So how’s policy coordination in the G-20 going?
One of the lesser tragedies of this fall’s global recession is that the book I was going to write on the future of global governance is going to need some serious tweaking. The argument I was making was predicated on the argument that global governance structure were badly outdated and in need of serious reform ...
One of the lesser tragedies of this fall's global recession is that the book I was going to write on the future of global governance is going to need some serious tweaking. The argument I was making was predicated on the argument that global governance structure were badly outdated and in need of serious reform before the next crisis took place. Well, we're past that now. And as this Financial Times story by Alan Beattie and Frances Williams makes clear, we're about to see what happens when shoddy governance structures are asked to do something important: The World Trade Organisation has dropped plans to convene ministers to push for an outline deal in the troubled global trade talks – a further blow to world leaders’ promises to combat protectionism. Pascal Lamy, WTO director-general, said a meeting, originally planned for next week, “would be running an unacceptably high risk of failure which could damage not only the round but also the WTO system”.... The outcome runs counter to promises made by leaders of the Group of 20 major economies in Washington last month, who were committed to reaching an outline deal this year and promised no new protectionist actions within 12 months. Since then at least five of the G20 – Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Argentina – have announced their intention to raise import tariffs or otherwise restrict trade.... Trade experts said the episode underlined the weakness of rhetorical agreements such as the G20 statement to constrain governments faced with domestic political pressure. Douglas Irwin, trade economist at Dartmouth College in the US, said: “Such statements may sometimes act as a signal to local legislatures, but there is usually ample room for governments to renege or weasel out of their commitments.” Since the G20 meeting, Russia has announced it will increase import tariffs on cars, India has raised duties on iron, steel and soy and Indonesia has alarmed trading partners with measures to benefit local producers. Brazil and Argentina have argued for an increase in external tariffs for Mercosur, the Latin American trade bloc of which they are the two biggest members. The G20 was lauded by attendees as a landmark meeting that would put big developing countries at the heart of global policymaking. Following last month’s summit, Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister who will host the next G20 meeting, said there would definitely be a meeting of trade ministers this year. Downing Street did not return calls on Friday. The countries that have raised tariffs deny breaking the agreement. The US said on Friday that it could not be blamed for the stalemate in Doha.
One of the lesser tragedies of this fall’s global recession is that the book I was going to write on the future of global governance is going to need some serious tweaking. The argument I was making was predicated on the argument that global governance structure were badly outdated and in need of serious reform before the next crisis took place. Well, we’re past that now. And as this Financial Times story by Alan Beattie and Frances Williams makes clear, we’re about to see what happens when shoddy governance structures are asked to do something important:
The World Trade Organisation has dropped plans to convene ministers to push for an outline deal in the troubled global trade talks – a further blow to world leaders’ promises to combat protectionism. Pascal Lamy, WTO director-general, said a meeting, originally planned for next week, “would be running an unacceptably high risk of failure which could damage not only the round but also the WTO system”…. The outcome runs counter to promises made by leaders of the Group of 20 major economies in Washington last month, who were committed to reaching an outline deal this year and promised no new protectionist actions within 12 months. Since then at least five of the G20 – Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Argentina – have announced their intention to raise import tariffs or otherwise restrict trade…. Trade experts said the episode underlined the weakness of rhetorical agreements such as the G20 statement to constrain governments faced with domestic political pressure. Douglas Irwin, trade economist at Dartmouth College in the US, said: “Such statements may sometimes act as a signal to local legislatures, but there is usually ample room for governments to renege or weasel out of their commitments.” Since the G20 meeting, Russia has announced it will increase import tariffs on cars, India has raised duties on iron, steel and soy and Indonesia has alarmed trading partners with measures to benefit local producers. Brazil and Argentina have argued for an increase in external tariffs for Mercosur, the Latin American trade bloc of which they are the two biggest members. The G20 was lauded by attendees as a landmark meeting that would put big developing countries at the heart of global policymaking. Following last month’s summit, Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister who will host the next G20 meeting, said there would definitely be a meeting of trade ministers this year. Downing Street did not return calls on Friday. The countries that have raised tariffs deny breaking the agreement. The US said on Friday that it could not be blamed for the stalemate in Doha.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
