The G20 has come and gone, and like its host city, Pittsburgh, such international summits are exemplars of a very 20th-century idea given new life. Since the founding of the G8 (forerunner to the G20) 30 years ago, the underlying political and economic structure of the world has shifted. Just as Pittsburgh gradually became cognizant of its faltering industrial base and diversified its economy, the G8 nations slowly realized their group's bluster was wearing thin.
As the rusty scaffold propping up its waning influence became visible to emerging nations, they took to viewing the elite eight with ever-less reverence. And, as if deciding they concurred with the world at large, the citizens and even governing bodies of the economically developed nations have adopted ever more flippant and uncaring attitudes towards international politics as a whole, forcing the entire endeavor to maneuver around the pitfalls of domestic politics. Both of these mindsets have been diffusing across borders with shocking speed and the recent G20 summit arguably represents both views come to fruition, delivering both a message of hope and a dire warning.
In order to stop—or at least postpone—the uninvited countries' disdain from crushing high-level summits into irrelevance, during its recent meeting the G20 was designated the successor to the G8 in economic matters, presumably allowing the old group to pass into a graceful senility instead of being forcibly made obsolescent. In addition to this expansion, the emerging countries have managed to eke yet another compromise from the West, the beefing up of their voting rights in the International Monetary Fund.
As the imbalances there were quite extreme, this is not nearly the coup which it may at first seem; Europe still holds more influence in the organization than its economic output would suggest it should, and all of these changes amount to nothing until they are implemented. As anyone familiar with international bureaucracy is all too aware of, the entrenchment of values and modi operandi can be deep, and changing them a herculean effort.
To top it off, these agreements only provide a framework in which to solve the globe's problems, and do nothing to actually make progress towards solutions. When one takes a peek under the glamor that surrounded the conclusion of the G20, surprisingly little of substance was accomplished, and even more disconcertingly, many of the concrete issues discussed were utterly frivolous.
While there was undoubtedly legitimate deal-making going on, the miasma of the ridiculous that always envelops international politics was even thicker this year than most. Granted, the situation they had to work with was quite dire: the world economy is just starting to show the sprouts of new growth, deep-set imbalances in almost every country are twisting and distorting global flows of capital and trade, and global warming is growing more critical, with what is arguably the most important global warming conference to date occurring in Copenhagen in a few months.
In light of all this, what did the representatives of the world's largest economies choose to discuss during the single, fleeting two-day period which they had available? The assembled delegates deigned to deliberate over the compensation of a relatively small number of white-collar workers in a few cities around the world.
There are legitimate arguments for the constriction of bankers' bonuses, but bringing up a topic so limited in scope during the G20, which, of course, is now the globe's premier international summit, simply reeks of a simplistic desire for a highly PR-positive cure-all. Even the financiers most culpable for the recession can hardly be said to be guilty of more than a short-sighted abuse of systemic imbalances: in the U.S., of the population's addiction to credit; and globally of lax regulation, which allowed banks to shoot themselves in the foot with the magic bullet of derivatives. The idea of limiting the remuneration of such heinous criminals is in vogue with many nations' populist movements, and the idea's diffusion to the such lofty levels is symptomatic of the national politicization of international affairs.
This is not to say that there was ever a golden age of transnationalism, where every citizen looked out for what was good for their nation on the international stage, regardless of their political affiliation.
These days, though, especially in locales maintaining membership of republican international bodies, even the most important decisions are being treated by the populace as yet another vote of confidence in their domestic government. This can best be seen in the European Union, where voter turnout for EU elections is at times less than two-thirds that of national elections and campaigns often feature national issues. This is a sorry state of affairs and the global population needs to be made to realize that with the problems facing the world, some decisions need to be made on the basis of one's nation, or even civilization, not party or political affiliation.
Despite all of the downsides, missed targets, and utter time-wasting, that these changes were passed at all in Pittsburgh shows that some progress towards cooperation is being made. But at the end of the day, even the most radical shifts were really just grudging admissions by the old powers of the actual status quo and amount to little when compared to the issues that face the international community. It's going to take more than a few threads of agreement in order for the world to haul itself out of the recessionary chasm in which its currently trapped.
Even when the G20 finally reaches what it thinks is the surface, there still stand great, nigh-on-insurmountable cliffs of nuclear proliferation and global warming cutting off our way forward, with the trials that lie beyond them hidden in the mists. Stronger ropes, and concords, especially those with substance rather than a small number of concessions hiding beneath a facade of glorious, multilateral power-sharing are sorely needed, along with a public that cheers on the contenders from its nation, not one which treats foreign policy as detritus compared to its local quarrels.
Benjamin Ziomek is a member of the Class of 2013.