Why Is The G20 Summit Not Inclusive?

In a previous post I discussed the G20’s selection of countries where the summit is held each year. This year is no different.

The Summit will be held in Osaka, Japan. Although the G20 consist of members from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, it also invites non-member countries to be part of the summit.

The challenge however, is that these non-member countries and others around the world are still facing major challenges in every sector, despite their presence at the summit to express the pressing issues in their own backyard. “The G20 committed in its 5th Anniversary Vision Statement to listen carefully to institutions and countries which are not in the group.

This is because the G20’s growth and resilience agenda matter to all countries, not just those members in the G20. Growth in G20 countries, which constitute 85 per cent of the global economy, is essential to growth and development elsewhere.” (G20.org.tr).

If this is the G20 Vision Statement, then the G20 is not entirely living up to its own commitment as we see many countries around the world living under extreme poverty conditions.

The question that remains from looking at the list of different host countries where the G20 summits have been held since it started, is if the G20 is so concerned by the wellbeing of all countries, why hasn’t it held a summit in one of the poor countries of the world where it could witness first-hand what the situation is truly like in those countries?

Looking at the list of countries where the summits have been held demonstrate that the G20 is not doing what it preaches in its Vision Statement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_G20_summits

The G20’s mission tends to lack transparency if its yearly summit is held exclusively in rich countries. Inviting non-member countries to the summit to express much needed attention to their concerns did not create needed change as most countries around the world are suffering more than ever from economic delineation, malnutrition, gaps between the rich and the poor, lack of meeting basic needs and the list can go on and on.

We can’t help but wonder about the real purpose of the G20’s initiative to listen to non-member countries and institutions when no convincing effort is being vested in aiding in the development of the non-member countries. Critics against the G20 have expressed a concern that, “As the G20 has evolved into an increasingly wide‐ranging club governance structure, there are numerous concerns with regard to effectiveness, legitimacy and its relationship with multilateral organisations.” (Chatham House-The Royal Institute of International Affairs).

As long as we have people in the four corners of the world not able to be self-sufficient, no international organization, whether the G20 or another, can claim that it is genuinely concerned by the situation.

Holding a summit in a vacation country because when the members are on a break from their meeting, they have the luxury to explore the sites, fine dine and wine all at the expense of not only the host country, but also at the expense of the poor countries who live with the hope that these international organizations are representing them, is hardly a commitment to falsely acclaimed vision statement.

With budgets in the millions an at times billions spent each year on the G20 Summit, the summit is “A Billion Dollar Waste of Time” as J. McLean stated during the June 17, 2010 G20 Summit in Canada. He further made a great point, “if most decisions can be made by underlings assembled in relative quiet, why even bother with a formal leaders’ summit? In other words, why spend a billion dollars on a prime ministerial photo op when the finance ministers can get the job done for a fraction of the cost?”

In conclusion, the G20 Summit must revamp its approach to be more in tune with the real world if the G20 really wants to live up to its obligations as the world’s gate keeper. The new approach should focus on not being selective in its choice of where to meet, by not inviting non-member countries because those leaders from non-member countries are not necessarily representing their people, but their own interest, not just throw money at non-member countries because many development projects will become ‘white elephant projects’ as we see in many countries where so much money was invested and the result has failed the expectations or better yet the project never materializes.

The G20 permanent members need to redirect their priorities in order to be effective in their mission if their vision is to make a positive impact on the world, and to be inclusive in their policy decisions and initiatives to advocate for equality and just for all and not just for some.