G20 leading economies club, getting together again in St Petersburg yesterday, came under criticism ere they ever opened their mouths to talk.
Editorial: the get-together to get together
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
And, in some ways, the criticism is deserved. The club created in 1999, gaining somewhat in influence following the economic and financial crisis, and adding key emerging markets as China, India, Brazil etc to the G8 bunch, is together again – for the eighth time around. What is sadly lacking, so far, are meaningful decisions. This June, the British political magazine New Statesman featured a story accusing the club in failure to create added value. In all probability, no weighty decisions this time as well.
The 20 states with resources and potential to set this world field lines, with two thirds of the planet’s population behind them as well as 80 per cent of economy, have never solved anything worth remembering.
But – one may be tempted to ask – the value of putting the heads together, don’t that count? Sure it does. Nevertheless, it would be naive indeed to hope the talks would lead to some definite stand – heads of state not possessing much authority to think or to decree anything not domestically decided, prior to G20. For the most part, they arrive with predetermined points – for topics discussed and perhaps-to-be-discussed.
To draw an «Estonian parallel», the talks will be as toothless and dull as political party folks debating at the recent Paide Opinion Culture Festival – set up to provide for unbridled grass-roots brainstorming. The goal not being discussions leading to a new result – rather, the goal is to convincingly state one’s case.
That New Statesman takes the trouble to scold G20 for lack of added value is in itself overly optimistic: the said lack comes with the format.
Even so, the above would not mean the G20 get-togethers lack any content or meaning at all. The effectiveness of a meeting may be measured in many ways, decisions or effectiveness of brainstorming being just some of these. Rather, it seems, the critics have failed to notice another goal of such events, leading to a degree of success no matter what. For that, a broader view must be taken of the problem.
While it is a custom to view communication as something aimed at forwarding a message, it does have yet another and not-so-clear idea: creating contacts, maintaining and polishing them.
Keeping in contact may indeed be viewed as a main strength of G20. Even with decision-making-authority and – with new members – feeling of global responsibility sadly lacking, it is slightly harder, at least, to resort to aggression following a head-of-state-level get-together. To dismiss this as totally worthless would be a bit unfair.