The most radical suggestion to emerge from this week's Kananaskis summit spectacular came not from rowdy street demonstrations, but from (of all people) French president Jacques Chirac. He suggested the next G8 meeting be held via video-conference.
A practical people, the French. An excellent idea, too, if the goal is to save money--or to redirect the millions spent on summit-related security toward famine relief, or universal primary education, or any of a hundred other worthy goals outlined by protesters this week. (As if.)
Experienced diplomats will object, of course; it is their job to object. They will argue that summits, like the G8, are necessary prods to useful action, to co-operation among the most powerful nations. Without a deadline, without the promise of a photo op against a magnificent backdrop in the company of other powerful men, goes this line, the world's most powerful leaders would retreat into self-interest. (Retreat?)
It is hard to argue against personal relationships, regular meetings, the sort of intimate dialogue that builds trusts among nations and countries. If these meetings are kept small -- no spouses, no officials, no media and definitely no protesters -- they should be even more effective. That, at least, was Jean Chrétien's reasoning and the Kananaskis meeting was a test of no-frills summitry.
Nice try, prime minister, but Kananaskis only confirms that summitry never trumps self-interest, no matter what the format. The centrepiece of Chrétien's agenda was a new plan for Africa, which (let's concede this for the moment) sprang from the prime minister's desire to do good in the world as much as from his need to make an international splash to enhance his legacy and rebuild much-needed respect at home. (Take that, Paul Martin!)But what emerged last night was another list of good intentions and vague promises.
The Africa deal was called "an historic turning point" by some leaders, "a new departure" (as opposed to an old one, presumably) by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and, elsewhere, a "new partnership offering a new beginning and fresh hope" for Africans. But there wasn't much detail: Africa will get more aid, maybe, but only those countries that behave. And the Africans will decide themselves who is worthy. That simplifies the deal, but also says it all. In fact, apart from the handful of enthusiasts -- mostly, it seems, Chrétien cabinet ministers -- all the happy talk about the Africa plan was highly conditional. Blair heralded the agreement as the beginning of a new relationship between Africa and the developed world "if we follow through in the way we should." The African leaders who were special guests used the word "if" a lot, too. Ask yourself: Would you accept these sort of assurances from someone trying to sell you a car?
The other myth that Kananaskis put to rest is that these summits are collegial affairs, if not exactly a meeting among equals, an encounter when quality of presentation and intensity of passion can make an impact. Small economies (which is how worth is measured in this club) can, with brilliant leadership, punch above their weight.
It took George W. Bush less than a minute to demolish this quaint fantasy. The American president arrived in Alberta with his new plan on the Middle East, his nuclear disarmament pact with Russia, and his cranky disinterest in anything the prime minister, or Europe (shudder), might consider important. Bush just isn't a summit sort of guy; he gives the impression that he has better things to do than hang out with a bunch of poseurs and whiners and linguistic show-offs.
Of course, an enormous amount of time and money has been spent, especially by Canada, to convince everyone that Kananaskis was significant. The media have invested heavily, too. You cannot have that many reporters, in that grand a setting, without having news. The news doesn't have to be meaningful, or new, or even very interesting -- but there will be news. Oddly, it will have nothing to do with the forest fires burning in the U.S., the many other signs that climate is changing and world's most powerful need to take notice.
In their own way, the protesters gave the event more importance than it deserves, too. Although, even they are losing their audience, if not their intensity. Yesterday's march on Parliament Hill attracted a couple thousand people, true. But next week's gay pride march in Toronto is expected to draw a million. How come?
So, wither summitry after Kananaskis? Who knows, but Chirac suggested a second welcome reform this week: He refused to put on one of those stupid white hats.
Susan Riley writes Monday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail: sriley@thecitizen.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.