So Deauville has come to end; on to the G20 in Cannes on November 4th-5th 2011.  But the continuing question here at the International Media Center, and among some of the delegates is – why the G8?  What is the added value and consequences of G8 discussions; what is the relevance and scope of the G8 agenda?  More pointedly – why hold a G8 meeting separate from a meeting of the G20 leaders?

Assessing the Deauville declaration the answer appears evident.  The strongest statement of the G8 leaders  – and critically including the the Russian president – we’ll see if Prime Minister Putin will go along – says:

Qaddafi and the Libyan government have failed to fulfill their responsibility to protect the Libyan population and have lost legitimacy.  He has no future in a free, democratic Libya.  He must go.

This statement could not have been concluded I anticipate at a G20 conclave.  Beyond that the G8 leaders focused on a number of critical peace and security issues including a commitment to the extension of the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials Destruction launched in 2002 – focused on the destruction of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union – but now focused on: nuclear  and radiological security, bio-security, scientist engagement, and facilitation of the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 on the trafficking of WMD by  terrorists  Extension of funding needs still is required along with securing new partners but the commitment is a significant step in the global efforts in anti-proliferation.

These two elements of the peace and security agenda – the accepted mandate of the G8 suggest the dilemma inherent in identifying the areas of G8 competence.  Libya and the democracy process in the Middle East probably could not usefully be addressed in the larger G20 leadership – as noted earlier.  But the proliferation questions could very easily be dealt with in the larger leadership forum.  Many of the near economic issues – like economic promotion in the Middle East etc., probably could also be addressed there.

Then why the split.  Well obviously it is partly historical.  The G8 has existed as a global governance institution for some time.  And international organizations are seldom killed off.  But there is more apparently.  Liz Alderman of the NYT summarized views from some of the  the G8 leaders at Deauville (“Group of 8 Pledges to Aid Egypt and Tunisia”,  NYT May 27, 2011)

But in their closed-door discussions, the G-8 members agreed that while emerging markets, especially China, were beneficial to global growth, they were not ready to take on a leadership role in major global issues, the diplomats said. Indeed, the G-8 members said emerging markets still needed to assume greater discipline and play more by the rules of the international frameworks they wish to influence, the diplomats said.

It is both unclear who said this – and indeed about whom.  We know China is positive about the G20 – and participating there.  We are confident most of the other leaders hold similar views.  But we also know that China, for example, does not want to expand the mandate of the G20.  And I have suggested elsewhere that China is still a part-time global leader. It would seem that other G8 leaders and their officials still question the willingness of G20 leaders to step up to take greater leadership.

For many – leaders included – this confirms the gap and the global governance deficit.