The remarkable thing about the recent G-8 Summit in L?Aquilla was that there weren?t many expectations from it. The international media could hardly find anything to write about by way of a curtain raiser. So they contented themselves by digging into Berlusconi?s bedroom secrets.
Then, even as the other leaders were preparing to fly into Italy, President Hu of China decided to head back home.
The ostensible reason for it was the soaring ethnic tensions in Xinjiang. But it seems extraordinary that he should have taken such a step in an age of instant communications. All the information that he needed about the developments in Xinjiang would have been as readily available to him in L?Aquila as in Beijing. Is it then possible that the decision to rush home was guided by other factors?
Could it be that he didn?t want the international press gathered at L?Aquila to have made it into a major human rights issue? Viewed in that light, his decision to abandon the summit seems to have been a smart tactical move.
But even if President Hu had attended the Summit, the result wouldn?t have been any different. The substance would have eluded the declaration of the Summit, just as it has now.
The host Berlusconi wanted the Summit to reflect hope and recovery, so he crowded it with four dozen leaders and international figures. Together with the G-8 leaders they represented 90% of the world economy.
Predictably, Barack Hussein Obama strode the Summit stage like a colossus. It is as much a tribute to his continuing charisma as to the fact that the US is still the sole super power. When Obama spoke the others listened, and when he commanded others followed.
Naturally, therefore, the tone and the pace at L?Aquilla were set by the US.
The US is largely responsible for the financial meltdown. Yet there wasn?t a hint of guilt, nor any attempt by the others to hold it accountable for the consequent miseries of the others. As Obama put it, the financial difficulties are the result of collective mistakes.
It was largely the same approach on the climate issue. And the path ahead is trickier still. The G-8 emphasis is to encourage the role of the private sector, and their unstated desire is to corner the clean technology market. So, in the garb of tackling climate change with new technology, they are pushing towards yet another form of trade colonialism. If the past precedents are any guide, they are likely to succeed, just as they did through Basel convention by which they have virtually ensured for themselves the reprocessing market.
When the Summit started, it was felt that in absence of any real issues, development and aid were going to be the big subjects. As it turned out, these were given the ritual lip service. That shouldn?t come as a surprise. After all, how many recall that at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005, the G-8 had declared: ?Make Poverty History.? The only thing that remains of it in abundance is poverty; history continues to smile sardonically as a new set of Summit leaders turn their attention elsewhere.
It is a pity that the countries which readily hand out billions to rectify the mistakes of their profligate banks and multinationals should fight shy of extending a helpful financial hand even on an issue like climate change, where they stand to gain the most eventually.
But a part of the blame lies with the developing world, too. It is either too rhetorical or too pliant in its approach. Its preparations for the negotiations are neither as comprehensive nor as united as those of the G-8. Had it been otherwise, we would not have been satisfied with clever phraseology.
In contrast, the G-8 seek to perpetuate their hold on issues of substance; be it international financial controls, the regulation of transfer of funds or the conduct of the international institutions themselves. The only area where they want change concerns the international bodies dealing with food, because their interest in the field demands it. For the rest, it?s largely a trap of verbiage. And if any concrete proof was needed, it is available in the fact that last year there was considerable talk that G-5 may soon receive an invitation to join the G-8. But rumours now suggest that the US has torpedoed the idea. Therein lies the biggest message for the developing world. The US and the rest of the G-8 are not going to give up their monopoly easily or early.
Moreover, if there is an illusion in some peoples? mind that G-20 is where the real meat lies, they would only be deluding themselves. The real beef would always be in the restricted and inner councils of the movers and shapers of this world.
For them, economic crisis, climate change, terrorism and the NPT are the principal focus. On most of these issues we will find ourselves sitting at the opposite side of the table. As a result, we would either be pressurised or told through subtle hints that with diametrically different views how do we expect to sup at the high table with them.
There is also the issue of presenting our case. Sadly, the Prime Minister has not been served well by his speech & statement writer. Writing in the Compendium brought out for the Summit by Italy, the Prime Minister mentions in the context of the reform of UN Security Council: ?Germany and Japan, which have significantly larger economies than Britain and France, both permanent members, are excluded.?
Now, in one stroke, the writer of this piece for the Prime Minister has scored multiple self-goals. Did it serve any diplomatic purpose to needle Britain and France? Moreover, has Japan ever supported us in a similar fashion? And what about making a case for India in as direct a fashion?
Some observers have drawn attention to the articles that have been issued in recent months under the name of Zardari. The writer, he has employed, is doing an excellent job of stylistic appeal, readability and cogent presentation of argument. No wonder they are being published by some prestigious newspapers around the world.
?The writer is a former Ambassador