Europe was behind the agreements reached at Pittsburgh. As far as I am aware, the greater role of the G20, now seen as the main forum for global economic cooperation and not just for finance (although the Pittsburgh summit was convened to sort out finance) has not been criticised by anyone. People recognise of course that the BRICs - Brazil, Russia, India, China - should have their say at global level, and that Africa and the Arab world should also be a permanent presence, along with other countries that are not part of the G8. Whether the G20 can operate effectively in terms of global governance remains to be seen, of course. Its initial results have been positive on the whole when it comes to finance, where particular effort went into preparing for the summit and some countries had already taken measures and issued guidelines (on tax havens, for example). On the other hand, on trade and anti-protectionist issues, the G20 went no further than fine words and on climate change, it did not make any progress at all. Europe generally played a key role at Pittsburgh (see yesterday's column). If one compares the G20 statement with the “common document” that the European Council adopted a few days ahead of Pittsburgh (see our special issue of 18 September, issue 9979b), one sees that they are largely the same, although some parts of the EU document are more tangible and set out in more detail. It was not possible, of course, for the EU's views to be copied in their entirety.
Does the EU have sufficient presence as a body? This positive comparison of documents does not alter the fact that the way the EU is represented at the G20 and the way that it operates there are a matter of concern, particularly for small and medium-sized member states and fringes of the EU institutions. It is separate countries that represent Europe at the G20 rather than the EU as such. The four member states with the highest population (Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom) are represented as countries. The EU is represented by the president of the European Council, the president of the European Commission and the president of the European Central Bank. The first of these changes every six months (we will have to wait for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force in order for a longer-term chair to be introduced); the Commission president's role on the world stage is vague; and the president of the ECB is more of a presence on specialist monetary bodies. At first sight, the absence of the chair of the Eurogroup is incomprehensible - by formalising the existence of Eurogroup, the Lisbon Treaty should change this.
In preparing for the Pittsburgh summit, Nicolas Sarkozy insisted that the European Council should meet informally to decide on a common EU position, Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown backed this, and the Swedish Presidency put it into practice. The main aspects of the EU's views were decided in advance by the “big member states” although the Swedish Presidency developed some areas of the document.
Benefits of the “Community Method”. It is clear from the above that most of the EU position was not defined using the Community procedures, and at the G20, the weight of the big member states is far greater than EU representation (not to mention the fact that the eurozone is not even represented at the IMF, despite the fact that the euro is a common currency). During the debate at the European Parliament last week on the outcome of the Pittsburgh summit, the concerns and reservations about this situation were raised by a number of MEPs, mainly from small countries. I will quote the words of Sylvie Goulard because she comes from one of the “big countries”. “We (Ed: the ALDE Group) would like to draw attention to the impact of the very existence of the G20 on the way the EU functions. Some member states are on the G20 and others are not. We would like the Commission and the Presidency of the European Council to fully play their role and defend the Community interest. The EU and its experience, know-how and collective governance must not be pushed aside at this decisive time for the planet, because governments forget that the Community Method was invited to overcome the weaknesses of the Intergovermental Method”.
Nobody is talking about the decisive weight of the most powerful countries in economic terms being used to define EU positions and their application; but we must never forget that the Community Method also works to their benefit and it is by presenting itself as a unit that Europe can play a key role in global governance.
(F.R./transl.fl)