G8 – global powerhouse or just a talking shop?

Published on Friday 11 July 2008 22:08

ONE observer dubbed the G8 the "Glastonbury of diplomacy" – the kind of event that everybody wants to attend. But as the dust settles on the Japan summit of the world's most powerful economies, questions are being asked about their ability to fulfil the heady pledges on climate change, third-world aid and global sanctions on the corrupt regime of the Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe.

There is cross-party praise, however, for the efforts of Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, in driving Zimbabwe to the top of the international political agenda. This still holds true despite Russia and China's decision last night to use their veto at the UN Security Council on sanctions against Mugabe's regime.

Many believe, too, that Britain's standing in the world has been enhanced – not least, as poverty campaigner Bob Geldof recognised, because it is one of the few G8 countries likely to meet its Gleneagles summit pledge to provide extra aid to Africa by 2010.

Tabloid coverage of the summit may have been dominated by the bad timing of the eight-course, 19-dish banquet served up to the leaders as they discussed soaring food prices, and Mr Brown also faced the embarrassment of being cast as the brooding anti-hero Heathcliff, after agreeing to the comparison in a magazine interview. But the three-day summit – involving the UK, United States, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, Germany and Russia – did see a key change in Russia's position with regard to imposing new sanctions on Zimbabwe.

However, now that the debate has moved to the United Nations and Russia and China have failed to approve any new measures, these hopes have been dashed. The measures would have imposed a worldwide travel ban on Mr Mugabe and 13 of what the Prime Minister calls his "criminal cabal".

This would have frozen their assets – including, for the first time, any cash secreted in Swiss bank accounts, and prevented the embarrassment of having Mr Mugabe able to attend world conferences. It would also have imposed a ban on the sale of arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe and led to a UN envoy being sent to Harare.

Observers had thought China would back the sanctions in the belief that it would not wish to attract criticism over Darfur and with the Beijing Olympic Games only a month away, it would not wish to be the only nation sticking up for Zimbabwe. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's new president, played hardball with Mr Brown over the diplomatic disputes between their two countries on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the closure of the British Council in Moscow and the denying of visas to staff at oil company BP.

But, according to Mike Gapes, the Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, getting Russia to sign up to the G8 condemnation of Zimbabwe was highly significant.

He told The Scotsman: "I think the Prime Minister was very effective in shifting Russia's public position. Previously, the Russians would never have signed up to any statement which was critical of the Mugabe regime."

Speaking before the Russian and Chinese vetoes last night, Georgina Godwin, a Zimbabwean journalist, said the sanctions would have created a "trickle-down effect of demonisation of Zimbabwe", and in particular the leadership of Mugabe's Zanu-PF party, that would discourage blue-chip firms from investing in the country.

"It's very important to note these are targeted sanctions," she said. "I'm hoping there will be some sort of a short-term loss for a long-term gain. The level of violence is unsustainable."

Not only was Mr Brown regarded as having taken the lead on Zimbabwe, but his long-standing personal commitment to Africa – which dates from well before he entered No 10 – was vital in securing extra funds for malaria nets, anti-Aids medicines and better educational facilities for the continent.

According to Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrat chairman of the Commons international development committee, the giving of foreign aid does much to enhance Britain's status abroad – not least at a time when the US has lost its moral authority as the world policeman's after invading Iraq without securing prior approval of the UN.

Mr Bruce told The Scotsman: "What I have identified in the three years I have been chairing this committee is that Britain's influence in the world is substantial.

"It's entirely because of our international development policy – we seem to have a very ethical approach that is based on poverty reduction and is divorced from foreign policy interests. That distinguishes us very sharply from the US and France. In developing countries, we are regarded with respect for what we have done. Consequently, we get heard.

"I give Gordon Brown credit. He certainly led the world on debt relief. Before he became Prime Minister, he did this tour of Africa. You can see a clear commitment to dealing with the issues. That means he will probably get resonance from developing and emerging countries, more than the US will.

"Ten years ago, America was the world leader. I don't think that is true any more. It has the military power, but it no longer has the moral authority."

Mr Gapes agreed, saying: "We do have an influence which is greater than our economic position or our weight in the world because of the effectiveness of what we do internationally."

The other big issue on which advances were made in Japan was climate change. There was a toughening of the pledge to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, though this was tempered with the moving of the baseline from which the target will be measured. For 1990, read 2007 – which means the target will not be as challenging as environmental campaigners hoped.

But the host nation preferred to look at the positives. It believes that the 1990 Kyoto emissions targets were too ambitious – and regards the US president George Bush's acceptance this week of the 50 per cent target as a major step forward.

Japan also views as vital the inclusion of African countries in the "off-centre stage" discussions, and the involvement of India and China on climate change. However, doesn't the shifting of the agenda, from Hokkaido in Japan to the UN building in New York, show that the real decisions are taken at the 15-member Security Council – of which the UK is one of five permanent members – while the annual G8 summit is little more than a talking shop?

With the Security Council in session, Zimbabwe had warned that the proposed sanctions could push it towards civil war.

"At the end of the day, the Security Council is far more important than the G8," Mr Gapes said. "The G8 is just an expression of opinion among the most important economies in the world."

As for Mr Brown's personal standing, praise has been forthcoming from friend and foe alike. Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour member of the foreign affairs committee and one of Westminster's more outspoken members, said tackling weighty issues would have suited Mr Brown's style.

"I think his natural style is enormous preparation. That would have seen him playing to his strengths," he said.

"I think there is a need for a G8 and I'm glad that, for the first time, this has been done with a minimum of trumpeting. The whole idea is that the key players should meet intimately. There is no substitute for eye-to-eye contact, and the bilateral meetings on the margins are also important. One day it will not be the G8 – it will be the G9, 10 or 11."

Failure to bring about climate of change

Duncan McLaren

Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Scotland

THE G8 conference has been an absolute failure in terms of action on climate change. Aiming to cut climate– changing emissions to 50 per cent by 2050 is completely inadequate and demonstrates a total lack of leadership by the world's richest and most polluting nations.

There is no baseline year for this cut, and also no interim targets, making the figure effectively meaningless. If the G8 leaders believe a vague target set 42 years in the future will create the illusion of action being taken they should think again.

Developing nations have demanded that the rich nations of the world, who created these problems, must take urgent, strong action on climate change now with a programme leading to 80-95 per cent reductions by 2050.

They must also provide generous additional funding for developing nations. But the G8's support for the World Bank to take control of funds to tackle climate change is deeply worrying. This risks diverting funds from poverty relief rather than adding to them.

Moreover, as the world's largest investor in fossil fuel projects, the World Bank has no credibility in tackling climate change.

We need strong, action on climate change now, not just political posturing and meaningless targets. The G8 should leave climate change to the official UN processes where meaningful targets are on the table.

Lack of leadership on food and fuel crises

JEREMY HOBBS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OXFAM

I WENT to Hokkaido feeling pessimistic about whether the G8 would act decisively on the big causes of a world in crisis. And so it proved, on food, fuel, climate change and the global economy. So let's stick a label on Hokkaido – "feeble" – but there was more going on underneath.

The G8 is not irrelevant. Let's not let these rich countries off the hook. They are still important in the fight for a better world. Despite important steps by some governments, there was a lack of collective leadership. They lost us all crucial time.

Oxfam and other groups helped to push the $50 billion (25 billion) Gleneagles extra aid pledge by 2010 back on the agenda. But good proposals on health were undermined – last year's commitment of $60 billion (30 billion) is now to be spent over five years – a net cut.

Their "50 per cent cuts by 2050" to tackle climate change sounded like progress – but closer inspection shows a dirtier and unsafe future. In 1990, global greenhouse gas levels were 36 gigatonnes. Today they are 47Gt. By 2050, they must be just 7Gt if we are to have any chance of halting two-degree warming. Halving global emissions by 2050 – even with a baseline date of 1990, and with no interim targets – will still saddle us with 18Gt, more than double our limit.

The communiqu barely mentioned biofuels as one of the main causes of food crises. It is like discussing the Titanic and ignoring the iceberg.