The G-20: A President in Search of a Kingdom

September 3rd, 2016
 

In the summer of 1191, the army of Richard the Lion-hearted captured the city of Acre, then moved on towards Jaffa, prepatory to assaulting Jerusalem. But things weren’t going smoothly for Richard and on June 28^th he sent a message to Salahdin, asking to meet and negotiate a settlement. The two never met, though Richard did meet with Salahdin’s brother Sayf ad Din. It was, arguably, the first attempt at a great power summit in modern history.

Like many summits, little was accomplished. However, that hasn’t diminished the appetite many leaders – kings and presidents – have for such meetings.

Beginning on the 3^rd, the leading politicians of the world are meeting in Hangzhou, China, part of a complex, and often confusing, series of institutionalized summits: the G-7, G-8, G-20, etc. The numbers change, but the agenda remains the same: the titular leaders of various nations get together and act, well, not exactly presidential. More accurately, they act imperially, much like Richard and Salahdin.

The first G-7 meeting was held in 1974, when the presidents and prime ministers of Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US met to discuss what might be done about the oil crisis. Following the discussions nothing was done that actually addressed the oil crisis – such as producing more oil. Economies weren’t fixed, oil wasn’t produced, and no alternatives were generated.

More summits followed. Such is one of the legacies of summits.

From the G-7 sprang the G-8: Russia was added. And then came the G-20 in 1999.

At these various summits they’ve met, and they’ve talked. They’ve cancelled a number of debts from developing nations, and they’ve pontificated on how to fine-tune short-term economic actions by their governments. There were a number of meetings in the 2008 – 2010 timeframe that addressed the global recession. The global recession more or less churned on and the actions recommended by global leadership accomplished little, except perhaps slowing the recovery. But that didn’t slow the appetite for these meetings.

 

But there’s another piece to these meetings, what has percolated out of these various summits, something that’s become more prevalent in the last 5 or 6 years: the announcement of various agreements. Some mean very little; at the G-20 summit last November, world leaders announced they were united against terrorism. (I thought they’d announced that in September of 2001.)

 

But yesterday President Obama announced – as he arrived for the meetings – that the US would, according to multiple news sources, ‘ratify’ the Paris Agreement on Global Warming. He then turned over documents to the UN General Secretary as to exactly how the US would comply.

There is, however, one small problem: the President doesn’t ratify treaties, the Senate does. Per the Constitution, Article II, Section 2: the president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” 

The President asserts that it isn’t a treaty. So, the Senate doesn’t need to approve it. But despite what the President says, the ‘agreement’ binds the nation, under terms of international law. Call it what you will – a rose by any other name – it’s a treaty, detailing what steps each nation will take to reduce various emissions, and how much money each nation must pay into a global clean-up fund.

 

We may argue about what causes climate change, and we may argue about what’s the best course of action to limit change. But the specifics of the Constitution are clear: the President is the executor of the nation’s laws, he doesn’t create them. Yet this is exactly what happens at these summits: the President meets with senior figures of other governments, they talk, they reach some sort of understanding, and then believe that, because they’ve reached an understanding, that our nations are bound by that understanding. That is called imperialism.

The G-20 is another opportunity for the President to act like a king. But the President has no authority to bind the nation to an agreement with another nation. Such an agreement is called a treaty. And that power rests very specifically with the Senate. It’s time we turn a jaundiced eye towards these summits and demand thorough oversight by Congress.