The Group of Eight (G8) Industrialized Nations
May 9, 2006
Introduction
On July 15-17, leaders of the top industrialized democratic nations will gather in St. Petersburg for the annual summit of the Group of Eight (G8). While various ministers meet throughout the year, the summit, attended by the heads of state, is the forum's main event. This year is the first that the G8 presidency, which rotates between member nations, belongs to Russia, a country whose membership in the elite group has itself been a point of contention. Energy security, terrorism, and other major issues are on the agenda, but the host country's own controversial status as a G8 member threatens to overshadow the proceedings.
What is the purpose of the G8?
The G8 meetings are intended to foster consensus on global issues among the leading industrial democracies, although that is not always the result. The G8 was originally formed for industrial nations to address economic concerns—specifically the recession sparked by the oil crisis in the 1970s—but politics were introduced to the agenda soon after the group's founding.
Which countries are members?
The G8 comprises six charter members France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Japan, and United States, with Canada joining in 1976, and Russia becoming a formal member in 1998. The EU is a "non-enumerated" ninth member. Leaders from other countries are invited to the summit, but they are not participants.
What are the criteria for membership?
There are no formal criteria, but member nations are generally expected to have highly developed economies and be democracies. The G8, unlike the UN, is not an organization or institution, and there is no formal charter or secretariat.
What is the extent of the G8’s efficacy and influence?
Opinions vary. The G8 issues numerous statements, makes various commitments, and draws attention to certain issues, but experts say most achievements are on a small scale and made behind the scenes. Joseph Nye, professor of international relations at Harvard University, says the G8 "gets the bureaucracies to focus," and John Kirton, director of the University of Toronto's G8 Research Group (which analyzes each summit), notes that commitments and compliance have increased over the years. Such a finding, however, coincides with a decrease in combined economic power of the G-8 nations. Regardless of waning influence, James Goldgeier, CFR adjunct senior fellow for Europe Studies, says the G8 was not designed to have much political impact to begin with; for political change, he says, more countries would need to be involved.
Which issues are on this year’s agenda?
The host country sets the agenda, and Russia has stated that its priorities for the summit are energy security, which took on renewed importance after Russia briefly stopped sending gas to the Ukraine last January in a move viewed by many as unnecessary and damaging—infectious diseases, and global education. But non-proliferation, counterterrorism, the global economy, environmental protection, and other issues are also on the prospective agenda. While it is not formally on the list, Nye says Iran cannot be ignored.
How did Russia become involved in the G-8?
Russia joined the group formally in 1998 after years of gradual involvement and steps toward democratization. With the Cold War over, several world leaders—particularly President Clinton—encouraged the former Soviet Union's accession to the forum. Experts say it was more of a "gesture toward Yeltsin" than anything else, as Russia was neither a fully realized economy nor a Western-style democracy. In 2002, the G8 nations decided to let Russia have the year-long presidency in 2006.
Why is Russia’s membership controversial?
Russia's membership in the G-8 is a contentious issue, attracting more attention this year due to its presidency. Since the G-8, however informally, was intended as a forum for industrialized democracies, Russia's increasing reversal of democratic reforms stands in contrast with the group's raison d'être. Russia's economic but particularly its political status—President Putin's authoritarian rule and his reversal of democratic trends—do not seem to meet the group's standards. This criticism comes from within Russia as well as from abroad. Andrei Illarionov, Putin's former economic adviser who resigned in protest, has argued that attendance at the St. Petersburg summit lends support to an undemocratic regime, and goes against the G8's principles.
Russia's drift toward a more authoritarian state in the past few years has raised concerns among foreign governments and non-governmental organizations. Referring to a report on the lack of governmental action taken on racist crimes, Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, said "It is time for the Russian authorities to address the country's deteriorating human rights record and live up to their international obligations if they seek to be international players." In anticipation of the G8 summit, Russia recently hired an American public relations firm to improve its international image.
What is the U.S. government’s position on Russia and the G8?
The relationship between Russia and the United States has grown increasingly strained in the past few years, as this CFR Task Force report discusses. At a recent conference in Vilnius, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney commented on the Russian government's restrictions on its citizens and interference with neighboring democratic movements. He also singled out Russia's recent actions regarding energy. Still, he added, "a Russia that increasingly shares the values of this community can be a strategic partner and a trusted friend as we work toward common goals. In that spirit, the leading industrialized nations will engage Russia at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg this summer." Most experts agree that while a U.S. boycott of the summit (advocated by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is out of the question, the U.S. government wanted to make a clear statement regarding Russia's policies. Nye argues that despite Russia's failings, the U.S. government should engage rather than isolate the country. Such an approach, he says, would help spur Russian democratization as well as its cooperation on urgent issues like Iran and WMD proliferation.
What do critics say about the G8?
Criticism of the G8 extends well beyond Russia's questionable membership. The summits are often the target of anti-globalization protests. Some critics argue that the exclusivity of the group results in a focus on industrial, rather than developing countries' needs, and that if actions are taken for the latter, they are inadequate. But Daniel Tarullo, professor of law at Georgetown and President Clinton's former representative at several G8 summits, points out that the G8 wasn't designed to decide development policies. Another common criticism is the G8 is all talk and the summit just a photo-op, but, as noted above, the forum has allowed for leading nations to focus and aim for consensus on a variety of issues.
Perhaps most significantly, the G8's relevancy has come into question. Richard Haass, CFR's president and former director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department, writes in the Financial Times that while it has an important role, "the G8 is increasingly an anachronism. No one today would propose an annual meeting that includes Canada (population of 31 million, gross domestic product of $870 billion), Italy (58 million and $1,200 billion) and Russia (144 million and $615 billion) but not China (1.3 billion and $1,650 billion) and India (1.1 billion and $650 billion)."
Could China make it the G-9? India the G-10?
China and India, up and coming economic powers, are notable omissions from the G-8, and some say they should be brought in. As Haass argues, "the G8 needs to become the G10. Both China and India deserve a seat." Such additions, he says, would be beneficial for all. China's inclusion, of course, would clearly mean the end of the G8 as a forum for leading democracies. As Mark Medish writes in The Globalist, "If China were one day included, as some advocate in view of its enormous economic weight, then Russia would begin to look downright Western in political terms."
China and India do belong to the G20, which is a forum of finance ministers and central bank governors created in 1999 by the G7, but a G20 for heads of state does not yet exist. While increasing representation to include emerging markets and developing nations is one option, some say expanding the G8 to a G20 would be useless; the forum would become too large, and no real discussion could take place. Some experts think the forum's time has come and gone. They argue that as it stands now, the G8 is anachronistic, but reforming it to incorporate more members would negate its significance.
What’s likely to come out of this year’s summit?
This summit's focus on energy security isn't likely to yield much; as Goldgeier points out, Russia and other countries have different views on what "energy security" means. The real issues are Russia's standing and the significance of the G8 itself; as Medish writes, "The St. Petersburg meeting will be fraught with problems, and will be a test of the forum's viability." Goldgeier sums it up in starker terms: "The real question about this summit is how bad it will be."
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Email
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
After two decades of liberalization, many countries around the world are adopting new restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) that could retard continued progress. The authors make recommendations for correcting this protectionist drift by proposing guidelines for how countries can better regulate FDI yet still reap its economic benefits.
In this Council Special Report, the authors make a strong case that the Bush administration’s policy of diplomatic isolation of Syria is not serving U.S. interests, and offer informed history and thoughtful analysis of the country and its external behavior.
