In dark times, as storm clouds gather over Syria and nations
align themselves on either side of the conflict (or fall
by the wayside), global leaders have gathered in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to discuss
... the global taxation of multinational corporations? The deleterious effects of
the potential tapering of the U.S. Federal Reserve's quantitative easing
policy?
This seems a bit absurd. Far be it from me to decry a good
conversation about the global economy, but the microeconomic concept of
opportunity cost comes into play here. Is this a good use of President Obama's
time?
Consider some of the reasons one might support attendance:
1. A consequential
agenda. Issues such as international taxation, monetary coordination, and
global growth are important. They are discussed at academic conferences all the
time. The question is whether much more will be achieved by having world
leaders around the table. I addressed
the question of the G-20's ineffectual efforts on growth not long ago.
On monetary coordination, developing nations such as India,
Indonesia, Brazil, and South Africa are rightly concerned
about their plunging currencies, as money rushes out of emerging markets and
back toward the developed world. It would aid them in their efforts if the
major developed-world central banks were to loosen their monetary policy (cut
rates, postpone tapering). But they won't. The major central banks appear
singularly focused on their domestic mandates. In the United States, given the
independence of the Federal Reserve, there's not even much Barack Obama could
do about tapering, even if he were so inclined, at least until he appoints
Chairman Ben Bernanke's successor.
Nor does global tax coordination seem much more promising.
In the United States, talk of tax reform has foundered
on questions of what will happen with the revenue. It also waits far back in
line, behind a full
agenda before the U.S. Congress. The marginal impact of a G-20 communiqué
on the debate is likely to be near zero. The economic agenda does not seem to
demand the president's presence.
2. Respect for
multilateral institutions. Until the last couple of weeks, this would have
seemed a serious argument. In the context of Syria's use of chemical weapons,
however, the administration has taken a decidedly pragmatic, rather than
dutiful, approach to the United Nations. If Russia is sure to veto a Security
Council resolution condemning Syria, why even bother? That makes a certain
degree of sense, but why should such pragmatism not extend to the G-20? What
will it really accomplish along these lines? In each case, if there is no cost
to observing diplomatic niceties, then we should clearly do so. But what if the
cost is high?
3. Basic manners.
Given that the Russians were so nice as to invite us, it would be rude to
decline at the last minute.
Just kidding.
4. It's all about
Syria anyway. Even though the G-20 agenda may nominally be filled with
economic topics, the gathering still provides an opportunity to coordinate with
other leaders on the Middle East.
The problem with this argument is that there seems little
room for further progress along these lines. Obama will not be holding
bilateral discussions with either British Prime Minister David Cameron or
Russian President Vladimir Putin. The French were already aligned. China warned
that a strike against Syria would harm the global economy -- unhelpful to the U.S.
president's cause, but at least bringing the discussion back to the nominal
purpose of the gathering.
More FP Coverage SYRIA'S CIVIL WAR
Keep Us in the Loop
Just Show It
Waiting for the Tomahawks
At best, Obama may leave the G-20 unscathed on the topic of
Syria. At worst, he could be bruised by one of Putin's throws.
So what is the opportunity cost of the president's G-20
attendance? He is not home, persuading a skeptical public to back his plans for
Syria. Shadow Government's Peter
Feaver has repeatedly
stressed the importance of civilian leaders building public support for a war
effort. In a recent Pew poll,
public opinion ran strongly against Syrian airstrikes, with 48 percent opposed
and 29 percent in support (with 23 percent uncertain). The strongest opposition
came from Democrats and independents, with Republicans less opposed.
For all the abuse it takes, Congress is usually responsive
to the constituents its members represent. Early vote tallies signal
problems in the House. The House leadership has offered the president support,
but a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner stated:
"All votes authorizing the use of military force are conscience votes for
members, and passage will require direct, continuous engagement from the White
House."
The impending congressional vote on authorizing the use of
force against Syria has enormous implications for both U.S. standing in the
world and the remainder of this president's term. While Vice President Joe Biden
and other aides can lobby lawmakers this week, it will be a difficult sell in
the face of deep public skepticism. Obama is uniquely positioned to win over
the public through persistent, reasoned argument. Except he's in Russia.