Over 32 years of its history, the G7/G8 has expanded both its agenda and institutional system, and is now appreciated as an instrument of deliberation, direction-giving and decision-making on global governance issues. It has also become a subject for criticism and reform proposals. The critique mainly focuses on the forum’s representativeness, legitimacy and effectiveness.
There may be three points of departure for reflection on the G8 commitments compliance.
First, when the forum arose in the mid-1970s to respond in a coordinated way to the problems and challenges that the existing international institutions could not cope with, its architects set a very high level of expectations on the meetings’ outcome: they should treat crucial economic, financial and political issues, and they should yield results.
Second, St. Petersburg produced 14 summit documents plus the Chair’s summary totaling 317 specific commitments. Although it has confirmed the tendency for increasing the number of commitments characteristic of the seventh series, this is the highest number of any summit held since 1975. Of these, 216 commitments reflect decisions on the Presidency priority issues: 52 relate to fight against infectious diseases; 114 to global energy security; and 50 to education for innovative society in the 21st century. However impressive this may seem, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “the viability of the decisions hinges on the members’ commitment to their consistent implementation within the systemic strategy of joint actions. Serious and multifaceted work on the St. Petersburg commitments implementation lies ahead, including the period of the German presidency of the G8.” Thus, a weighted assessment of the summit performance and the leaders’ commitment to the decisions made is still to come, inter alia on the basis of compliance study results.
Third, over 32 years of its history, the G7/G8 has expanded both its agenda and institutional system, and is now appreciated as an instrument of deliberation, direction-giving and decision-making on global governance issues. It has also become a subject for criticism and reform proposals. The reform proposals are well known and range from expanding the institution to G10 and G12, restructuring the G20 into L20, restructuring the G8 into G4, abolishing the G8, etc. The critique mainly focuses on the forum’s representativeness, legitimacy and effectiveness.
While it is difficult to argue against proposals to expand the G8 to include China and India, or the rationale for coexistence of the G8 and the L20, it is worthwhile considering what data and instruments of evaluation are available to support, inform or refute the perception of the G8’s shortcomings. It is also useful to analyze what these tools offer for monitoring, comparing and sharing, but, moreover, for communicating the G8 performance results to the wider public.
Ethnic nationalism cannot be a strategic ally of the forces interested in Russia’s modernization. Realizing the impossibility of a purely elitist modernization, these forces will inevitably need mass support and national consolidation. Consequently, they will need nationalism, although of a different strain - the civic one.
Мировой политический сезон 2018-2019 завершился в атмосфере какого-то обреченного безумия, с трагедиями, превращающимися в фарс в соответствии с банальным афоризмом Гегеля. Но атмосфера фарса заставляет всех опасаться, что ситуация может выйти из-под контроля по самым тривиальным причинам.
Society is ready for new national interests to appear that will pave the way for effective and long-term policies “for all.” Now the situation hinges on those who will formulate them correctly.
This article examines the impact of the crisis in Russia-EU relations on the European Union’s articulation of the resilience concept and analyzes how its incorporation into the EU foreign policy strategy has affected the BrusselsMoscow relationship. Academic concepts of resilience and constructivism provided the theoretical basis for the research. The study of academic works made it possible to identify basic characteristics of resilience. This is an analytical (not regulatory) attribute of any system, and it is focused on the resources needed to overcome threats rather than on threats as such, with both threats and resources being inherent in the system. The study of the European Union’s discourse shows that it has adopted a different interpretation of resilience as a new norm (ascribed to democratic regimes only), with emphasis on threats rather than resources. These differences were caused, among other things, by the ongoing crisis in relations between the EU and Russia. Resilience as a new norm allows the EU to emphasize Russia’s “otherness” and thus assert its own identity as a normative leader. The focus on threats sets out a clear action plan for fighting threats associated with Russia. In Eastern Europe, resilience based on common threats emanating from Russia reinforces the EU’s approach towards transformations launched in these countries earlier. So, despite its theoretical potential, resilience, as construed by the European Union, does not allow Russia and the EU to overcome the current crisis in their relations. © 2019, Foreign Policy Research Foundation. All rights reserved.
For Russia, the question now is not how it will deal with China in the future, but how threatening Beijing’s confrontation with the United States is for its survival right now. If Russia assesses its neighbour’s confrontation with the United States as a systemic one, the task of breaking this Western adversary looks paramount for the survival of the country and its political system. So paramount, that it will be necessary to think about how to arrange relations with China, should it theoretically win a new Cold War.
The Russian version of the multiculturalism policy is older and more complex in terms of its consequences than the European one. Multiculturalism as a form of promoting group and communal identity was an integral part of Stalin’s policy of creating ethnic republics, as well as ethnic areas and regions.
На фоне того, как геоэкономическая мощь все больше смещается с Запада на Восток, экономический национализм становится стратегией развития поднимающихся государств, позволяя им изменить неблагоприятную асимметрию взаимозависимости в свою пользу