EAI Commentary: G20 Summit in Hamburg

Editor's Note

Professor Lee Seung-ju of Chung-Ang University assesses that the crisis of multilateralism was once again revealed at the G20 Summit held in Hamburg, Germany, from July 7-8. However, this crisis differs from past ones in that it arose as the United States, which has led the liberal international order, shifted to an independent path. Consequently, a leadership vacuum has emerged in the G20, which has played a leading role in solving global problems, and it remains uncertain whether China and the EU can fill this void, according to Professor Lee's analysis. However, considering the increasing importance of leadership based on soft power in recent international arenas, the role of middle powers like South Korea could become even more significant, and this could even present an opportunity for South Korea, which has already secured solidarity within the G20 as a member of MIKTA, Professor Lee argues.

The G20 Summit, held in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7-8, served as an occasion to once again reveal the crisis of multilateralism. The summit was held amidst both expectations that solutions would be found for pressing issues related to global public goods and concerns that the policy inward turn of major countries, including the United States, would intensify. At the summit, member states discussed joint responses to various issues, including terrorism, refugees, poverty, hunger, health, job creation, climate change, energy security, and gender inequality, recognizing them as challenges to the global community. Notably, the summit was significant in that it recognized that responses to these issues are not only individually important but also form the foundation for sustainable development at the global level.

Since its inception, the G20 Summit has served as a premier forum for building consensus and devising solutions for major global issues. However, this G20 Summit is likely to be recorded as a meeting that revealed numerous limitations, beyond merely reaffirming the principle of joint response to global issues. Although discussions were held on various matters at this summit, the core issues were climate change and trade, with attention focused on whether agreements could be reached on these matters. As perhaps expected, the G20 member states only managed to confirm their differing positions on these two issues. The formation of a cleavage between the United States and the other 19 countries offers many implications.

Regarding climate change, G20 member states reaffirmed their commitment in a joint statement to jointly strive to establish an 'energy system that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of clean energy via innovation and by enhancing energy efficiency.' However, this reaffirmation of a principled agreement was overshadowed by the inclusion of the United States' position on withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The joint statement included an expression noting the US decision to cease implementing nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strive to support economic growth and improve energy security. Although it was added that the US would support other countries in more efficiently utilizing fossil fuels and expanding the use of renewable energy, there were limitations in bridging the gap between the two sides on climate change. However, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's remark, pointing out that even if the US government withdraws from the Paris Agreement, a significant number of US states, cities, and large corporations intend to participate in efforts to address climate change, is worth considering. This is because, although it cannot be ruled out that the Paris Agreement may face further twists and turns, it symbolically demonstrates that global efforts to address climate change have already become a mainstream trend.

An awkward coexistence of differing positions was also repeated in trade. The joint statement can be seen as maintaining its previous stance by emphasizing the importance of a reciprocal trade and investment framework and the principle of non-discrimination, and clearly stating efforts to combat protectionism. However, it reflected the US position by including expressions that eradicate unfair trade practices and recognize legitimate trade defense measures. Furthermore, the agreement to create a level playing field to promote a favorable environment for trade and investment also reflects the US position. This G20 Summit revealed limitations in its inability to coordinate the positions of the whole and present advanced alternatives on major global issues. Nevertheless, it was not without achievements, as all member states except the United States were able to reaffirm their existing positions on key issues. For instance, given that the Trump administration decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, it is significant that 19 countries reaffirmed their commitment to implementing the Paris Agreement, even though other countries might have felt the same temptation. In trade as well, the previous positions on free trade and investment were reaffirmed, despite the growing domestic political backlash against economic integration resulting from neoliberal globalization in major countries. Additionally, G20 member states, noting that the benefits of economic globalization have not been widely distributed, reached a principled agreement to redouble efforts to ensure that as many people as possible can seize the opportunities of economic globalization. In this regard, this G20 Summit can be considered half successful and half a failure.

Regardless of the outcomes of this meeting, it is true that the G20, as a premier forum, showed significant limitations. It has been pointed out that the consensus for agreements at G20 summits has significantly shrunk compared to the past, while divisions and conflicts have intensified. While it is true that the G20 has played a leading role in resolving global issues as a premier forum, unlike the G7, it is a consultative body composed of member states sharing similar values and interests, which has led to the exposure of differences. Furthermore, the G20 has shown flexibility in member states coalescing and dispersing depending on the issue, rather than exhibiting fixed camp competition based on the axis of conflict. However, it is reasonable to assume that differences among member states were submerged during the process of responding to crises such as the 2008 global financial crisis. In fact, a tendency for policy coordination to weaken as the sense of crisis gradually diminishes has been observed within the G20. It is well known that G20 participants have clashed over various issues, including the Chinese government's intervention in the yuan market, quantitative easing, and intellectual property rights protection.

Differences and conflicts among G20 member states are not new. In that sense, the criticism that this G20 has degenerated into 'G19+1' is only half the truth. Of course, the fact that the axis of conflict was formed between the United States and other countries is something to ponder, but the US has previously shown differences in views with other member states regarding issues such as exchange rate adjustments and the introduction of a Tobin tax. However, the conflict revealed through the Hamburg Summit is new in that one of the axes of conflict is the United States, but it is fundamentally different because the US has become a force that denies the existing liberal international order. While there have been challenges to the liberal international order in the past, those challenges came from countries other than the US and Western developed nations. However, since the launch of the Trump administration, the US has shifted to a policy of prioritizing US national interests over the maintenance of the liberal international order by advocating for an 'America First' approach. In this regard, the liberal international order and the G20, which has served as a system for managing it, are entering a new phase. In terms of exercising leadership for the resolution of global problems, the G20 is facing a structural turning point. In that sense, it would be more accurate to describe this G20 Summit as 'G19 vs. 1' rather than 'G19+1'.

Of course, even though the 19 countries excluding the United States maintained a unified stance on global issues at this G20 Summit, it is difficult to prematurely conclude that the leadership vacuum in resolving global problems can be filled by this alone. While the reaffirmation of commitment to the Paris Agreement by the EU and China, which are expected to replace US leadership, is a significant achievement, considering the increasing inward turn of policy in major European countries and China's tendency to closely link economics and security in its foreign policy, it remains uncertain whether they can exercise leadership as guardians of the liberal international order.

The absence of global governance capable of effectively managing global issues, termed the 'G-Zero' world, also points to the structural vulnerabilities of the G20 (Bremmer and Roubini 2011). However, the current situation does not necessarily have to be interpreted pessimistically as an absence of global governance or multilateralism. It is necessary to aim for a 'G-x' era where various forums coexist, focusing on the diversity and flexibility of global governance required in the 21st century (Patrick 2013).

From the perspective of South Korea, which has a high degree of external dependence, the current situation is clearly not a favorable international environment. However, the weakening of leadership on global issues paradoxically could signify a 'middle powers' moment.' While the absolute importance of hard power in international politics is not diminishing, the need for great powers to exercise leadership based on soft power, such as vision, legitimacy, and persuasion, rather than solely relying on hard power, is increasing. Therefore, middle powers like South Korea can play an important role in enhancing legitimacy in the process of revising and complementing the liberal international order. In particular, South Korea, along with Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, and Australia, has formed MIKTA, securing a basis for solidarity within the G20, and is actively pursuing solidarity with non-state actors, thus being able to play a role of a certain level for the sustainable development of the G20. ■

AuthorLee Seung-ju

Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Chung-Ang University. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley. His main research areas include East Asian political economy, East Asian regionalism, global FTA networks, and institutional balancing strategies of East Asian countries. His major works and edited volumes include Northeast Asia: Ripe for Integration? (co-edited) and Trade Policy in the Asia-Pacific: The Role of Ideas, Interests, and Domestic Institutions (co-edited).

EAI Commentary is a commentary series planned to provide a platform for experts from various fields to express their opinions and present policy recommendations through in-depth analysis of major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting.

EAI is an independent research institute independent of any partisan interests. The claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not related to EAI and are solely the views of the individual author.