Andrew F. Cooper is a distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation.
There is a pronounced split in the Canadian press between those that support the established structure of the G8 and those that promote change. This has a political dimension as those that support the established structure also show the most enthusiasm for the way that Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrated leadership at the L'Aquila Summit. Those who are critical of the G8 also are critical of the approach of the Harper government. Beyond partisanship, however, this split also reveals the extent of a larger debate about Canada's present and future role in the G8.
Public Engagement: Supporters and Critics
The top issues addressed at the L'Aquila Summit -- food security, African aid and climate change -- were well covered in the Canadian media, by supporters and detractors. There remains, however, a muddled picture of how the G8 can address these critical issues in place of other multilateral institutions. Credit is given to Canada for being part of the group of countries that pushed one of the few tangible commitments; a new US$15 billion initiative on food security, on which greater attention is placed on agricultural development, and the untying of Canadian food aid.
Canada, along with the US and Japan, are also credited with meeting, if not exceeding, its 2005 commitments to double aid to Africa. Prime Minister Harper showcased this issue as one that that confirmed the need for accountability: "Countries who have not been living up to their commitments are going to face increasing heat as we go forward." Nonetheless, these views were backed up by the celebrity diplomat, Bob Geldof, who stated that: "When the show rolls into your neck of the woods next year, there is a deep credibility with the leaders, and I think it's quite right that Harper should say. We've done it. Where is your stuff?" On the more critical side, NGOs expressed unease over the food security initiative. Robert Fox, the executive director of Oxfam Canada, calculates this initiative as another promise taken at a G8 that mixes "new" from "additional" monies, another case of double counting.
By way of contrast, the critics concentrated on Canada being out of step with most of its G8 partners on environmental issues. Inuit leader Mary Simon castigated the Harper government's poor performance on this issue, pointing to the manner by which Canada was being lectured to by other governments, most notably France. Reacting to this criticism, Prime Minister Harper argued that the targets on the reduction of greenhouse gases were "virtually identical to ours." However, environment minister Jim Prentice added that cast the targets as "aspirational" and "optimistic," industrialized countries could cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, relative to an unspecified baseline year.
Public Focus: Tacit Division of Labour
Far more muted were discussions on economic issues, whether stimulus should be unwound or an exit strategy implemented. Arguably the central issue for global governance, debate on the world economic recovery was shelved for future meetings, reflecting the general "wait-and-see" mood of L'Aquila. There was a consensus that these issues could wait, either to the Pittsburgh G20 in September 2009 or to the Muskoka G8 in June 2010. In this light, the public is left to presume that the G8 is retreating to strictly a political club, moving away from the economic/financial main game now assumed by the G20.
The supporters of the G8 in the Canadian media focus then on the role of the G8 in political and geostrategic issues. Presently, that involves sending a signal to the Iranian government on human rights abuses and on its aggressive nuclear program. This conformed to the sentiment of the Canadian government going into the summit that: "We obviously view the regime there as extremely dangerous, a serious threat, and [we're] hoping that the G8 leaders are going to come together to have a dialogue on the issue of Iran."
Prime Minister Harper's end of summit press conference offered the primary entry point for the Canadian public into the G8 process. There, he placed the emphasis on not over-promising but on delivering and that Canada will do a better job of hosting the G8 in 2010 - the Muskoka Summit - by going back to basics. The sentiment that the G8 be a forum of delivery not of over-promising came out forcefully. Acknowledgements that the summit process had a credibility gap, "sapping the G8's moral authority," the prime minister argued that the response should not be to abandon the G8, but to make it work more effectively. The problem, in his view, has stemmed from countries that "make commitments and...don't fulfill them."
G8 Relevance: Debating the Future of the Gs
Turning the debate from the specifics of the L'Aquila G8 to the future, the critics of the G8 found plenty of defects to jump on. In the lead up to the summit, Jeremy Kinsman, a former Canadian ambassador, wrote in a scathing article that the G8 was "a throwback to an era that has faded from the scene." Canada risked "running with the dinosaurs" by resisting the opening up of the process to emerging states.
In contradistinction to the G8 as "sideshow," David Crane argued that the real action would take place at the G20 in Pittsburgh, which "should be more disciplined and decisive and it is there that new regimes to manage international finance, coordinate the global economy and deal with the timing and strategies for exiting from the current stimulus programs will be negotiated." Extending this critique in the aftermath of the L'Aquila Summit, James Travers contended that the Muskoka Summit would be more of the same: "big, wordy and grotesquely expensive." Faced with the effective competition of the G20, which had the advantage of having a more balanced membership, the G8 is no longer the main event.
For the supporters of the established G8, however, the way forward was not a shift away, but closer attention to the core strengths of the summit process. What was needed was greater accountability and attention to core details. Leading into the summit, Canadian officials were seen as defending the credibility of the G8 as it exists. A top foreign policy advisor is quoted anon that there was a strong interest in "maintaining the G8 as sort of the core group of countries that can provide...leadership...and forceful leadership." In this vein, Norman Spector dubbed Prime Minister Harper's G8 performance as a "hat trick," providing personal and group leadership on climate, stimulus and international aid.
Global Leadership: Beyond the Substantive Debates
Given the intensity of the substantive debates around the G8, it is not surprising that the Canadian media also found time to extend the parameter of these debates. For the supporters of the G8, and Canada's role in the summit process, some time was taken to contrast Prime Minister Harper's style with that of the host, Silvio Berlusconi. Depicting them as "polar opposites," Peter O'Neill states that, "While the straight-laced Harper prefers church picnics or hockey games to parties, the billionaire Italian prime minister is usually found deep in a cauldron of controversy."
For critics, the main cause celebre related to an attack Prime Minister Harper made on the Liberal opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff, for statements that he allegedly made about Canada is at risk of losing its place in the G8 because powerful nations could form a new group and leave Canada out. When it was discovered Ignatieff never made such a statement, there came a media backlash. Roger Smith said he was surprised by the attack, stating that such a slip up had the potential for stealing "the kind of message the prime minister wanted to come out of this summit." Others took the time to point out Prime Minister Harper's repeated tardiness for the official G8 photograph, as he had previously been at the London G20.
Looking ahead to 2010, Prime Minister Harper's views on participation at the Muskoka Summit were hinted at in an article written by Eric Reguly and Brian Laghi. Asking how Canada would "fine-tine the G8 to keep it alive and kicking?," some answers were provided in an exclusive interview with the prime minister, who indicated that he would aim to "try to find comfortable ground between the vintage eight-only G8" and the 40 plus found at L'Aquila. The choice is for "a couple of formats, a G8 and a more inclusive global forum." Arguably, this position reflects the debate occurring within Canada on what the future roles exist for the G8 and G20, which countries need to be at the table and how informal processes can influence global governance.