Content area
Full Text
The Group of Eight (G8) has frequently come under attack for being an archaic institution that doesn't represent the current configuration of global political and economic influence. These criticisms have intensified with the rise of the Group of 20 (G20) financial summit as the major vehicle for responding to the global financial crisis.
The 2009 L'Aquila G8 summit did little to affirm the group's relevance. The Italian presidency failed to delineate a clear agenda, in part due to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's preoccupation with the spate of scandals over his personal life. A last-minute shift in venues from La Maddalena to the earthquake-ravaged L'Aquila - in an attempt to encourage reconstruction - further complicated matters. With no list of discussion topics clearly defined, the United States took the unprecedented step of drawing up an agenda for the host. But with so much done at the last minute, little was accomplished.
The L'Aquila summit made very clear that the efforts of eight developed countries are no longer enough to address major global concerns. Indeed, for the first time, the G8 summit seemed to be preparation for the larger G20 meeting. From the choice to defer major decisions on the world economy to the G20, to the close participation of non-G8 members in climate change and food security initiatives, L'Aquila demonstrated that a larger forum - or a different one - is needed.
Who Gets In?
The G8 has wrestled for years with the question of who gets to the sit at the table. Why is China excluded when it has much more economic influence than most G8 members? Why is the...