AFTER a week of summits on everything from the global environment to the world economy and the international hot spots, it really does look as if there is a will to work together at the highest levels.
More than that. There are also the beginnings of new structures through which it can be done. On the other hand, one should not get too excited because history tells us that international initiatives rarely achieve very much: they often end in disarray or spawn massive bureaucracies, which collapse under their own weight and self-importance.
Several things happened last week. First there was the gathering of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, at which US President Barack Obama urged the world to drop its anti- Americanism and work together to address global problems. This is really the key to the whole story. His message is that the Bush era of antagonism and US self-assertion belongs to the past, and that one of co-operation is opening up. He specifically mentioned “four pillars” of US policy: environmental restoration, nuclear disarmament, settlement of conflict in the Middle East and fixing the global economy.
It is an enormous and challenging agenda, not simply because it tackles all the world’s big problems, but because the rest of the world needs to believe that Obama is sincere, and can deliver. Like all US presidents, he is a hostage to Congress, and he has opponents hacking away at each of his pillars.
The UN session on the environment was held to pave the way for the Copenhagen summit in December . Obama’s approach is refreshingly positive: he wants to do something about climate change, and he found an ally in Chinese President Hu Jintao, who pledged to push through greater energy efficiency.
The other striking moment at the UN was the sight of Obama chairing a session of the Security Council, the first time a US president has ever done that. This highly symbolic gesture of support for an organisation that the US usually treats with irritation could provide a big impulse to international efforts such as next year’s review of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unfortunately, the session coincided with news that Iran is building a secret nuclear plant, immediately denting Obama’s vision of a “nuclear-free world”.
After the UN, the summit shifted to Pittsburgh and the Group of 20’s session on the global economic crisis where, again, the stress was on collaboration. The outcome of the summit was much as expected: pledges to continue support for the recovery and more initiatives to strengthen the financial system.
What was more significant, in a way, was the G-20 leaders’ vision of their group as an active body managing the world economy. In the new “architecture”, the G-20 will make global economic policy, and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the development banks will watch over it, using their resources to keep it on track. Similarly, on the banking front, the new Financial Stability Board will make the rules and see that they are implemented.
At the same time, the G-20 will become less involved in foreign policy and international relations, leaving that to other groups, such as the G-8 and the UN. The question now is whether a group of very different 20 countries can work closely enough together to be effective. It’s hard to say. But scepticism is probably out of order right now.
Last week underlined the dramatic changes taking place in global politics, with a US president who wants to work with the world rather than against it, with large groups of countries supporting ambitious initiatives to tackle a whole range of very difficult issues. Countries that do not join in these initiatives will look increasingly isolated. Some good things may come out of this crisis after all.
Lascelles is a senior fellow of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation in London and a former banking editor of the Financial Times.