The G8 is taking a long, hard look at itself — and not before time. The meetings have been held every year since 1975 and real — as opposed to synthetic — triumphs have been few and far between. Cologne in 1999 was the last time a G8 encounter delivered, and that was because the city was invaded by tens of thousands of campaigners demanding that Western leaders deliver debt relief.
Since the violence at the Genoa summit in July 2001 and the events of September 11, however, the meetings have taken place in remote locations behind a total security screen.
The Canadians held the 2002 summit deep in the Rockies, this year’s was held on a spit of land off the coast of Georgia and next year, when Britain hosts, the gang will be showing up at Gleneagles, in the Scottish highlands.
The plan is simple: choose as remote a location as possible, throw a ring of steel around the leaders of the West, seek to convince a rightly sceptical public that you have solved the world’s problems in 48 hours of chin-wagging, and hope that nobody holds you to account when you meet again in a year’s time.
To be fair, this year’s G8 was more focused. Both United States President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are in trouble at home, both face elections and both know a couple of days strutting the global stage is what the spin doctor ordered.
The Americans adopted a business-like approach, concentrating on a small number of issues, such as trade and HIV/Aids, rather than the usual canter round every global issue from Ukrainian nuclear decommissioning to providing clean water in Africa.
The intended centrepiece of the summit, however, was Bush’s greater Middle East initiative, and there the lack of real achievement highlighted the intrinsic weaknesses of the G8 framework. The exclusivity of the club means non-members bridle when lectured by the rich and powerful. Arab feathers were ruffled by the clumsiness of Bush’s initiative, which looked like an attempt to foist American values on the region.
Moreover, the G8 convoy can only move at the speed of its slowest ship. The need to bring everyone along means the gap between the analysis and action is agonisingly slow. It is a fact of life that Blair can give the Bank of England independence within five days of coming to power, yet can spend five years banging his head against a wall over debt relief.
Although the most pressing problems today are global problems, the international policymaking framework is weak. Some subjects on which the G8 could and should take a lead — climate change, for example — are never mentioned because it would expose too many rifts.
So what’s to be done as the G8 approaches its 30th birthday? Bush’s conclusion that less is more is the right one. It is naive to believe the G8 can solve all the world’s problems. Blair wants to use next year’s summit to deliver on development and Africa, but he will fail if he lets the meeting be sidetracked.
He might also like to import some of his own Labour Party’s passion for targets. Summit communiques are toothless, hold nobody to account and are instantly forgotten.
Setting definable, ambitious goals would raise the risk of the G8 being seen to fail, but it would also improve its chances of succeeding.
Finally, a long, hard look at the summit’s membership is long overdue. The world has changed since the mid-1970s, and if the G8 was being created today it would include China, India and perhaps Brazil. Canada and Italy would struggle for admission, which is why Paul Martin and Silvio Berlusconi are keen on expanding the G8 to a G20. That would be disastrous: eight is more than enough. — Â