America Is Hot and Cold at G-20; It Cannot Avoid New, Rising Countries

The eighth G-20 summit has begun, this one perhaps a bit more “lively.” To avoid an awkward situation, Putin and Obama sat far from each other, Japan’s Abe “stood ground” with Xi Jinping to have cordial talks despite tension and Brazil’s Rousseff delayed Obama before dinner to ask him about spying. This summit was originally held to talk about “economic growth and employment rates,” but it was overshadowed by Obama’s desire to take military action on Syria.

Even though this is a summit with powerful countries participating, it’s hard to reverse history; the history of the summit is reflected in the present. The G-20 was originally held to deal with economic crisis. That year America was dealing with its own economic crisis and ready to meet with many new countries and potential allies and, therefore, willing to “expand” the original seven-country G-7 to 20. The G-20 summit stage represents a sign that there is more balance of opinion.

Although America has since regained economic confidence, it now can possibly contradict this concept of “equality” of opinion as well as change its attitude toward the G-20. The U.S. tends to present a resilient image of strength at the G-20, making it difficult for countries new to the G-20 that desire to gain influential power. America’s strategy in foreign policy is to use ideology, only needing a strong U.S. economy as backup. However, perhaps now if the U.S. receives restrictions from the G-20, it will go from taking a cautious attitude to taking a completely disregarding one.

The entire world is experiencing a building shift of power structure, full of indecisiveness with conflict and friction. This uncertainty has capacity for hazard and risk. These days, underlying strategic competitiveness between larger powers influences the present international setup of cooperation. After World War II, America carefully schemed, led and worked to put in place a backbone for the U.S. dollar and military affairs by forming alliances at the U.N. and on other international stages, building the framework for these organizations. Even now the U.S. still benefits from these stable frameworks. To ensure a long-term “superiority benefit,” America sometimes can “change its mind” at will, breaking systems the U.S. itself cultivated. If the U.S. decided to, it could push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to disintegrate the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The world is changing as it moves from a Western-governed world to one that is governed with the balance of many ideas. Working to balance different opinions is a general trend, but what “general” consists of has some limits. How and at what speed these changes occur and subtle differences between countries, these changes mean big differences in benefits to China, the U.S. or any country. China has to actively take the initiative to push for a balanced stage; it especially needs to make good use of the G-20 stage, although doing so is difficult and a constant uphill battle.

Right now the crucial problem is a fair world without Western influence. In 1990 the G-7 world economic outlook was at about 80 percent; nowadays it doesn’t reach 60 percent. This change has two implications: One, new countries are growing abruptly, which is why G-7 became G-20; two, new countries and the G-7 still have big differences, which is why the G-20 rate of effectiveness is not quite ideal.

With regard to all this, the G-20 is still the most effective and fair international economic governing platform, so its existence has special value. However, the G-20 contains the G-7 and the G-7 already has established effective coordination. If the G-20 is to be truly fair, another “wheel” should be formed without the Western influence of the G-7. For China, Russia and other larger powers, one possibility is to use the BRIC alliance as a second “wheel” driving the G-20 to gain effectiveness.

America is powerful; if it doesn’t attach great importance to which international stage it’s using, its influence from that stage will decrease. America was once in charge at the top, but now, if someday Washington snubs the G-20, the U.S. might not necessarily be able to act at will. New powerful countries need the G-20. South Korea, Australia and other not so influential countries also need the G-20; this is where the G-20’s life comes from.

At this G-20 summit, China’s Xi Jinping is the most unhurried official, his confidence noted many times in foreign media. The even more confident China is behind Xi Jinping. Looking at modern Chinese history, it seems like a lifetime ago compared to the role China plays in the world today. Chinese citizens’ confidence in their country is perhaps slow to accumulate, but it will come eventually. A powerfully confident China will surely have its stage, no matter if it is at the G-20 summit, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or at the U.N. China’s feeling of “home advantage” is growing larger and larger.