G20 china_web

Strengthening the G20 system
IN CONVERSATION
Several
advocates
have proposed
designing a
blue economy
framework
The Right Honourable Paul Martin, former Prime Minister
of Canada, talks to John Kirton about globalisation, multilateral
agreements and conserving the ocean and coastal resources
Q You have been quoted as saying that
making globalisation work for all must
be the goal of the G20. Is this realistic
when so many are left out of the benefits
globalisation brings?
A While inequality within and between
countries is real and must be dealt with,
increased globalisation is inevitable. The
issue is not whither globalisation but how to
deal with its consequences.
From economic interdependence to
the spread of disease, from threats to
food security to climate change, the most
pressing realities the world faces are ones no
borders can withstand. These are issues that
require responses beyond what even the
most powerful governments can provide.
Making globalisation work in a world
where a self-defeating inward nationalism
is making itself felt politically provides the
G20 with one of its greatest challenges.
Q You have said that strengthening the
great multilateral institutions is important
if globalisation is to work for all. Why?
A All too often the great multilateral
institutions are the only bodies capable
of reconciling national interests with the
global good. Adequately funded and well
conceived, they are the optimum vehicles
by which specific issues can be dealt with
sustainably. This is as true for the World
Health Organization or the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees as it is for
the International Monetary Fund. Leading
the charge to strengthen those institutions,
which have universal membership, must be
a G20 priority. It is upon this that much of
the G20’s legitimacy rests.
Q Do you still think the creation of
the Financial Stability Board and the
London Summit were two of the G20’s
greatest successes?
A Yes, but the G20 cannot rest on
its laurels.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) was
created out of the ashes of the Financial
Stability Forum (FSF), which was an earlier
initiative of the G7 finance ministers. As
we know only too well and maybe are
learning once again, there are few economic
consequences as great as those that flow
from financial sector failure.
When you consider the damage arising
from small grains of sand in the global
banking system – the early reluctance of
Europeans to impose stress tests on their
banks, the constant pushback from the
financial industry in the United States and
the rapid growth of China’s shadow banks
– the FSB should have full treaty status and
full universal membership, giving it the
weight it requires to be the fourth pillar of
the global economic architecture.
As far as the London Summit is
concerned, eight years ago it prevented a
trade war that could have led to a 1930s-type
depression. Today, given the mounting
pressures on the globe’s national economies
and the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s)
recent warning that protectionist measures
are being reintroduced at an accelerating
rate, the G20 must now re-engage.
Q Are new multilateral initiatives needed?
A Yes. For example, while last year’s Paris
commitment on climate change should be
applauded, there are other areas where the
climate change consequences are evident
but no action has been taken.
The acidification of the global ocean
– the world’s largest carbon sink – was
ignored at Paris. This was short sighted
given the extensive damage that continues
to be wrought by the impacts of climate
change, not to mention overfishing, habitat
destruction, pollution and declining
biodiversity. Despite the ocean’s poor
state of health and the distinct lack of a
236 G20 China: The Hangzhou Summit • September 2016 G7G20.com