While previous G8 summits have been criticized in the press -- most recently Okinawa, for example, for the expenditure of $750-million on facilities -- the decibel level rose significantly after Genoa. This had little to do with the protests and the violence, but with the institution itself. The Financial Times was especially scathing with a lead editorial For Slimmer and Sporadic Summits (July 23, 2001). It argued that "judged on the record of Genoa, delegates from G8 governments should pack their bags knowing this was the last summit they will have to endure." The editorial concluded with a positive comment on the Canadian decision to scale back and hold the meeting in a "tiny Rocky Mountains resort," but asserted that this was insufficient. What was also required was a "commitment to hold the next G8 only when there is a burning topic to discuss." Just how and who would make such a decision was not explained. Still the message was clear -- and not only from this source -- that there is a need to recognize "the limits of global summits and making them work." Few could disagree.
The centrepiece of the Kananaskis summit, as announced by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in a speech to the World Economic Forum, will be to reduce the marginalization of Africa by working with the New Partnership for Africa's Development or Nepad. An African Action Plan is being prepared, by personal representatives of G8 leaders and African officials, for adoption at Kananaskis. It will address a wide range of issues including peace and security; health, education, trade and investment, all essential to development and the reduction of poverty. The Prime Minister stressed the importance of Canadian values of caring and compassion and belief in an "equitable sharing of global prosperity and opportunity." There was no mention of the costs involved in implementing the African Action Plan.
Dealing with African marginalization is both praiseworthy and essential to the achievement of comprehensive global security. The subject reflects the shift over the past several years to global issues with a strong moral resonance, in part a response to a media that favours the emotive over the intellectual and the NGOs who seem to have captured the moral high ground on subjects such as AIDS and debt relief. Be that as it may, the need for a comprehensive and coherent strategy for Africa devised in partnership with the African countries is clearly an appropriate subject for the G7.
But there's a problem. There's no agreement at present among the G7 on financing. Au contraire. While British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been campaigning for a new Marshall Plan for Africa, the United States has clearly indicated that its aid budget will be only marginally increased (despite the announcement for Monterrey) and at the G8 meeting with Nepad in mid-February it was announced that the G8 countries were unable "to meet African expectations for -- financial support." One can debate whether aid has been effective -- the U.S. Treasury Secretary argues that in the past much of it was wasted -- and one can also disagree on what a development strategy for individual countries should include, since there's considerable disagreement among experts. But it's hard to believe that more financial assistance will not be crucial. And if the United States won't play the game will others go ahead anyway?
Differences between the United States and other members of the G8 go well beyond aid financing. If the Cold War was often described as the glue that binds, the "new war" looks likely to become the acid that erodes. The transatlantic rift over the next stage of the war -- specifically the implications of U.S. policies with respect to the "axis of evil" -- will not be easily resolved, to put it mildly. But it is not just the charges made by some leading Europeans that the United States is becoming unilateralist and treating coalition partners like "satellites." As a number of military experts have noted, the U.S. is far ahead in military capabilities, and poised to grow even more, so that the disparity will widen. So NATO is just not needed to fight "new wars" and will have to find another role for itself. This will take some time, of course, and there is by no means a unanimity of view among the European members.
As Paul Kennedy has noted recently, in military terms there is only one player. And the same is at present also true in economic terms. And the disparity of power in both is likely to grow for the foreseeable future. There is no catch-up on the horizon which will create a convergence club. This is hegemony big time.
So what has all this got to do with summit reform? The summit was created by middle powers at a time when the hegemon was -- or appeared to be -- in decline. The Cold War prevailed. But the catalyst that sparked the change was crisis -- the breakdown of Bretton Woods and the onset of OPEC One.
I would argue that there is a different kind of crisis facing the G8 today. The widening transatlantic divide on both security and other issues and the concern of most other countries in the globe about alleged U.S. unilateralism could well represent a serious threat to global stability. The summit is the only forum that could deal with the complex global issues that have and will arise in this world of deepening integration and uncertainty. But the credibility of the summit has steadily diminished -- and given the centrepiece of Africa at Kananaskis it's difficult to be hopeful about the outcome (even without considering Zimbabwe!). The negative feedback cycles will continue. Thus the need to severely cut back on the agenda; to establish credible and transparent follow-up mechanisms; to re-examine the structure and role of the G8 in the architecture of international governance has become even more urgent. Surely it would be possible for a middle power to propose that a key agenda item for the next summit should be the reform of summitry? Other G8 members would likely agree and even the hegemon is unlikely to object in principle but will wait until the drafting of the report begins. Then peer group pressure might be exercised. Even hegemons are susceptible to growing negative publicity about arrogance.
Sylvia Ostry is distinguished research fellow at the Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto. This is an excerpt of her O.D. Skelton Memorial Lecture at Queen's University.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.