So so much for a return to the informal.  There was all this talk at Camp David about reducing the length of communiqués – to go back to an earlier time of G7 simplicity and face-to-face leadership.  One of my good colleagues, Stewart Patrick at the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) in a blog post at the Internationalist his blog at CFR (I should note the post was prepared pre-summit meeting) fell prey to host hype and the general view from the established states of the G8 of the value of the oldest of informals the G8 – or more precisely the G7 and the G8.     Stewart Patrick chiming in on  the continuance of the G7/8 declared:

One of the G8’s obvious advantages over the G20 is its modest size, which enables the unscripted, candid dialogue that world leaders crave.  The first summit of this kind, a G-5 meeting … remains the model for this sort of interaction.  After intimate discussions over the world economy, the leaders produced a concise declaration of only fifteen paragraphs.  David Cameron, this year’s host, is anxious to go back to those first principles.  There will be no lengthy communique.  No armies of officials telling each other what each of their leaders think.  As last year’s Camp David summit, leaders will roll up their sleeves, outside the prying eyes of cameras and reporters, and get down to business.

Well, I suppose the best you can say, was – that was then, and this is now.  So the Camp David communiqué – a relatively svelte 39 paragraphs over a mere eight pages and accompanied by serious declarations of  the end of lengthy communiqés, proved not to be. The Lough Erne communiqué is a rather “plump” one might even venture to say “bloated” 95 paragraphs over 22 pages with appendices that include a “G8 Action Plan to prevent the misuse of companies and legal arrangements”, another annex the “G8 Open Data Charter”, a section on “Collective Actions” and a G8 Lough Erne Declaration, a document on tax evasion.  In all we have at least 33 pages – and a host of declarations.

Now before I try to summarize what this cascade of documents suggests about the G8, it is worth noting that Patrick attempts to characterize the global summit landscape. It is, “dare I say” a rather US-centric vision of “let a hundred flowers bloom”.  As Patrick describes it, and in the effort tries to put Ian Bremmer’s rather bleak “G-zero” world  to rest:

In fact, the “G-Zero” label is misleading – a barren caricature of the rich landscape of international cooperation that actually does exist.  What is distinctive about our era is not the absence of multilateralism, but its astonishing diversity and flexibility.  When it comes to collective action, states are no longer focusing solely or even primarily on universal, treaty-based institutions like the United Nations – or even a single apex forum like the Group of Twenty (G20).  Instead, governments have adopted an ad hoc approach, coalescing in a bewildering array of issue-specific transient bodies depending on their situational interests, shared values, and relevant capabilities.  Welcome to the “G-X” world.

The dismissal of the G-Zero world is probably right, and the “bewildering array of issue-specific and sometimes transient bodies” may indeed also be correct but this is nothing I think we should be celebrating.  As I have argued in past blog posts the reality of US leadership is that it unfortunately has found the G20 really heavy work and so has joined in in the policy generating process in a variety global summit settings that has, if nothing else, undermined the G20 legitimacy as the apex of at least global economy summitry and left most of wondering where are we going to get international policy outputs from in global summitry.

The fact is if you read the G8 Lough Erne communiqué, the rather hortatory nature of so many elements of the declaration leaves one – well “cold”.  What’s the likelihood of implementation? And how many of these declarations need to be taken to the G20 to obtain the necessary “buy-in” to constitute a collective push to advance a particular policy?

Now I am not one to generally question agendas in the global summitry context but this summit really suffers from a major disconnect between what the officials spent, I suspect, months preparing and what the public got to see and hear at the Leaders Summit.  The communiqué is a vast display of tasks, declarations and policy initiatives with a focus on what the host David Cameron declared was the focus of this summit – trade, taxes and transparency – and a day and half of combat and cajoling with Russia over the Syria conflict.  Syria, however, is assigned to the back of the communiqué (though it is a subject mentioned in the preamble).  If you miss it, Syria is examined in paragraphs 82 to 87.

Though again I am not one to spend too much time worrying at who is at the table, I do tend to agree with comments recently from former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.  For him the notion that Syria is being discussed with the former imperial types – the UK and France – much despised in the region as opposed to the wider circle – dare I say  – the G20 – makes little sense.  But then Zbig has little good to say about current US policy which he believes is too little too late.  The US needs to focus on a peace setting, though stabilizing the sides – making it clear that neither can obtain their objectives through the use of force – is probably a critical element.  As for that I don’t sense the Russians are prepared to “play ball” yet on that front.  The horror goes on.

With the Lough Erne Summit now in the books we are back to the same overhyped diplomatic-speak document from the G8. While the incremental policy making  of officials is critical, the Eight have done themselves few favors by the disconnect between the Leaders activities and the that of their officials.

And one last thing is rather pathetic statement in the communiqué about their own accountability – once again highlighting the limit to the transparency of leaders.  The Report is described at paragraph 51 as a:

… comprehensive report covering the 56 development commitments that were the subject of the 2010 Comprehensive Accountability Report and the additional commitments Leaders made at Muskoka, Deauville, and Camp David Summits.

And their conclusion (subject to wading through the Accountability Report 2013):

The Report shows good progress in areas such as supporting maternal and child health; access to clean water; improving food security; and the helping to build peace and security. particularly in Africa.  But it also identifies that more action is required to deliver on our promises in some areas.

So for the ordinary citizen – there is no transparency offered by the G8 in the communiqué.  We deserve better.

Image Credit: insideireland.ie