As leaders of the world’s industrialized nations head home from the isolated Canadian Rocky Mountain resort of Kananaskis after two days of congenial head bashing on global matters, they must be happy to have avoided the company of protesters thanks to their hosts’ shrewd decision to locate the G-8 economic summit in such an out-of-the-way place.
Leaving aside content and decision-making — a very mixed bag — Kananaskis was the most successful summit in a long while in terms of organization. The venue not only kept protesters and the media at bay, it also necessitated smaller delegations: just 35 people allowed in each delegation compared to the 1,000-odd in the US team at Genoa last year, and 800 in the Japanese. The result of this leaner, fitter summit, with all the leaders under one roof, was that there was once again the informal personal contact between leaders that these economic summits were supposed to be all about. It was not the overbloated circus that they had become, and which last year’s in Genoa was the very worst example. The Canadians have provided a rare lesson to everyone else how to run workable summits. Keep them small; keep them tranquil. As they leave, the leaders must be wondering where French President Jacques Chirac intends to invite them next year. It is France’s turn although Chirac broke with tradition by not announcing next year’s venue at Kananaskis. Either he wants to keep it a surprise so that the now-inevitable bands of demonstrators are kept guessing or the French are still thinking hard where to go.
It might be more useful, however, if the eight heads of state and their accompanying delegations, ask themselves as they return home the "Who?" question rather than the "Where?" one: who else should have a seat at the economic summit?
That may seem premature: the G-8 has only recently ceased being the G-7. But expansion should be as much an issue for the G-8 as it is for the EU, NATO or any other successful international club. The summit is meant to bring together the world’s most developed nations. If Russia, with its questionable prosperity and commitment to democracy, can join, then what about China or India or Brazil? What is it that allows Canadians a seat but none of these? Similarly, if Italy can be a member, why not Spain with its equally vibrant economy? Its prime minister was in fact in Kananaskis by virtue of Spain holding the EU presidency but that merely raises a related issue: what is it that gives the Europeans, with their exiting fourfold presence, an unofficial further two seats — for the aforementioned presidency of the EU and the president of the European Commission?
The question of expansion comes down to this: Is the G-8 a get-together of the world’s main economic players to discuss and direct the global economy? In that case China, at the very least, should be in? Or is it (as is seems to be) a club of states with like-minded political interests who assume for themselves the role of an alternative United Nations? The latter is extremely unattractive to the rest us; even so, it too suggests that China, which increasingly sees eye-to-eye with the US on global political issues, could get in. We should not be surprised, then, if the talk next year is increasingly about G-9 rather than G-8.
