New Issues, Insights and Inquiries: This second in a series of Soundings of public perceptions and perspectives on global leadership at summits as viewed through national press reports in capitals of a dozen G20 countries has revealed still more insights into the issues and now raises still more questions for further thought, observation, analysis, interpretation and exchange of views. These have to do with the fundamentals of the inquiry.
For example, Martin Albrow (UK) raised the issue about whether “leaders’…domestic political standing, their relations with each other and to the meeting rather than their stands on issues occupied press interest,” which are important. This then raises questions about role of the press in shaping public perceptions of leadership by what they choose to focus upon. Albrow suggest that “it is the meeting itself that is the event, the staged occasion rather than the substantive discussions which are simply episodes in the long running narratives … Press coverage suggests that the meetings are news for the light they throw on leaders rather than any leadership on issues.” His colleague, Olaf Corry, asserted that the NPGL inquiry itself highlights that “the very idea of public engagement in a summit of global leaders is a relatively new construct that in itself represents a sign of the creeping globalization of national politics.”
Pratap Mehta (India) pointed out the potential for determining “whether India’s international position (on climate change) should crowd out domestic discussion of India’s development path” and that for India, the possible “clubbing itself with China” on climate change has triggered “some recognition that India does need to think about the nature of its own development path and (that) following China may not be desirable.” This interface of domestic determinations with international issues, with the international debate forcing domestic introspections and reflections is a fascinating dynamic which works from outside in rather than the reverse which might have been thought to be the case. Peter Draper’s (South Africa) observations that South Africa’s lack of coverage by national journalists and the necessary reliance on foreign news feeds “not critically filtered from a South African perspective” implicitly questions whether a national public can be expected to have distinctive domestic perspectives if it does not have direct coverage by national journalists which provide uniquely indigenous perspectives on the issues, interests and individual actors involved that indeed are the connecting link between summits and domestic publics.
There are other fundamental issues raised in the country papers. Other authors and other readers of these papers are encouraged to identify other such issues for further reflection and discussion.
Global Leadership at the Italian G8: Given the foregoing comments on the role of the press, it is interesting to note that of the ten country papers in thus far (all but China and France from the first round of Soundings), four report low public attention: Argentina, which was not invited to the G8, South Africa, which had virtually no direct national news coverage from Italy, Turkey, where the worst first quarter growth rate since 1945 seized public attention, and the United Kingdom, where “public attention seems to be basically elsewhere.” Not surprisingly, leaders of these four countries were seen to have etched a low profile at L’Aquila, except for a foray by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan who “criticized Chinese authorities for their conduct in Xianjiang.” (Sekercioglu) The other six leaders did better in public perceptions of their leadership as reflected in the national press in Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Mexico and the United States. But this success relied less on press coverage than on already strong domestic political positions of leaders (Lula, Singh and Obama), on strong positions on issues (Merkel on the G20; Calderon as G5 coordinator; Harper on a “hat trick” of three issues — climate, stimulus and aid; Singh on trade; Obama on climate, non-proliferation, and aid to Africa; and Lula on Iran); and on interpersonal relationships, Lula and Obama taking centre stage both individually and together.
The G8, the G8 Plus 5/6, and the G20: The questions authors addressed in this round were concerned with the degree to which the broader agenda of the G8 with respect to the G20, the sequence of different configurations of countries and the relevance of the G8 might diminish and detract the trajectory toward summit reform and global leadership that has characterized the response to the economic crisis beginning with the first-ever G20 Summit in November 2008 and carried forward by the London Summit in April 2009. The overall conclusion seems to have been that the Italian G8 Summit served as a stepping stone forward toward the G20 Pittsburgh Summit in September and the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, despite the fact that no major shifts in substantive issues occurred at L’Aquila.
The most stunning revelation in these papers was the turnaround in the German position from one of explicit support for the G8 Plus 5 (the Heilengendam Process) to “unequivocal” support for the G20. First was German Chancellor Angela Merkel who, “in a parliamentary debate one week before the Italy summit … declared her unequivocal commitment to the G20 as (the) ‘overarching structure.’” Second was Social Democratic Party figure, Hans Eichel, who stated in parliament that “the G20 is the only format of the future, and nothing between G8 and G20.” And third was the German Council on Foreign Relations which Thomas Fues reports as saying “the time of G8 outreach is over; a new summit architecture has to be put in place” (Fues).
This echoes what Pratap Mehta found in India where “there is by and large (a) consensus that (the) G8 itself is an anachronism that has outlived its usefulness” and what Andres Rozental found in Mexico where “there seems to be a growing consensus that the G8 format by itself is no longer useful or valid.” The Mail and Guardian in South Africa deemed the G8 to be “a farce,” according to Peter Draper. Albrow cites The Times as saying that “real decision making power has shifted upwards from the G8 via the G13 to the G20.” The Daily Telegraph warned that “the challenge for the G8 Summit is for it to matter.” Denise Gregory found that in Brazil “President Lula prefers to strengthen and consolidate (the) G20 as the center for deliberations on economic and financial issues. The G20 has transformed into a high-level forum with heads of state and government replacing (the) G8.”
But our observers of the US, Mexico, South Africa and elsewhere found the matter of the composition of the summit to be “not cast in stone” and that a compromise would end up somewhere between the G8 Plus 5 and the G20. Andrew Cooper quotes Canadian Mrime Minister Stephen Harper, host of the G8 in 2010, as saying that he would aim to “try to find comfortable ground between the vintage eight-only G8” and the 40 plus found at L’Aquila. Cooper indicates that Harper would prefer “a couple of formats” for the G8 he will chair in 2010, much like the Italian G8 just completed. This may encounter hostility in several quarters, most probably in Brazil and South Africa, among others. An unknown in thinking ahead is the preference of China, which is less clear in fact, blurred by the absence of President HU Jintao at L’Aquila and by the absence, thus far, of a country paper in this round of Soundings. The political dynamics among the leaders and their interactions with their own publics will drive the continuing evolution of the composition and size of the summit grouping as the G8/ G20 sequence rolls forward toward 2010.
Other Issues: Dianna Tussie makes the point that public opinion in Argentina was not focused on the Italian G8 Summit because Argentina was an “outsider,” not invited to L’Aquila in any of the configurations as it had been to London and Washington as a member of the G20. One has to wonder, by extension, about the degree to which there is a lack of interest among both the press and the public in all the countries not included in the summits of whatever configuration and the impact that has on perceptions of global leadership throughout the world. If this is a general problem for successful global leadership, it would not appear to have easy answers.
In the first Soundings on the London G20 Summit, it was observed that leaders who engaged in multiple issues across a broad range seemed to do better in generating a higher profile at home than those who focused on a single issue, even though it was initially thought that a single issue focus might be more effective in conveying leadership. In this second round, there were some differences between countries on whether the public seemed more or less engaged in summit deliberations because of the broader agenda at L’Aquila. But on the whole, it seemed that the broader agenda did engage publics more than the narrower focus on the economic crisis in London in April even though that was the most pressing problem at the time. The broader agenda appears to attract a broader array of public interest groupings and to convey a stronger sense of addressing current challenges in the larger rather than the narrower, more technical problems of the global economy.