Olaf Corry is an affiliated lecturer at the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge.
The Role of the G8 in the G20 Era
Initially, reporting concentrated on the new prime minister, David Cameron (the self-declared “new kid on the block”), and his debut appearance at the G8 and G20. This overshadowed reflections on the institutional design itself. The G8 and G20 were reported in unison; the G8 flowing apparently seamlessly into the “wider” G20. For some, there was parity between the two; neither was billed as “the real one.” Post-summits, however, the mood seems to be that the G20 has “eclipsed the G8” (The Independent). There was commentary that if it did not exist, it would have to be invented (The Guardian), due to the financial crisis and rise of new economic powers. On the other hand, there were views that both forums are “talking shops” that need to be scaled down.
David Cameron’s criticisms of summitry were widely reported, appearing as globalized versions of his attacks on what he sees as bloated, unfocused and bankrupt government at home. The Guardian reported on Cameron’s pre-summit article in The Globe and Mail, in which he signals a skeptical tone, arguing, “too often these summits fail to live up to the hype and to the promises made.” The tabloid, The Sun, ran the headline, “Cam demands action not talk.”
This was interpreted as a shot at his predecessor, Gordon Brown, who apparently “used such summits to launch headline-grabbing ideas that often did not bear fruit” (The Guardian). Instead, Cameron focused on a small number of “key priorities” and on “driving them through year after year” — for example, trade liberalization, a favourite global governance theme for those skeptical of state action. Cutting deficits, flexible labour markets and delivering on previous G8 promises on development aid made at Gleneagles, were also reported to be high on Cameron’s list of “key priorities.”
This focus on cuts plus poverty alleviation mirrors the domestic public relations strategy of the new government, which is keen to cut deep and hard while attempting to continue “detoxifying” the Conservative party brand by being seen to focus on the poor. For the Daily Mail, the top G8 story was “Cameron urges G8 to follow Britain’s ‘unavoidable’ cuts as he faces off Obama at summit.” Cameron reputedly favoured a smaller fireside chat model for the summits, with the G8 discussing security and the G20 focusing on economics. According to The Mirror, “The new G20 grouping could take on the more formal role of developing and coordinating specific international action on issues like the economy and climate change,” whereas the G8 would concentrate on “strategic issues,” such as security and aid.
All in all, the parallel between the domestic and global framing of the political agenda was striking, but it was clearly the domestic dog that is wagging the global tail, so to speak.
G20 Conflict or Cooperation
Policy differences rather than agreement between Europe and North America dominated the headlines: “Rifts in Toronto as US warns EU of double-dip recession risk,” (The Guardian) and “Divisions emerge on whether to cut or spend,” (The Telegraph) are typical. Briefings emphasized the “broad consensus” on the dual need to stimulate growth while consolidating fiscally. The overall impression, however, was that there was a Cameron-Harper-Merkel axis against the Obama administration. This axis was later backed in the G20 by India and Brazil, the latter concerned about growth. Differing views on the need for financial sector reform and Cameron’s expression of a “hope” that British troops will be home within five years exacerbated this theme of “splits” in the G8 and G20.
Greater consensus was, perhaps, reported towards the end of the G20, where Obama, in particular, was seen to have toned down initial warnings against synchronized and drastic cuts that might derail a fragile recovery. This was viewed, however, as a climb-down from the United States and more evidence of the passing of the American moment rather than of a meeting of minds. The communiqué is said to have “fudged” the issue by allowing for differentiated action.
The G20 Framework
The “Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth” itself made only the Financial Times in the run-up to the G20 and was difficult to discern in subsequent reporting of the meeting itself. The Financial Times notes that although the Framework remains the formal centrepiece of international economic cooperation, uncoordinated budgetary tightening in response to a European sovereign debt crisis has been the reality. Public engagement on the Framework is definitely not in the cards, given that elites are not focused on it.
The main angle of reporting was, however, on whether the G20 supports further coordinated stimulus or early cuts. In the United Kingdom, this was framed largely in terms of whether the G20 backs the controversial budget laid out by the new coalition government or not, with the UK chancellor, George Osborne, claiming full vindication. Tabloids saw Prime Minister Cameron “winning” (The Sun) and even achieving a diplomatic “coup” (The Daily Mail).
On the opposite side, US officials were reported in more influential media to be saying that the Europeans were secretly happy about the United States maintaining support for growth while they cut spending. Clearly, as political pressures reassert themselves and the crisis-mode palpable in 2009 recedes, consensus action appears less necessary or plausible. The Telegraph reported that, “in a reversal from the unity of the past three crisis-era Group of 20 summits, the leaders decided to adopt ‘differentiated and tailored’ economic policies for each country.” In other words, the Framework has become a forum for mutual information concerning separate actions.
G20 Record of Achievement
Pre-summit coverage gave earlier G8 promises, particularly from Gleneagles, high priority. Cameron was either praised for following up on the Brown government’s relatively good record on delivering foreign aid, or criticized for not holding the other leaders to their pledges. His choice not to insist on a reference to the Gleneagles pledges on doubling aid to the poorest by 2010, was offered as proof of the latter. In The Guardian, “the prime minister’s apparent unwillingness to bang the table at the G8 suggests that the commitment to development is just skin-deep.” Instead, the Millennium Development Goals due to be reached by 2015 and a Canadian initiative on maternal health were advanced.
As the G20 got under way, earlier pledges slid into the background and the future delivery of global financial regulation and stimulus came into focus. Achieving a deal on increased holding capital in banks and a rough timeline for reducing deficits was generally applauded. On the other hand, the G20 was criticized for its weakness as several countries successfully argued for a delayed schedule (to protect vulnerable banks). Reflecting the unlikelihood of agreement, The Sun applauded Cameron’s government from a national point of view instead: “The summit gave a green light to the Chancellor’s plans for a new tax on banks to pay for the financial disasters their reckless speculating caused.”
London’s yardstick of success for the global summits thus appears to have shifted from achieving global action to garnering support for national policies.