal arrangements, norms and standards – often with corresponding International politics, and especially the sanction mechanisms (e.g. sanctions under business of diplomacy, have always been Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, or characterised by some degree of "informali- dispute settlement within the WTO frame- ty", at least if "informal" is interpreted as work). meaning "non-public". Diplomacy – and not And yet this classic multilateralism is only classic "secret" diplomacy – is essential- itself permeated by informal structures and ly a business which is conducted behind procedures. Conversely, the informal clubs closed doors, with the public being excluded. often include some elements of formality In the context of the current global gover- (such as a rotating presidency, regular meet- nance debates, however, informalisation is ings with a specific policy agenda, decisions understood rather differently: here, it denotes published in the form of communiqués, peri- the increasing heterogeneity of global politi- odic invitations to other actors to attend sum- cal processes, with a shift "away from formal mits, etc.). Nonetheless, some observers are international organisations with codified warning that the progressive informalisation norms and explicit rules" (Daase 2009, p. of world politics could undermine the high 290) towards weakly institutionalised level of institutionalisation achieved in inter- selective groupings of states of all types – or national governance, notably in the UN "clubs", for short. These arrangements tend framework. This could potentially affect to be flexible, fairly loose and informal decision-making processes, undermine the gatherings of governments. From this binding nature and implementation of perspective, then, informalisation describes decisions, and even lead to the development not a political style but a qualitative change in of competing normative standards which the institutional framework in which the could erode the regulations and norms business of world politics is conducted. established in international law. A glance at Formal international governance – as the unilateral foreign and security policy pur- distinct from informal governance – takes sued by the Bush Administration after 9/11 place within a framework of highly institu- (2000-2008) appears to support this hypothe- tionalised multilateralism. This is reflected in sis. Rather than responding to the 9/11 attacks the founding, existence and activities – some by strengthening multilateral cooperation and of them issue-specific, others with a broader expanding the system of collective security, sweep – of international organisations as e.g. within the United Nations framework, the corporate actors with a clear institutional Bush Administration reverted instead to structure and defined competencies. "national security" in the sense of classic Examples are the United Nations, the sovereignty policy, with the formation of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the alliances and "coalitions of the willing" and, World Trade Organization (WTO). Formal not least, more intensive deployment of mili- multilateralism is characterised by an tary force, also as a preventive measure in inclusive membership structure, regulated extreme cases, in violation of international procedures, and consensus-oriented law. In short, US policy in the "global war on 22 GT_2013_buch_englisch_rinke_schneckener_satz_neu.qxd 24.09.2012 13:04 Seite 5 World Orders and Peace terror" relied on informalisation, not institu- mentioned above are not automatically tionalisation. translated into processes of political institu- tionalisation and integration. On the contrary, since the start of the 21st century, the fragmentation of multilater- The crisis of institutionalised alism can be discerned as the second macro- multilateralism process. Here, two mutually reinforcing trends predominate: firstly, the "renaissance" of "classic" sovereignty policy which is The background to the current proliferation largely unilateral in orientation, and secondly, of informal formats is a crisis of the the internal crisis of institutionalised established multilateral system. It should be multilateralism (see Schneckener 2010, noted, first of all, that world politics is 2011). characterised by two conflicting macro- Particular impetus for the first processes. The first is the process of globali- development has been generated by the sation and transnationalisation, which has political and economic ascent of the emerging been widely discussed and which has led to powers, primarily the BRIC countries considerable blurring of borders and greater (Brazil, Russia, India and China) (see integration and linkage between countries Cooper/Antkiewicz 2008). In their foreign, and regions. This process has not eliminated security and resource policy, they are more global and local inequalities; on the contrary, interested in securing a higher (power) it has exposed them. The result is growing status in international politics than in multi- interdependence, mainly in the economic and lateralism, which they see as challenging or technological fields, with asymmetrical dis- threatening their traditional notion of tribution of opportunities and capacities, but sovereignty. The same applies, to some also of costs, threats and risks. And whereas extent, to other potentially "leading" or in purely quantitative terms, the world since "regional" powers such as Argentina, Egypt, 1945 has witnessed "the formation and Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and increasing diversification of institutions South Africa (see Husar et al. 2008). The beyond the nation-state taking place on a common feature of these countries' foreign scale unprecedented in history and with an policy is that they are pushing for more ongoing dynamic to this day" (Breitmeier participatory and decision-making rights 2009, p. 16) – evident, for example, in the in the established multilateral institutions, growing number of international organisa- thereby challenging these institutions' tions – this process is characterised by established rules more or less overtly. In contradictory developments, setbacks some cases, they are also withdrawing from and fractures. "Governance beyond the global arrangements and regimes which, nation-state" (Zürn 2005), it seems, is not a however, are highly unlikely to be successful linear or progressive project that has strength- without their participation (examples are a ened the multilateral institutions through the global climate regime without China and ongoing transfer of decision-making powers India, a nuclear non-proliferation regime and processes from the national to the without India, Pakistan or Iran, a global international level. The interdependencies energy policy without Russia or China, and 23 GT_2013_buch_englisch_rinke_schneckener_satz_neu.qxd 24.09.2012 13:04 Seite 6 Informalisation of World Politics? Global Governance by Clubs efforts to combat international terrorism Variants of informal global without Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). In other governance words, these states have growing potential to block initiatives within the emerging global governance architecture – but without claim- These processes have resulted in a softening ing a global governance role for themselves. of global governance, with increasing disper- The second development relates to sion into informal, weakly institutionalised the ongoing internal crisis in the established structures, particularly apparent since 2001 in international organisations and regimes, the field of security policy, but evident – to mainly represented by the United Nations varying degrees – in other policy areas as (UN), the Bretton Woods institutions (World
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda
    ADBI Working Paper Series The Group of Twenty: Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda Andrew F. Cooper No. 372 August 2012 Asian Development Bank Institute Andrew F. Cooper is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Waterloo/BSIA and is a distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, the ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms. The Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series; the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI’s working papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. ADBI encourages readers to post their comments on the main page for each working paper (given in the citation below). Some working papers may develop into other forms of publication. Suggested citation: Cooper, A. F. 2012. The Group of Twenty: Input and Output Legitimacy, Reforms, and Agenda. ADBI Working Paper 372. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: http://www.adbi.org/working- paper/2012/08/08/5212.g20.input.output.legitimacy.reforms.agenda/ Please contact the author for information about this paper. Email: [email protected] Asian Development Bank Institute Kasumigaseki Building 8F 3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-6008, Japan Tel: +81-3-3593-5500 Fax: +81-3-3593-5571 URL: www.adbi.org E-mail: [email protected] © 2012 Asian Development Bank Institute ADBI Working Paper 372 Cooper Abstract The Group of Twenty (G-20) deserves credit for opening up of the “top table” of global governance to a wider representation of countries on a geographic basis in general and Asia in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Participation in the G20
    Australian Participation in the G20 Xu Yi-Chong Australia is committed to active participation and policy leadership within the G20. Indeed, Prime Minister of Australia in 2007-09, Kevin Rudd, is often credited with bringing the leaders of the G20 together for their first summit in September 2008. Four years later, the public, media and the international community have taken the G20 as a given and they expect that the old powers under the umbrella of the G8 would sit down at the table to discuss urgent international issues with the emerging economies as equals. In retrospect, this may be the case. History, however, could have gone in a different direction. In 2008, many multilateral and regional venues had existed for countries to manage their common problems: on macroeconomic issues, there were the remnants of the Bretton Woods system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank; the old power club, the Financial Stability Forum of G7, G8; the World Economic Forum (WEF); the Bank of International Settlement (BIS) of central banks, and the list goes on. With many multilateral institutions available, there were still concerns about the relevance of these institutions. The Economist commented on the G8 summit in July 2008 as all the signs showed a coming recession in many developed countries: What is the point of their discussing the oil price without Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest producer? Or waffling about the dollar without China, which holds so many American Treasury bills? Or slapping sanctions on Robert Mugabe, with no African present? Or talking about global warming, AIDS or inflation without anybody from the emerging world? Cigar smoke and ignorance are in the air.1 It became clear that, even though emerging economies, especially BRICs, drew increasing worldwide attention, many still held that the “decoupling the- ory” was more of a dream than a reality, as evidenced in 2008 when emerging economies were affected by the economic down-turns in developed countries as they started reducing their imports.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the G20 Summit Process Work: Some Proposals for Improving Effectiveness and Legitimacy
    CIGI G20 Papers | No. 2, June 2010 Making the G20 Summit Process Work: Some Proposals for Improving Effectiveness and Legitimacy Barry Carin, Paul Heinbecker, Gordon Smith, Ramesh Thakur Addressing International Governance Challenges The Centre for International Governance Innovation Table of Contents Summary Summary 2 This paper assesses the current context following the G20 summits in Washington, London and Pittsburgh and the Introduction 3 prospects for the forthcoming meetings in Canada and Korea in 2010 and beyond. It asks which global problems Context 3 could be on future agendas and how to achieve both The Future Agendas 5 effectiveness and legitimacy. It discusses the composition of the G20, working and coordination methods in the Composition 6 preparatory process, and effective outreach processes. The main conclusions are: A “Non-Secretariat” 10 Outreach and Consultation Processes 11 • The G20 should limit the agenda to the financial crisis issues and contain the inevitable pressures to The Non-G20 11 broaden the agenda by inviting other groups and organizations to provide recommendations for G20 Parliamentarians 12 consideration at future G20 meetings. Business 12 • Composition is an intractable problem, with no Research Community 12 correct answer. Legitimacy and efficiency could be attained by the Europeans speaking with one voice Conclusion 13 rather than six or eight, while the host country invites two or three “guests.” Works Cited 13 Acronyms and Abbreviations 15 • To reconcile the need for extensive preparation with the antipathy to formal bureaucracy, the G20 should About CIGI 15 About the Authors Figures and Tables Barry Carin is a CIGI senior fellow and associate director of the Figure 1: Options for Composition 8 Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 13 October 2014
    United Nations A/C.2/69/3 General Assembly Distr.: General 13 October 2014 Original: English Sixty-ninth session Second Committee Agenda item 17 (b) Macroeconomic policy questions: international financial system and development Letter dated 8 October 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit to you the paper entitled “Global Governance Group input to the Group of 20 on development and governance” (see annex) on behalf of the informal Global Governance Group, which comprises the following States Members of the United Nations: the Bahamas, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Costa Rica, the Republic of Finland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kuwait, the Principality of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Principality of Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, the Republic of the Philippines, the State of Qatar, the Republic of Rwanda, the Republic of San Marino, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of Singapore, the Republic of Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. On behalf of the Global Governance Group, I should be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex circulated as a document of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 17 (b). (Signed) Karen Tan Ambassador Permanent Representative 14-62493 (E) 171014 *1462493* A/C.2/69/3 Annex to the letter dated 8 October 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Global Governance Group input to the Group of 20 on development and governance 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Ways of Global Governance Informal Institutions and the Role of Small States
    ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF 215 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROLE OF SMALL STATES Katja Creutz FIIA BRIEFING PAPER 215 • February 2017 ULKOPOLIITTINEN INSTITUUTTI UTRIKESPOLITISKA INSTITUTET THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE ROLE OF SMALL STATES Katja Creutz FIIA Briefing Paper 215 Senior Research Fellow February 2017 The Global Security Research Programme The Finnish Institute of International Affairs • In addition to formal international organizations, alternative ways of arranging intergovernmental cooperation are proliferating. One tendency is to create looser structures around a shared purpose often without permanent secretariats. The G20 and the Arctic Council are examples of such informal intergovernmental institutions. • Informal institutions are preferred due to their supposed effectiveness, but also because of domestic politics. Most states participate in such institutions, but the United States in particular has favoured them over formal international organizations. • The increasing importance of informal institutions, especially if they seek to address global concerns, may be detrimental to small states that have traditionally relied on multilateral institutions and the rule of international law, such as the United Nations (UN). • Small states should actively engage with informal institutions instead of adopting a strategy of resistance. Small states can seek to play a part in these institutions, build coalitions to address transparency or inclusiveness concerns, or try to influence specific issues in their national interest. • A pragmatic approach to new institutional forms should not challenge the small states’ focus of attention on multilateral institutions and a rule-based international order, however. The interests of small states can be protected only by ensuring that all states may take part in global governance, based on sovereign equality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenges of Inclusive Multilateralism with Dignity in a Context of Climate Change and Scarcity
    Global Governance Group 10 Group Global Governance The Challenges of The world is in transition from unipolarity to polycentrism with a greater Inclusive Multilateralism multiplicity of actors, from states to civil society organisations, private actors, networks, and regional cooperation groups, playing an important role in shaping the future of citizens around the world. A global middle class is demanding a more effective multilateral system to deal with a number The 2013 Report of the of perceived global challenges but in a polycentric world there are both opportunities for greater effectiveness and a danger of fragmentation. The Global Governance Group 10 objective of this Report is to start a process of monitoring the adaptation of international institutions to the new realities of power. To do so, the Report looks at how global governance institutions are responding to global challenges, in particular those of political participation and of development Multilateralism of Inclusive Challenges The with dignity in a context of climate change and scarcity. The Report places the citizens and their aspirations at the heart of the analysis and it is with this perspective that we monitor the challenges of security with emphasis on the application of the principle of responsibility to protect. ISBN 978-9944-927-59-8 published for the Global Governance Group 10 by the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey Secretariat of the GG10 2012-2013 [email protected] © Global Governance Group 10. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, pho- tocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • " I Am Making This Statement on Behalf of the Informal Global Governance Group (3G), Comprising the Following Member States
    PERIVIANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS 231 East 51" Street, New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-826 0840 x 104 Fax: 212-826 2964 Website: http://www mla 90V s91newyork STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR VANU GOPALA MENON PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE GROUP (3G) AT THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP TO FOLLOW UP ON THE CONFERENCE LAST JUNE OF THE WORLD FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS AND ITS IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT "STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF THE UN IN GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE" 2 JUNE 2010 " I am making this statement on behalf of the informal Global Governance Group (3G), comprising the following Member States of the United Nations, viz the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, the Kingdom of Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, the State of Kuwait, the Principality of Liechtenstein, Malaysia, the Principality of Monaco, New Zealand, Panama, the Republic of the Philippines, the State of Qatar, the Republic of Rwanda, the RepUblic of San Marino, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay' " The global economic crisis has underscored the need for more effective global governance mechanisms for policy coordination and international cooperation. In this context, the G-20 has taken on an active role in catalysing global actions in response to the financial crisis since November 2008 III However, the actions and decisions of the G-20 have implications beyond its membership. Many Member States have felt some impact from such decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf States and the Rebalancing of Regional and Global Power
    JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY THE GULF STATES AND THE REBALANCING OF REGIONAL AND GLOBAL POWER BY KRISTIAN COATES ULRICHSEN, PH.D. FELLOW FOR KUWAIT JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY JANUARY 8, 2014 The Gulf States and the Rebalancing of Regional and Global Power THIS PAPER WAS WRITTEN BY A RESEARCHER WHO PARTICIPATED IN A BAKER INSTITUTE RESEARCH PROJECT. WHEREVER FEASIBLE, PAPERS ARE REVIEWED BY OUTSIDE EXPERTS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED. HOWEVER, THE RESEARCH AND VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PAPER ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHER, AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. © 2014 BY THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY THIS MATERIAL MAY BE QUOTED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION, PROVIDED APPROPRIATE CREDIT IS GIVEN TO THE AUTHOR AND THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. 2 The Gulf States and the Rebalancing of Regional and Global Power The awarding of the hosting rights to the 2022 FIFA World Cup to Qatar on December 2, 2010, symbolized for outside observers the rapid rise of the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) as regional powers with global reach. Their emergence in the 2000s came against the backdrop of an international order in flux as the post-1945 institutions and mechanisms of global governance struggled to maintain their relevance in a polycentric world. Of particular importance is the broadening and deepening of political and economic connections between the Gulf states and Asian partners.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Global Economic Council: Governance Reform and The
    DIIS workingDIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25paper The new Global Economic Council: Governance reform at the G20, the IMF and the World Bank Jakob Vestergaard and Robert Wade DIIS Working Paper 2011:25 WORKING PAPER 1 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25 JAKOB VESTERGAARD [email protected] ROBERT H. WADE [email protected] This article is based on partly joint, partly separate research. Vestergaard’s earlier publications on the subject are referenced throughout the text. Wade’s argument is given in “The emerging world order? Multipolarity, multilateralism, the G20, the World Bank and the IMF”, Politics and Society, forthcoming DIIS Working Papers make available DIIS researchers’ and DIIS project partners’ work in progress towards proper publishing. They may include important documentation which is not necessarily published elsewhere. DIIS Working Papers are published under the responsibility of the author alone. DIIS Working Papers should not be quoted without the express permission of the author. DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25 © The authors and DIIS, Copenhagen 2011 Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS Strandgade 56, DK-1401 Copenhagen, Denmark Ph: +45 32 69 87 87 Fax: +45 32 69 87 00 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.diis.dk Cover Design: Carsten Schiøler Layout: Ellen-Marie Bentsen Printed in Denmark by Vesterkopi AS ISBN: 978-87-7605-472-4 Price: DKK 25.00 (VAT included) DIIS publications can be downloaded free of charge from www.diis.dk 2 DIIS WORKING PAPER 2011:25 CONTENTS Abstract 4 Policy implications 4 Introduction 5 Rise of the G20 8 The G20’S legitimacy
    [Show full text]
  • “Re-Balancing the G20 from Efficiency to Legitimacy: the 3G Coalition and the Practice of Global Governance”
    “Re-balancing the G20 from efficiency to legitimacy: The 3G coalition and the practice of global governance” By Andrew F. Cooper and Bessma Momani As Submitted in 2013. Abstract: This article contributes to the literature on global governance, legitimacy and small states through a detailed analysis of the Global Governance Group (3G). We examine in particular the operational impact and wider conceptual implications of the 3G’s collective diplomatic efforts on the Group of 20 (G20). By engaging in a reconfigured form of informal multilateralism we find that the 3G has been and is capable of shaping the global agenda with respect to the G20 in a way that is both more inclusive and connected with existing institutions, especially the United Nations (UN). Through this initiative, this group has effectively re-calibrated the existing narrative about small states, the G20, and global governance – shifting it from the paradigm of efficiency to one of legitimacy. Keywords: 3G; G20; Global Governance; informal groups; small states Informal Global Governance As new centers of power mobilize and old institutions fall behind the curve of change, the trend in world politics has been for countries to substitute, bypass or marginalize established institutions of global governance in favor of engagement with new forms of cooperative institutional arrangements – in short, towards informality in global governance. International Relations theory has traditionally been uneasy with forms of informal global governance.1 Realists have dismissed them as irrelevant
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Group of 20 (G20) Agenda
    The Green Political Foundation Issue #1 Written by Nancy Alexander, Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America February 2015 Introduction to the Group of 20 (G20) AGENDA. Turkey’s agenda concentrates on three “I”s: Inclusiveness, Implementation, and Investment/Infrastructure. To demonstrate inclusiveness, Turkey will focus on the con- SUMMARY cerns of Low-Income Developing Countries (as defined by the ORIGIN AND PURPOSE. In 1999, in response to the East IMF) as well as the interests of Small- and Medium-Sized Asian Financial Crisis, the finance ministers of the United Enterprises (SMEs). It is working with the International States and Canada chose the members of the G20, includ- Chamber of Commerce to establish a World SME Forum. ing 19 countries and one region, the European Union. The agenda includes three pillars, eleven topics, and two Until 2008, the G20 met as a forum for finance minis- cross-cutting themes as shown in the diagram below: ters and central bankers. Then, the Group began meeting at the level of Leaders’ (Presidents and Prime Ministers) in order to address the global financial crisis. The G20 is more inclusive than the Group of 8 (G8); its member countries represent about 85% of global output and trade and two-thirds of the global population. GOVERNANCE AND AGENDA. In 2015, Turkey is the President of the G20. It coordinates G20 governance with its “Troika” partners — the past and future G20 presi- dents, which are Australia and China, respectively. In addition to convening the most important ministerial group — Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors – Turkey will convene Foreign Ministers as well as Labor, Trade, Energy, Agriculture and Tourism Ministers.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 5 October 2011
    United Nations A/C.2/66/3 General Assembly Distr.: General 5 October 2011 Original: English Sixty-sixth session Second Committee Agenda item 17 (b) Macroeconomic policy questions: international financial system and development Letter dated 3 October 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit to you, on behalf of the informal Global Governance Group (3G), comprising the following States Members of the United Nations: Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Costa Rica, Finland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Viet Nam, a document entitled “Global Governance Group (3G) inputs to the G-20 on global governance” (see annex). On behalf of the 3G, I would be grateful if you would have the present letter and its annex circulated as a document of the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly, under agenda item 17 (b). (Signed) Albert Chua Ambassador and Permanent Representative 11-53267 (E) 071011 *1153267* A/C.2/66/3 Annex to the letter dated 3 October 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General Global Governance Group (3G) inputs to the G-20 on global governance 1. The Global Governance Group (3G)1 recognizes the important role played by the Group of 20 (G-20) in stemming the worst effects of the 2008 global economic and financial crisis and in addressing aspects of global economic governance related to the rebalancing of the global economy and achieving a stable recovery.
    [Show full text]