The parallel processes of globalization and fragmentation of the international system have increased rather than diminished the demand for effective global leadership of the most potent countries. Currently, the “Group of Eight” is still the best show in town, even if it will have to adapt to the changing context and reform accordingly. Most notably, it needs to trim its agenda by delegating more leadership and resources to existing institutions and change the public perception from being an exclusive “group” towards being a more inclusive “process”.

Chancellor Merkel and her foreign policy team have already proposed sensible measures to this end. These now have to be made more concrete and extended to other reform areas not yet covered. The Heiligendamm Process to streamline the G8 agenda and transfer more of the dialogue with other countries into existing international institutions is a step in the right direction, but it is still a timid one. The inclusion of other organizations needs to be more specific. In general, the G8 should refrain from launching new Action Plans in many areas and instead focus on their responsibility within such organisations as the WHO, the IAEA or the UN Environmental and Development Programs. It is sometimes argued that international institutions are not working effectively or are absent altogether. Yet quite often the problems derive from the leading powers’ unwillingness to support these institutions more forcefully. A change of attitude on the side of the industrialized countries would also confer more legitimacy and inclusiveness to their policies.

Strengthening the G8 as an inclusive process also implies a more visible dialogue with relevant non-governmental organizations and other non-state actors, such as multilateral corporations. This is an area where much more needs to be done. The perception of the G8 as mega-summits behind fences is surely not helpful. Finally, the G8 forum would benefit from more accountability even as regards a trimmed agenda. Every year, the G8 Research Group , an academic think tank at the University of Toronto, publishes its “compliance reports” of the group and its members. The upgrading of this endeavor and possibly its implementation by an independent high-level body (such as the UN General Assembly) would not only make the industrialized leaders more accountable, it would also contribute to the transparency of a group of countries that remains a crucial leadership forum in a globalizing world.

Marco Overhaus is project manager of Deutsche-Aussenpolitik.De and research fellow at the Chair for International Relations at the University of Trier.

This article has been shortened from its original version, which first appeared under the title “Reform Requirements of the G8 and the Heiligendamm Summit”, published on Deutsche-Aussenpolitik.de on April 26, 2007. Click here to view the original article.

Related Materials From the Atlantic Community:

• Sylke Tempel on G8 Criticism: Scattered and Hollow
• Paul Martin, Joseph Stiglitz Question Relevance of G8 Summit
• Ulf Gartzke on Transatlantic ‘Climate War’ Threatens G8 Summit
• Joerg Wolf on What Bloggers Are Saying About The G8 Summit