Jacques Mistral is head of Economic Studies at the Institute Française de Relations Internationales (IFRI) in Paris.
As a brief caveat, it is difficult to pretend that there is a "national" view of the results of the meeting. The skepticism regarding any attempt to make the system work "better" is widespread in France and not only within the (extreme) left: Le Monde diplomatique, for one, trumpets on its first page, "Patches to rescue the Financial Titanic." In this context, it is remarkable that the results of the London meeting are generally taken seriously and positively. Criticizing the traditional G7 and pleading for "global governance" really are at the core of the most traditional French positions so that even left-wing websites - like Rue 89, for example - describe the two meetings of the G 20 and of NATO as reflecting the emergence of "a new world." Consequently, there is ample curiosity to decipher this "new world" and its "ambiguities." This said, the main arguments can tentatively be summarized as follows.
Economic Interests
The G20 meeting is commonly seen as a success because it lays out "new rules for global capitalism." Due to President Sarkozy's emphatic threat "to leave an empty chair at the dinner" if his proposals were not followed, his personal satisfaction after the meeting is (naively?) considered as sufficient proof that the conclusions are real stuff: credit is in particular given to the reinforcement of the IMF, to the publication of the tax-havens list (which was goal #1 for Sarkozy), to a program described as (relatively) heavy regulation (hedge funds, remunerations, ratings agencies) even if some doubts arise when commenting on the exact content of these intentions. Angel Gurria, head of the Paris-based OECD, has, for example, been interviewed to confirm that "the one who from now on wants to smuggle has no more place to hide," but it is also noticed that this list has existed for 10 years without much effect.
The size of the stimulus is naturally mentioned but does not attract much attention, that was not a French priority and even the big number does not stimulate imagination or debate. The commitment to avoid protectionist measures is taken as good sense even if received with question marks regarding what we will see during the coming months. There are, finally, a few attempts to connect the London rhetoric and measures with expected efforts to "moralize" capitalism (another Sarkozy theme in the autumn). The absence of any reference to the future of the international monetary system is considered as a weakness and the issue should be put on the table in the future.
Politic Interests
The foregoing suggests that the French media have chosen to closely link the results of the meeting to the personal action of the president; he is, in effect, credited for what he has himself emphatically described as "progresses without precedent." This positive impression is possibly reinforced by a purely French argument: the leaders of the major international institutional institutions are described as "back on the saddle": it happens that Straus Kahn, Lamy and Trichet are French. The other prominent political conclusion of the media is that the "Franco-German" couple is back: the image of a well-coordinated preparation of the meeting and the insistence to adopt new rules and regulations; the common willingness "to resist the Anglo-Saxon temptations of doing nothing," had been meticulously orchestrated for weeks so that the results are seen as a logical result of these efforts; and pictures of the two leaders, Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, are displayed in every paper as proof of their shared positions and coordinated pressures. Both leaders are also frequently credited for succeeding in "resisting new stimulus expenditures," which can be considered as an unconventional position for France!
Geopolitics
This is probably the issue which really reveals a new state of the world; if anything, the meeting is portrayed as the irruption of China as a first-rank actor on the world scene. China is portrayed as playing its hand firmly, as never before, but also with a sufficient flexibility; the Chinese are understood as having a strong interest in the future of an open world trade and they are credited for their movement regarding the publication of the tax-havens list which they initially strongly resisted. The exact role of the US in the London meeting is not clearly assessed, but Barack Obama's presence alone is another proof that the new world has arrived, an impression which has been reinforced by his following step in Strasbourg and Kehl; a huge meeting with 400,000 young French and German students is another demonstration that Obama really is "Obama the European" (headline of the Journal du dimanche). Other commentators note that, briefly said, America and China have been at the centre of the G20 and that the silence of the European Union speaks volumes ("but who noticed anything about Mr. Barroso?"), so that the question reads: could we possibly have witnessed the first G2?
Global Governance
All this being said, the general impression is that this meeting appropriately reflected the urgent need for international cooperation. The low profile of questions related to Africa or development is considered with regret but without long developments; American shyness regarding climate change raises sharper questions; the leaders' commitment to meet again and survey the results in the autumn is positively received (surprisingly, I have seen no comment underlining the fact that - due to successive unintentional events - these meetings are held under Anglo-Saxon chairmanship); and not much to read as of now about the institutional future of the G20 and the global architecture.
Paris