It was splendid isolation. The beauty and remoteness of Kananaskis explains why the G8 leaders seem to have enjoyed their summit experience. With the woods full of bears and security forces, protesters couldn't get anywhere near the mountain resort where the leaders met.
The annoying gaggle of journalists - more than 2,500 of them - was kept safely at bay in Calgary, 80 kilometres away, where there was nothing to write about except the impromptu soccer games played by protesters.
So the summit unfolded free of trouble - although the agenda was upstaged by breaking news on the Middle East and the latest corporate scandal in the U.S. stock market.
Still, after the Battle of Quebec last year and the shooting of a protester at the G8 meeting in Genoa last June, the summit was a step forward.
Jean Chrétien was praised by his guests for the choice of Kananaskis but the real credit goes to protesters and police. The overwhelming majority of activists who showed up in Calgary and Ottawa were determined to avoid violence. And police kept their cool; they appear to have learned a thing or two about avoiding provocation.
For example, Ottawa police turned up at what one house occupied by protesters and distributed a peace offering - rainbow coloured Hacky Sacks . Better to kick around a sack than a cop in riot gear.
In Calgary, the riot squad wisely kept out of sight while local police in short pants patrolled the streets on bicycles and kept traffic moving.
All this shows that conflict resolution really does work if there's a bit of respect on both sides.
Still, the cost of this two-day photo opportunity was obscene: more than $300 million was spent on security. And for what? The world's leaders laboured mightily and produced a communiqu? full of the usual diplomatic platitudes.
The prime minister's pet initiative - an African development plan - got only half-hearted approval. Some $6 billion U.S. in aid is supposed to be directed to Africa but the commitment from the G8 leaders is less than ironclad.
Nothing was done to stop the disastrous spread of agricultural subsidies, which distort trade and depress the price of farm products.
True, useful agreements were reached on combatting terrorism and safeguarding old stockpiles of nuclear and chemical materials. But the meagre results of this summit hardly justify the expense. Better to spend the entire $300 million on African debt relief or AIDS programs.
Somehow, the image of the world's leaders treating themselves to an expensive getaway in a mountain resort just doesn't cut it while folks in sub-Saharan Africa struggle to get by on less than a dollar a day.
Sure, in the post-Sept. 11 era, it's necessary to take elaborate, costly measures to protect gatherings of world leaders. The question is whether we really need these summits in the first place.
If the goal is to build personal rapport, surely that can be accomplished just as well when George Bush visits 10 Downing St. or when Chr?tien goes to the White House.
There are good reasons why the world's leading nations should co-operate on the economy, security, the environment. But there are plenty of officials around who can do that kind of detailed work.
The trouble with summits is that they generate expectations. Put eight leaders in a room for two days and the world expects solutions to the Middle East conflict and global economic prosperity for all.
Is there a future for these gatherings? One of the most interesting comments this week came from French President Jacques Chirac, host of next year's summit. He mused publicly about the use of videoconferencing in the future. "It seems to me we should go in that direction," he said.
Whether world leaders would speak as frankly on a video link as they now do in person is debatable. But video conferencing might be worth a try if it can spare the awful waste we saw in Kananaskis.
If not, we'll have to find ways to make the whole exercise simpler, cheaper and more credible.
- Peter Hadekel's E-mail address is phadekel@thegazette.southam.ca.
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.