DOCSLIB.ORG

On Turkey's Trail As a “Rising Middle Power” in the Network of Global Governance: Preferences, Capabilities, and Strategie

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Turkey's Trail As a “Rising Middle Power” in the Network of Global Governance: Preferences, Capabilities, and Strategie On Turkey’s Trail as a “Rising Middle Power” in the Network of Global Governance: Preferences, Capabilities, and Strategies Emel Parlar DAL* Abstract Key Words Acknowledging Turkey as a “rising/emerging Global governance, international order, Turkish middle power”, occupying a middle ground foreign policy, rising middle powers, traditional between traditional (or Western) middle powers middle powers, emerging non-traditional middle and non-traditional middle powers, this paper powers, G20. aims to reassess Turkey’s changing power and position in the complex power hierarchies and the changing architecture of global governance Introduction through its preferences, capabilities and strategies by using a comparative analysis. It then briefly resumes its findings to assess the driving factors, In recent years, one of the most conditions and specific characteristics explaining important debates in international Turkey’s contribution to global governance politics is about the ongoing global power compared to a cluster of eight selected countries shifts occurring in the international composed of the five BRICS countries, labeled as non-traditional middle powers, and Canada, system in favor of the rising powers, Australia and South Korea, as traditional middle and the impact of power transition on powers. Finally, it looks at Turkey’s contribution the international system and global to global governance at the institutional level, with a special focus on Turkey’s 2015 G20 governance. In this new world structure, presidency as a test case for understanding its rising middle powers have started to take global governance activism. In the final analysis, over a prominent role from the major this study underlines that Turkey’s ambitious agenda for its G20 presidency gives clear signals powers and have sought to change the of its future preferences and middle power international system in line with their activism in less hierarchical G20-type forums in own interests, strategies and values, by which developed and developing countries are assuming new responsibilities in major equally represented and middle power countries are allowed more manoeuvring capacity. international organizations. Since the global financial crisis in 2008, we have been witnessing the ascendance of “the * Assoc. Prof. Dr., Marmara University, West and the rest” discourse in the so- International Relations Department, Faculty called “post-American” or “emerging of Political Science, Anadoluhisarı Campus, Beykoz, İstanbul. international system,” in which the rising E-mail: [email protected] middle powers have already engaged 107 PERCEPTIONS, Winter 2014, Volume XIX, Number 4, pp. 107-136. Emel Parlar Dal in developing alternative strategies for and strategies of rising powers in the solving the international problems context of major/great powers, traditional and strengthened their bargaining and (or Western) middle powers, and non- pressure capacities towards the Western traditional (or emerging) middle powers. powers. For instance, Russia and China are labeled both as major, rising and regional powers, while Australia and Canada Rising middle powers have (which are conceptualized in this study started to take over a prominent as “rising traditional middle powers”) are role from the major powers generally considered as both traditional and have sought to change the middle powers and regional powers international system in line with and, to a lesser extent, rising powers, their own interests, strategies due to their rising economies. Similarly, and values, by assuming some countries like Brazil, India, South new responsibilities in major Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, and Turkey are labeled both as “rising international organizations. powers” and “emerging/non-traditional middle powers” (but are labeled in this The way, with which preferences study as rising (or emerging) middle and capabilities, and through which powers). strategies, the rising middle powers have Given this overlapping conceptual been contributing to global governance, framework, Turkey has generally been is an understudied field in the neglected in most of the studies in IR International Relations (IR) literature on rising powers and middle powers in terms of theoretical and empirical despite its rising middle power status studies. On the other hand, there exists a over the last decade. One of the novelties conceptual ambiguity in the IR literature of this paper is to reassess Turkey’s around concepts that have generally been changing power status in the complex used in an interchangeable way, such as power hierarchies and categories under “rising (or emerging) powers”, “middle the auspices of “rising/emerging middle or middle range powers” and “regional powers” occupying a middle ground powers,” and these overlapping roles between traditional middle powers and make the analysis more complicated non-traditional middle powers, mainly and contested. Another aspect of this due to its unique position and its bridge- fluidity of concepts is an increasing need building role between “the West and the to provide an empirical and comparative rest”. Another novelty of this paper to the research on the preferences, capabilities IR and Turkish foreign policy literature 108 On Turkey’s Trail as a “Rising Middle Power” in the Network of Global Governance is to understand Turkey’s position and systematic comparative study by taking contribution in the changing architecture into consideration different variables. of global governance. Here, Turkey’s In this backdrop, the first part of this capability in the global governance will paper looks towards Turkey’s preferences, be compared using appropriate statistical capabilities, and strategies with respect data with those of the selected other eight to global governance. Accordingly, states, including the five BRICS states firstly Turkey’s preferences regarding the (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South changing international order and global Africa) and three traditional middle governance structure will be explained. powers, Canada, Australia and South Secondly, in order to understand Korea. This cluster of eight states is Turkey’s rising middle power capabilities, selected mainly due to their representative a comparative approach based on five character of the two different rising criteria previously used by Hongying “middle power” categories, non traditional Wang and Erik French in their 2013 and traditional. A third novelty of this article entitled “Middle Range Powers in paper is to use Turkey’s current presidency Global Governance”1 will be used. On to the G20, since December 2014, as a the basis of the interpretation of data in test case for understanding its global our tables, this study will briefly resume governance activism as a rising middle its findings to assess the driving factors, power in the light of the triad, preferences, specific conditions and characteristics capabilities, strategies. explaining Turkey’s contribution to global Not all countries who joined the governance as a “distinct” rising middle rank of rising powers or middle range power. Thirdly, Turkey’s global governance powers have actively been engaged strategies in terms of commonalities and with international institutions or global differences with those of other rising governance and have been keen on middle powers will be explained. Here, assuming more responsability in a post- the way Turkey’s “unique” rising middle American world order. Of course, it is power status simultaneously generates a complex task to depict under which different and accommodating perspectives circumstances, within which membership and outcomes in the shifting world to international organizations and on the order compared to other rising middle basis of which ideational and material powers will also be explained. The second contributions rising middle powers part of the paper will look at Turkey’s participate in global governance. How contribution to global governance at the well or poorly a state has contributed to institutional level, with a special focus on global governance needs to be empirically Turkey’s more ambitious policies towards researched, and this of course requires a the G20. 109 Emel Parlar Dal Turkey as a Rising Middle Cyprus conflict). Similarly, the successive Yougoslavian crisis triggered in the 1990s Power in the Existing Global led to the rise of an international order Governance: Preferences, criticism-based discourse in Turkish Capabilities and Strategies foreign policy. The Iraqi War of 2003 and the Arab revolts which started in late 2010 Turkey’s attention to the architecture of all made Turkey’s UN-centered order global governance goes back to the 1920s, criticism more apparent in its foreign 4 when it first criticized the decision-making policy. Turkey’s rising criticism of the mechanisms and structure of the League UN’s unfair decision-making mechanisms of Nations, established in the aftermath has increased its tone with the deterioration of the First World War in the framework of the Syrian civil war after 2012. Since of the unfolding of a collective security Turkey’s quest for international justice understanding. In its session on 16 for the deepening Syrian tragedy in the December 1925, to which Turkey did not major global governance institutions, as well as regional organizations have proven participate, the League of Nations (LN) abortive, its within system challenge decided to leave Mosul to Iraq under the to international order started to be mandate of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oecd Secretary-General Tax Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors
    OECD SECRETARY-GENERAL TAX REPORT TO G20 FINANCE MINISTERS AND CENTRAL BANK GOVERNORS Saudi Arabia July 2020 For more information: [email protected] www.oecd.org/tax @OECDtax | 1 OECD Secretary-General Tax Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Saudi Arabia July 2020 PUBE 2 | This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries. Please cite this report as: OECD (2020), OECD Secretary-General Tax Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors – July 2020, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/tax/oecd-secretary-general-tax-report-g20-finance-ministers-july-2020.pdf Note by Turkey The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of Australia's G20 Presidency and The
    Global Summitry Advance Access published July 1, 2015 Article A Critique of Australia’s G20 Presidency and the Brisbane Summit 2014 Susan Harris Rimmer Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Asia Pacific College of Diplomacy, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, College of Asia and the Pacific, Asia Pacific College of Diplomacy, The Australian National University This article seeks to evaluate Australia as host of the Brisbane G20 Summit in 2014. The Australian G20 government, it appears, aimed to move the G20 from focusing on just responding to the financial crisis to a future growth orientation concentrating on structural reforms. To achieve this, Australia chose a narrow economic approach to the agenda. The Presidency sought to avoid engaging with broader security or climate change challenges. This effort to narrow focus and move away from a “war cabinet” approach met, however, with quite mixed success. A strong performance at the regulatory level, an emphasis on eco- nomic fundamentals and a place-branding approach to the Leaders’ Summit, all efforts of the Australian host, appear to have been insufficient for Australia’s G20 Presidency. Three additional factors seem necessary for a middle power like Australia to have impact on host- ing the Leaders’ Summit: • evidence of substantial and effective political leadership; • a credible outreach narrative to citizens broadly that emphasizes the unique perspective of the Host; and • a serious investment in the troika style leadership of the Summit. This essay raises questions over Australia’s leadership of the G20, and then examines impor- tant broader questions of G20 leadership concerned with this institution’s overall effective- ness and the success of the outreach efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • FROM the G7 to a D-10: Strengthening Democratic Cooperation for Today’S Challenges
    FROM THE G7 TO THE D-10 : STRENGTHENING DEMOCRATIC COOPERATION FOR TODAY’S CHALLENGES FROM THE G7 TO A D-10: Strengthening Democratic Cooperation for Today’s Challenges Ash Jain and Matthew Kroenig (United States) With Tobias Bunde (Germany), Sophia Gaston (United Kingdom), and Yuichi Hosoya (Japan) ATLANTIC COUNCIL A Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. Democratic Order Initiative This report is a product of the Scowcroft Center’s Democratic Order Initiative, which is aimed at reenergizing American global leadership and strengthening cooperation among the world’s democracies in support of a rules-based democratic order. The authors would like to acknowledge Joel Kesselbrenner, Jeffrey Cimmino, Audrey Oien, and Paul Cormarie for their efforts and contributions to this report. This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence. The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions. © 2021 The Atlantic Council of the United States. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Atlantic Council, except in the case of brief quotations in news articles, critical articles, or reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Aid for Trade
    The G20 Research Group at Trinity College at the Munk School of Global Affairs in the University of Toronto with the International Organisations Research Institute at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow present the 2014 Brisbane G20 Summit Final Compliance Report 17 November 2014 to 1 October 2015 Prepared by Krystel Montpetit, Theodora Mladenova, Mickael Deprez, Jonathan Tavone, Phil Gazaleh, Taylor Grott and Antonia Tsapralis G20 Research Group, Toronto, and Andrei Sakharov, Andrey Shelepov and Mark Rakhmangulov International Organisations Research Institute, Moscow 14 November 2015 www.g20.utoronto.ca [email protected] “The University of Toronto … produced a detailed analysis to the extent of which each G20 country has met its commitments since the last summit … I think this is important; we come to these summits, we make these commitments, we say we are going to do these things and it is important that there is an organisation that checks up on who has done what.” — David Cameron, Prime Minister, United Kingdom, at the 2012 Los Cabos Summit Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Research Team ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Analysts at the University of Toronto ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • G7 to G8 to G20: Evolution in Global Governance CIGI G20 Papers | No
    G7 TO G8 TO G20: EVOLUTION IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE CIGI G20 PAPERS | NO. 6, MAY 2011 Gordon S. Smith G7 TO G8 TO G20: EVOLUTION IN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY Summary 3 This paper provides a brief history of the evolution of Acronyms 3 the Group of Seven (G7) from its origins in the aftermath of the 1971 breakdown of the Bretton Woods system of G7 to G8 to G20: Evolution in Global Governance 4 exchange rates and the oil crisis in 1973. It then discusses Russia’s participation at summits after the fall of the Works Cited 8 Berlin Wall, formally joining the group in 1997, thus becoming the Group of Eight (G8). The paper gives a CIGI G20 Resources 9 concise account of the formation of the Group of Twenty About CIGI 10 (G20) finance ministers and central bank governors in the late 1990s, in the wake of financial crises in Asia and Latin America, which was elevated to a leaders’ summit forum at the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008. The paper wraps up with a discussion of the differences in the G8 and G20 models, concluding that the G20 process is still the best option for meeting the challenges of complex global governance issues. ACRONYMS 3G Global Governance Group ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AU African Union BMENA Afghanistan, the Broader Middle East and North Africa CFGS Centre for Global Studies G5 Group of Five G7 Group of Seven G8 Group of Eight G20 Group of Twenty IMF International Monetary Fund Copyright © 2011 The Centre for International Governance Innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • G20/OECD Effective Approaches for Implementing the G20/OECD High-Level Principles on SME Financing
    G20/OECD Effective Approaches for Implementing the G20/OECD High-Level Principles on SME Financing July 2018 At their Summit in Antalya in November 2015, G20 Leaders welcomed and agreed on the G20/OECD High-Level Principles on SME Financing, recognising the importance of improving SME access to finance. In their 2015 Antalya Action Plan (and in 2016), G20 Leaders expressed their intention to continue to work on identifying effective approaches to facilitate their implementation. G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors expressed support for the implementation of the Principles at their meetings in Shanghai on 27 February 2016, in Washington on 15 April 2016, and in Chengdu on 24 July 2016. This document contains the final report on Effective Approaches for Implementing the G20/OECD High Level Principles on SME Financing. It is transmitted to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. The report has benefited from comments received from the OECD Working Party on SMEs and Entrepreneurship during its meetings in April 2017, October 2017 and April 2018, and from the G20/OECD Task Force on Institutional Investors and Long-Term Financing during its meetings in May 2017 and May 2018, and through written procedure in October 2017. Comments on Principle 7 were also received from the OECD International Network on Financial Education during its Technical Committee meeting in November 2017 and under written procedure in 2018. A draft final report was discussed during a joint meeting of the OECD Working Party on SMEs and Entrepreneurship and the G20/OECD Task Force on Institutional Investors and Long-Term Financing on 23 May 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Asia's Strategic Participation in the Group of 20 for Global Economic
    ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration Asia’s Strategic Participation in the Group of 20 for Global Economic Governance Reform: From the Perspective of International Trade Taeho Bark and Moonsung Kang No. 74 | February 2011 ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration Economic Governance Reform: From the Perspective of International Trade Taeho Bark+ and Moonsung Kang++ The original draft of this paper was prepared for the conference “Reshaping Global Economic Governance No. 74 February 2011 and the Role of Asia in G20,” organized by the Asian Development Bank and the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and supported by the Persidential Committee for the G20 Summit, Seoul, Replublic of Korea, 25–26 October 2010. The paper is funded by RDTA 7501 Asia’s Strategic Participation in the Group of Twenty for Global Economic Governance Reform. +Professor, Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea. thbark@ snu.ac.kr ++Professor, Division of International Studies, Korea University, Republic of Korea. [email protected]. The ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration focuses on topics relating to regional cooperation and integration in the areas of infrastructure and software, trade and investment, money and finance, and regional public goods. The Series is a quick-disseminating, informal publication that seeks to provide information, generate discussion, and elicit comments. Working papers published under this Series may subsequently be published elsewhere. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Turkey: a Middle Power in the New Order Meltem Mtifttiler and Mtiberra Ytiksel
    10 Turkey: A Middle Power in the New Order Meltem Mtifttiler and Mtiberra Ytiksel This chapter analyses the role of middle powers in international politics in times of uncertainty and in regions which are marked by a high degree of instability. The focus is on Turkey's role in the post-Cold War era in the Near East region. Turkey has the personnel, resources and entrepreneurial capacities to become an impressive mid-level power in the next decade. l The question to be addressed, then, is whether Turkey fits into the concept 'middle power' and if so, in which foreign policy issue-areas Turkey has demonstrated this capacity. An underlying assumption of the chapter is that in international politics, in times of crisis and uncertainty, the role of middle powers increase. In keeping with this perspective, it is argued that Turkey's role has begun to expand to new areas. THE NEW ORDER Since 1989, the international system has gone through a period of funda­ mental change. With the end of the Cold War, the international system has been transformed from bipolarity to an uncertain fluid structure. The collapse of the Communist systems of Eastern Europe and the dismantling of the Soviet Union led to the breakdown of the post-1945 power struc­ ture. In addition, the European Community gained a new momentum which in 1993 resulted in the European Union. To be able to deal with such conditions of flux, states have had to modify their foreign policies. Competition is now between forces of global integration and regional fragmentation.2 Economic power struggles, nuclear capabilities held by the politically unstable small countries, immi­ gration, refugee issues and border problems provide possible areas of tension which should be handled in a regional context.
    [Show full text]
  • The Group of Twenty (G20) : Setting the Global Agenda
    Briefing January 2015 The Group of Twenty (G20) Setting the global agenda SUMMARY The Group of Twenty (G20) is an informal forum for international cooperation, and consists of 19 major economies plus the European Union. It gained in prominence in 2008 – when regular summits at the level of leaders commenced – taking on the role of 'global crisis management committee'. While the majority of observers argue that the G20 did remarkably well to contain the financial and economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, it has been less successful in finding consensus and making progress on its agenda since the urgency and immediate pressures diminished. The outcomes of recent summits have therefore been rather modest, if not disappointing. The gap between agreed commitments and their implementation varies across policy areas and member countries but, for many observers, threatens to undermine the G20's credibility. The assessment of G20 policies remains mixed as its achievements are often accompanied by stalled progress and failure to implement. However, there are limits as to what can be accomplished due to the G20's voluntary rather than legal character, and lack of a formal enforcement mechanism. The G20 and the EU have the potential to mutually advance their agendas. The EU is strongly represented in the G20 which, according to some, gives it some influence on the G20's agenda. At the same time G20 commitments have had substantial impact on Europe's reforms of its financial sector. The November 2014 Brisbane summit was hailed as a success by the leaders, whereas the view of commentators was more mixed.
    [Show full text]
  • Aligning G20 Infrastructure Investment with Climate Goals & the 2030 Agenda
    Foundations Platform F20: A report to the G20 Aligning G20 Infrastructure Investment with Climate Goals & the 2030 Agenda www.brookings.edu www.bu.edu/gdp Authors: Amar Bhattacharya and Minji Jeong, Global Economy and Development Program, The Brookings Institution1 Kevin P. Gallagher, Miquel Muñoz Cabré, and Xinyue Ma, Global Development Policy (GDP) Center2 , Boston University Suggested Citation: Bhattacharya, A., Gallagher, K.P., Muñoz Cabré, M., Jeong, M., & Ma, X. (2019) Aligning G20 Infrastructure Investment with Climate Goals and the 2030 Agenda, Foundations 20 Platform, a report to the G20. Published: June 2019 Cover and Design: Rick Lawrence, Samskara Design | www.samskara-design.com Notification This report is written in the spirit of the mission statement of the F20 platform. It does not necessarily represent the views of each participating organization on the platform. The publishers encourage the circulation of this report. Please credit the authors and publishing organizations accordingly. 1 The contribution of the Brookings Institution team was undertaken under the Sustainable Growth and Finance Initiative of the New Climate Economy. Amar Bhattacharya would like to acknowledge the joint work with Professor Nicholas Stern over the past several years on the issues of this report. 2 The GDP Center would like to thank Rebecca Dunn, William Kring, Rebecca Ray, Hannah Schwank, Lilly Bayly, Xintong Bu, and Kehan Wang for timely and meticulous research assistance for this paper. In the end, any errors are those of the authors. Aligning G20 Infrastructure Investment with Climate Goals & the 2030 Agenda A report by theFoundation Foundations Platform Platform Presentation Foreword In many parts of the world, the issue of climate change and the UN 2030 Agenda with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are experiencing an unprecedented momentum.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan's G20 Presidency for 2019
    RESEARCH & ANALYSIS Japan’s G20 Presidency for 2019: Potential Agendas and Issues Masahiro Kawai Introduction Japan will assume the G20 presidency for 2019. For this, Japan intends to demonstrate its greater leadership in the G20 process on the basis of its efforts at, and contributions to, G20 Summits thus far. This is the first time Japan hosts the G20 Summit on Financial Markets and the Global Economy, which will be held in Osaka on 28-29, June 2019. This chapter reviews the potential agenda and issues that will be implemented by Japan on its 2019 G20 presidency.1 1. G20 Summit The G20 Summit is an annual meeting for the political leaders of Group of Twenty (G20) economies, i.e., Argentina, Australia, Brazil, PENSAMIENTO PROPIO 48 PENSAMIENTO 185 Japan’s G20 Presidency for 2019: Potential Agendas and Issues Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indo- nesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Rep. of, Mexico, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Several countries, such as Spain, Singapore and the African Union chair country, as well as major international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), are in- vited to the Summit. Other invited countries vary depending on the consideration of the G20 presidency. The G20 Leaders’ Summit was launched in November 2008 as a forum for the political leaders of major advanced and emerging economies to cope with the global financial crisis that had culminated following the Lehman shock. Nonetheless, there was a G20 process for finance ministers and central bank governors that had started in 1999; but in 2008 it was decided to upgrade this ministerial process to a leaders’ process.2 The G20 Summit was held twice a year in 2009 and 2010, and has been held annually since 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • China, the G20 and Global Economic Governance
    China, the G20 and global Hugh Jorgensen Daniela Strube economic governance November 2014 CHINA, THE G20 AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE The Lowy Institute for International Policy is an independent policy think tank. Its mandate ranges across all the dimensions of international policy debate in Australia – economic, political and strategic – and it is not limited to a particular geographic region. Its two core tasks are to: • produce distinctive research and fresh policy options for Australia’s international policy and to contribute to the wider international debate. • promote discussion of Australia’s role in the world by providing an accessible and high-quality forum for discussion of Australian international relations through debates, seminars, lectures, dialogues and conferences. Lowy Institute Analyses are short papers analysing recent international trends and events and their policy implications. The views expressed in this paper are entirely the authors’ own and not those of the Lowy Institute for International Policy. CHINA, THE G20 AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the closing of the 2014 G20 Brisbane Summit, the presidency of the 2016 G20 was awarded to China. This is the first time China will chair the world’s ‘premier forum for economic cooperation’. Yet the G20 is just one way that China, now the world’s largest economy on purchasing power parity terms, may seek to shape global economic governance. China is both seeking changes to the ‘traditional’ global economic governance model, centred upon the Bretton Woods Institutions, and experimenting with new processes such as the BRICS forum and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. For the moment at least, China will not ‘place all its eggs in one basket’.
    [Show full text]