News Center

The G-20 at a crossroads: debate over if they should reduce the number of members
Clarin
June 30, 2010

When the financial crisis arrived in 2008, all of the member countries of the G-20 were in agreement: they had to do something rapidly together to avoid the worst. The response was for economic stimulus packages. In the midst of a gradual stabilization of the world economy what now prevails are, however, political and structural differences. The Asian economies are growing at a very high rate, the U.S. recovery is slow, while Europe continues to be mired in recession. President Barack Obama and the emerging countries want to continue with economic stimulus, but the Europeans speak only of fiscal austerity. Can the G-20 survive this new turn of events? "When the fire started, everyone knew what to do: find a hose," said Angel Gurr a, president of the OECD during one of the Toronto summit meetings. "Today the incipient economic recovery offers different political options. While it's good to have options, it's all the more difficult to sign accords," he added.

Toronto showed that there exists a will to find consensus. However, while some analysts think that one of the main strengths of the G-20 is its heterogeneity, others think that this is its greatest problem and for that they speak of the need to expand the G-8 to a G-14. The new group would include countries like Brazil, China and India, and would exclude countries like Argentina and relegate the group of 20 again to the second level. The idea is not new and at the time Brazil was enthusiastic. In effect, on July 7, 2008, on the eve of the crisis, French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed that the G-8 add five new members to promote the dialogue with emerging countries.

He suggested China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Then he added Egypt. "The G-8 needs to adapt to the 21st Century," he said. But there was no agreement about the countries he proposed. It was at this time that the G-20 came onto the scene, a group that was born as a consequence of the Asian crisis of 1999 and that was more representative of the new economic geopolitics than the G-8, didn't put forth additional problems of a diplomatic sort of an eventual G-14. Its first summit was in Washington in November 2008.

"Argentina owes its participation in the G-20 to the "carnal relations" of Menem, but many people think that now it should not be a member," said Claudio Loser, ex-director for the Western Hemisphere at the IMF, to Clarin. American University Professor Arturo Porzecanski explained in a "paper" that our country should be excluded because it's "the only one of the G-20 that declared a default" and "that doesn't allow the IMF to monitor its economy."

Loser explained that the problem has always been about who to include in the G-14 and "also even in the case of a G-14, the debate among the more advanced countries and the emerging ones will continue and agreements will also be very difficult." Erin Fitzgerald, G-8 specialist at the University of Toronto believes that Sarkozy will continue insisting on a G-14 in 2011 when he presides over both groups. It's still early to know what will happen.

U.S. Government
Takes Action

Click here to view letters by the Administration and Members of Congress on Argentina's debt and economic policies.

The Debt and Europe

Click Here To Read More

ATFA Member Spotlight

National Taxpayer's Union

Open Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives: Protect Taxpayers from Judgment-Evading Nations

Click here to view other ATFA member activity

Join Us
Show your support for ATFA and our work regarding debt default by joining our growing list of supporters.

Tell Your Friends
Do you have friends or colleagues who would be interested in supporting ATFA? Send them an invitation to this site by clicking here.