Written by Fransisca Octaviani Panjaitan

Universitas Gadjah Mada

The euphoria within Indonesia has been high for the past few months – and most likely within coming months, too – over the G20 Presidency of Indonesia set to launch the conference within late 2022. Banners and planes decorated with the G20 logo on their tails have been gliding throughout Indonesian skies, chanting “Recover Together, Recover Stronger” within its path. It hopes that it echoes the will of not leaving anyone behind throughout the entirety of the way to recovery after COVID-19 (Isyunanda, 2021). Several scholars have called upon how this would be a significant turning point, domestically and internationally, to have the world come together to mitigate and restabilize the world economy (Swajaya, 2022). Such confidence may stem from how the G20 has been said to handle the 2008 crisis very well, being able to overcome the losses during the time (Eccleston et al., 2013). However, the reality of the G20 and the way it navigates through hegemony and global governance may tell a different story. This essay, therefore, aims to uncover these possibilities in the light of social constructivism.

            The creation of the G20 emerged in 1999 as part of an effort to overcome the economic and financial crisis that was ongoing during the time; however, soon, the conference became part of a more unofficial but prominent working group within today's economy (Kirchner, 2016). While a lot of the trenches in which the G20 emerged were rather much remorse from the failure of the G7 or G8 from being unable to provide concrete solutions to the world's problems. It is hoped that the mixture of developed and developing countries is expected to be able to represent and balance out the issue at hand.

            A large part of the skepticism that the G7 experienced stemmed from the way that, despite resolutions that have been drafted out, it can be seen that compliance still becomes rather crucial within the conduct of things. This is seen from the way that the G7 and their existence have not been the best within the actualization of the agreements made within the forum and the practice of things at the end of the day. Within an analysis done by Kirchner (2016), the G7 and G8, while improvements happen within the world economy, the reality of these changes to be done by these resolutions are very much not correlated.

            Supposed the G20 was a force hoped to be the one stirring recovery within the entirety of the economic problems within the world in an attempt to conjoin the different states from different parts of the hegemonic structure to come up with new ways to counter issues within the world. In this sense, there is a relatively strong expectation that these states would cooperate within these circumstances and create new strides to create changes further. Liberalism seems to play a vital role in how these foundations and mindsets were built upon. There is a strong pre-assumption that within the anarchic world, there is an interdependence upon states within their existence (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). Therefore at the very end of the day, they would end up cooperating. Supposed the G20 was built as a way to make such thoughts a reality; however, evidence has shown otherwise, that at the end of the day, the situation is somewhat different than expected. The problem that has been reoccurring within G7's resolutions and its actualization has also constantly come up within the G20, where it is deemed that despite the high stake goals the forum always comes up with, the results are not reflecting the same spirit (Couper & Pouliot, 2015).

            What should also be noted is how actors involved in the G20 are always rather dynamic within its boundaries. While there may be interest to cooperate, what must be understood is that such interest may not be of genuine interest or if the intention to cooperate is upon a similar issue or aspect at the end of the day. In this case, it also must be understood that the existence of hegemonies further jeopardizes the cooperation between these states (Couper & Pouliot, 2015). When those within elite seats have interests, their interests will most likely be the ones most catered to. Skepticism of the G20 then rises further through this, as a big part of why the G20 came to be in itself was due to the initiatives of the G7, whose interests are unable to be pursued without developing third world countries at the very end of the day. Therefore, while most may say that cooperation within the G20 can be vital in transforming the Global South and even a piece of evidence that the Global South has been changing the area (Clark, 2011), the actual evidence says otherwise. It must be noted that when talking about interest, we come to the intersubjectivity of the issue in which every state and actor may think differently.

            Therefore, this is why social constructivism can give a much-needed explanation to the existence of the G20 in itself. While the G20 may be a cooperative effort, it may be much more imminent as a conference of agendas, where each nation may settle upon several different conclusions. In contrast, the discussions within these nations do work out or not. Compared to other explanations of the G20 situation, which include the liberalist cooperative assumptions or the post-colonial efforts of the Global South within the G20, social constructivism provides a broader arena of analysis. Social constructivism looks at how institutions, actors, and structures are established under identities and subjectivities forged under multiple contextual events within these layers of actors (Viotti & Kauppi, 2012). These elements become essential in an ever-globalized world where when dealing with international and intersectional issues, the variables that come into play are not simply state leaders and their representatives but also the multi-layered international actors between these lines, the individual and relationships that were forged. Such explanations of the way that the Global South's past and history can intertwine into the agenda and why their interest is the way it is, or why the Global Elites are basing their statements upon certain things may be referred to as incidents in the past such as the Cold War or maybe domestic affairs such as the current president running.

            Social constructivism defines the existence of global governance efforts such as the G20 under the understanding of how social dynamics such as norms and cultures may impact the states and how they act (Ba & Hoffmann, 2006). Supposedly, this may be a crucial key in understanding how compliance and further acts beyond the forum itself may constantly reside within those involved in the G20. In attempting to dwell upon the intersubjectivity of these nation-states, one allows an approach to a resolution that may stick along their agendas much longer and do not simply become a passing wind.

            This is especially prominent within Indonesia's presidency aim within the G20 Summit, which is aiming for a " stronger together " recovery that requires multiple actors' involvement. In order to not repeat the past failures, the G20 must focus more on understanding each other and everyone involved rather than depending on an already established cooperation understanding. Failure to understand how each actor may react and act may result in a repetitive cycle that has been a part of the G20, which are resolutions whose goals are not met due to the way that the nations involved do not comply – which in turn would make Indonesia lose its given momentum as the current president. Therefore, a strategic move at the very end of the day is constantly making moves within understanding how to conjoin these relationships and understandings to comply and come together within recovery.

While Indonesia heavily emphasizes solidarity within these challenging times, the reality of an intersubjective and contrasting worldview is part of something that will constantly haunt the efforts to collaborate aimed by these nations that are of the 'chosen' 20. The reality is that to instill global governance and combine these sets of interests to achieve these ambitious goals set within Indonesia's presidency; there needs to be a better understanding of the actors at hand. In this case, rather than constantly assuming that cooperation and interdependency will always happen, it would be much wiser for leaders to understand the contexts and subjectivity behind every interaction they encounter within the conference. The key to unlocking recovery does not lie within assuming that it would happen, but rather an effort to understand the complexities behind the situation, the dynamics, and changes, as well as the basis that each stands on, in order to find a way to unite all these diverse understandings towards a strong united recovery.

References

Ba, A., & Hoffmann, M. (2006). Contending Perspectives on Global Governance. Taylor and Francis.

CLARK, M. (2011). Indonesia's Postcolonial Regional Imaginary: From a ‘Neutralist’ to an ‘All-Directions’ Foreign Policy. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 287-304. doi:10.1017/S1468109911000089

Cooper, A. F., & Pouliot, V. (2015). How much is global governance changing? The G20 as international practice. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715576007

Eccleston, R., Kellow, A., & Carroll, P. (2013). G20 Endorsement in Post Crisis Global Governance: More Than a Toothless Talking Shop?. The British Journal Of Politics And International Relations, 17(2), 298-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856x.12034

Isyunanda, K. (2021). Indonesia’s G20 presidency and global macro collectivity. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 17 June 2022, from https://www.thejakartapost.com/paper/2021/09/19/indonesias-g20-presidency-and-global-macro-collectivity.html.

Kirchner, S. (2016). The G20 and Global Governance. Cato Journal, (3). Retrieved 17 June 2022, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/catoj36&i=516.

SWAJAYA, H. (2022). OP-ED: Why Indonesia Should Not Fail G20 Presidency - Indiplomacy. Indiplomacy. Retrieved 17 June 2022, from https://indiplomacy.com/2022/05/18/op-ed-why-indonesia-should-not-fail-g20-presidency/.

Viotti, P., & Kauppi, M. (2012). International Relations Theory (5th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

Wade, R. H. (2011). Emerging World Order? From Multipolarity to Multilateralism in the G20, the           World Bank, and the IMF. Politics & Society, 39(3), 347–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329211415503

Gambar:

Hafidz Mubarak A/Antara Foto via https://kumparan.com/kumparanbisnis/presidensi-g20-indonesia-2022-tema-logo-pilar-dan-agenda-prioritasnya-1xeLaO40ZUL