# Promoting Canada's Interests: A New G7, G20 and G35



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2009)

I have been going on and on for a long time (too bloody long, some will say) about policy and Canada’s _vital interests_. I will not bore you further with detailed explanations, I think we can sum up our interests in two words: Peace and Prosperity – Peace is more than just the absence of war and Prosperity is more than just a steady job for 95% of employable Canadians – and one of the main ways we, a *relatively* “weak” nation, go about securing both is by promoting multilateralism.

By any fair and sensible measure Canada was, _circa_ 2000, one of the world’s *Top 10* nations. We can neither expect nor even hope to sustain that position in the 21st century but for as long as most of you are alive, and likely for longer, we are likely to be in the top 10% - again by any fair and reasonable measure.

We, Canada – the Finance Minister Paul Martin, actually – founded the G20 and we are one of its charter members. It, the G20, is just one group in the international the smörgåsbord of groups – great and small – which we can and should use to protect and promote our vital interests.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ is an opinion piece, by Gordon Smith and Barry Carin that deals with the G8 vs the G20: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090329.wcocanada30/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Canada's interest is the G20, not the G8
> 
> GORDON SMITH AND BARRY CARIN
> 
> ...




One of the things we are should be trying to do in our international relations is to increase the strength of our “voice’ in global affairs. That’s one of the main reasons we are in Afghanistan. We have no really strong links to that region and our interests in Afghanistan’s economy or even of its “human development” (beyond a well founded fear of the consequences of “tolerating” medieval Islamic societies) are minimal. But playing a major role in ISAF enhances our reputation amongst the “great” powers and gives us a “better” seat at some tables. But, as the UK’s decision to relegate us to the political B list at this week’s G20 meeting demonstrates, we are *not* a _*major* league player_ – Triple A, surely, to keep a baseball analogy going, but not in the big leagues.

Who is in the _majors_? I made a _guesstimate_ (it’s far too weak to call it an analysis) of who *should* be in the world’s “economic management” team. I selected 50 nations: the “top” 30± were selected from the top nations by either or both of GDP per capita – which is one fair measure of productivity, and nominal GDP – which is one fair measure of national wealth and economic power. The other 15± were added as “near misses” or to provide some regional balance (mostly to ensure Africa, South America and large Islamic countries are represented.

I think the G20 is too large to be an effective “steering group” and too small to be a broadly representative “consultative group.” Therefore I propose that Canada should try to reform the G20 by:

1. Reshaping the current G8 into a new G7 as follows:

Current Proposed
USA		 USA		 )
Japan	 Japan		)
German	Germany )
UK		   UK		    ) These seven are the world’s “major league” players 
Russia	 China		)
France	 India		)
Italy	   Brazil		)
Canada

 2. Expanding the G20 into a new G35 *Consultative Group* with three sub groups:

(1) The new G7 Core (steering) Group,

(2) A new G2 Planning Group, and

(3) The full G35 Consultative Group.

My G20 varies from the current as follows:

Current Proposed

Argentina	  Argentina
Australia	   Australia
Brazil		     Brazil
Canada		  Canada
China		     China
EU	            *Netherlands*
France		    France
Germany	    Germany
India		      India
Indonesia	   Indonesia
Italy		       Italy
Japan	        Japan
Mexico          *Chile*
Russia	        Russia
Saudi Arabia *Singapore*
South Africa	South Africa
South Korea	South Korea
Turkey		    Turkey
UK		          UK
USA		        USA

I think *I am certain* that it is wrong to give the EU “status” unless the same is given to e.g. ASEAN,  Mercosur, NAFTA and so on. All those groups, and others, shoul have observer status at various fora.

My G7, G20 and G35 are a fair and balanced set of “teams” that ought to be able to guide the global economy for the first half of this century. There is a *realistically* important role for Canada in this superstructure and we would, likely, *gain* some prestige by volunteering ourselves for “demotion to the second division” (a football analogy, now) in order to implement a better “league” structure.


Edit: analysis spreadsheet not attached.


----------



## chanman (13 Apr 2009)

Do you already have a list of the 15 remaining G35 countries as well?  

I also wonder at what criteria determines that the UK stays while France goes.  Population, GDP, demographics, both countries are within spitting distance of each other from what I can see.  Additionally, I imagine France might have a better shot at selling policies to francophone ex-colonies than your current proposed G7 members.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Apr 2009)

Have you ever seen a meeting with 20 people ever accomplish anything ? Expanding the group to 35 just makes decisionmaking that much harder. I liked the G7 a much smaller group where you have a shot at solving problems.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting article about a _grand strategy_ dilemma with which Prime Minister Harper must grapple:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-has-key-role-in-shaping-g8s-future/article1297761/


> Harper has key role in shaping G8’s future
> *As host of next year's meeting, Prime Minister will have a chance to influence the composition of geopolitical summits to come*
> 
> Kevin Carmichael
> ...



It is, generally, _diplomatically_ simpler to expand groups, à la Sarkozy’s _G14_, rather than to contract them but, in this case, shrinking the G8 to the sort of G7 I proposed above, is *smarter*.

But one cannot just give e.g. Canada and Italy the boot – hence my _new_ G20, which could be a G15, for example, by deleting, just for example, Argentina, Indonesia, Netherlands, Singapore and Turkey. But that would _dilute_ the “broadly representative” nature that I think is *essential* if the G20 is to be an effective advisory body for the G7.

My personal inclination is to move the UK and Brazil *out* of the proposed G7, making it a more manageable, more effective G5, and leaving the G20 as is, still including Brazil and the Brits.

The G35 would include 15 smaller economies from Africa (3 members), East/South Asia/Pacific (4 members), Europe (2 members), Middle East/West Asia (3 members) and Latin America/Caribbean (3 members).

I wish Harper would play a *strategic leadership* role by shrinking the G8 to a G5 and, simultaneously, creating a _revised_ G20 advisory group, preempting Sarkozy. 

I also wish (and I think this is more “achievable”) he would invite ASEAN, NAFTA and so on to attend and participate to balance the EU – _de facto_ creating yet another sub-group.

I suspect that Harper is being advised to invite Brazil, China and India to participate in all discussions, creating, _de facto_ a G11 that Sarkozy can then expand into a G14 if he wishes.

I thnink that eventually, when we have a G14 and a G20, cooler heads will prevail and we will get something like a G5, G20 and G35. 

Prime Minister Harper’s _strategic_ challenge is to preserve Canada’s influence as we are, roughly, elbowed aside by bigger players. We have, slowly but surely, slipped our of the global “Top 10” (we haven’t _slipped_ as much as we have been passed) but we are, firmly, in the “Top 10*%*” and we are likely to remain there for a long, long time. We need a place at the table, and the world *needs* us at the table – the right place, a respected place, at the right table, but it might not be at the head table any more.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2009)

Many of these arguments have been brought up in the past in other threads, and I will re raise an objection to the various "G" groups; do the mambers share common interests with Canada?

Even the G-8 is not truely representative of our interests, outside of the obvious inclusion of Russia. Canada was only invited in the first place by the United States, which wanted a North American couterweight to the heavily Eurocentric composition of the initial group. Then, as now, Canada did not have the military, political or economic clout to be a member on her own merits (indeed, as Edward has pointed out, we have been passed by other, more dynamic economies).

I would think that for many purposes "tiger teams" of like minded nations can rapidly assemble for particular tasks (the US, Australia and Japan put together an outstanding response to the Tsunami), and like minded groupings like the putative "Anglosphere" or a "Concert of Democracies" would be fare more representative and effective places to promote and cultivate _our_ interests.


----------

