14½ minutes to save the world
I'm not sure I quite know how to break this to you - but I fear that the much-ballyhooed G20 summit to be held in London next Thursday may turn out to be, well, not very much to write home about.
For one thing, a quick glance at the official timetable reveals that the entire shebang will last precisely seven hours, including time for breakfast and lunch. (Breakfast: 0830-0945; morning session: 0950-1325; lunch: 1325-1430; afternoon session: 1430-1530)
The formal talking bit of the proceedings will last just four hours and 35 minutes, which according to my calculations, means that each delegation will have less than 14 minutes of speaking time (and yes, that includes time for translation).
Who'll be there? I knew you'd ask, so here's the list of official G20 members: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States - and the European Union.
But at the last summit, held in Washington last November, Spain and the Netherlands were also invited. And this time, the invitation list has expanded yet again to include the New Partnership for African Development, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and the African Union. Not to mention the UN, the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organisation and OECD.
The official G20 members represent 90 per cent of global economic activity, 80 per cent of world trade, and two-thirds of the world population. Which, I accept, is impressive.
So why am I so sceptical about what'll be achieved? For one thing, I am sceptical about summits in general: I've reported on far too many of them in my time, and frankly, I'm not sure I can remember a single thing of significance that emerged from any of them. Commonwealth summits, NATO summits, EU summits - been there, done that. And not much to show from any of them.
For another thing, in my experience, the real work is done long before the summit itself. Diplomats and civil servants work flat out for weeks in advance, drafting, consulting, re-drafting, re-consulting - so that all that's left for the top bods to do is tweak a word here and a word there before the final communiqué is released to a breathlessly waiting world.
All right, maybe I exaggerate. But not by much. Because in the midst of a deep economic crisis, each leader is thinking - as they must - about their own political constituency first and foremost. It is in the nature of these events that what they eventually agree on will largely be anodyne, banal and blindingly self-evident. You know the sort of thing:
"We reaffirm our commitment to work together to encourage a rapid end to the current crisis, to make all necessary reforms in a spirit of international cooperation, and to redouble our efforts to achieve agreement in the Doha round of the world trade talks.
"We restate our determination not to adopt protectionist measures which would hit the poorest hardest; and we reaffirm our faith in the power of motherhood and apple pie."
So why do they bother? Well, what do you do when you and your colleagues face a crisis? You have a meeting. Does it help? Sometimes, it may. But I suspect that if you were asked to sort out the global economic melt-down, you might need more than 14 minutes.
© MMX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~10~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin, I agree with your cynicism re: these summits. Much of the work is done beforehand. It's been mentioned that the G20 is spilt between focusing on financial regulation or on economic stimuli. Various countries have been seen to garner support for the position they support. I could be wrong but the US and UK support economic stimuli - Mr King from the Treasury may have put the spanner in the works in that though. France and Germany in a rare show of unity support new financial regulation.
Complain about this comment
Robin,
Can you try asking any of the participants why, as they are going to waste several days in travel for their 14 and half minutes of fame (c.f. Andy Warhol) they all didn't stay at home and have a video conference.
Perhaps they want to gather in one city to be a focus for demonstrations?
Complain about this comment
As a refugee from the "Nat bashing" BBC in Scotland, it is nice to see and well researched piece of journalism, with a reasoned opinion put forward. Nice work.
What damage will be done to Brown if the conference he invested so much hope in turns out to be a damp squib?
Or will a picture with Obama in London be enough to spin that the Government's downward spiral is reversing?
Complain about this comment
I am rather relieved that they only have 14 minutes a piece. Having seem how much mayhem Mr. Topalanek can cause in a short speech, imagine the chaos that would ensue if the politicians had enough time to unravel all the hard work their officials have put in?
Complain about this comment
Today President Obama told Europe if somewhat obliquely that the war against al Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is their war too and they'd better start making some sacrifices and contributions towards winning.
Later this week, he's going to tell Europe to stimulate is economy, the "or else" will only be implied.
The trouble with Europe is that it talks a lot but it never does anything. That is because talk is cheap. IMO, the US should raise the draw bridge, fill the moat, stock it with alligators, and forget about the rest of the world. It was better off before it got involved. President Washington was right all along.
Complain about this comment
Robin, you are quite correct in throwing a bucketful of cold water on the expectations of a world-in-deep-economic-pain in anticipation of meaningful relief from the G20 summit in London next week. This is only the second meeting of the G20 summit which last met in an emergency session in November of last year (2008). Some of us who followed the annual deliberations of the G7 leaders (G8 since 1992 with Russia included) since the first meeting in 1975 at Rambouillet in France are aware of the posturings and few accomplishments of these much ballyhooed summits. Imagine trying to accomplish anything in the midst of a global financial and economic crisis with 20 leaders in seven hours. Following this crisis of crises just in the United States alone reminds me of the old adage about the "blind leading the blind." Without some understanding of the causes and nature of what the problems are behind the crisis, there is little chance that a good solution can be found much less implemented. I see little evidence that the economists in the Obama administration have a good understanding of either the causes or the nature of the problems we face. And their close association and dependence on the major Wall Street commerical and investment banks and giant insurance firms like AIG who created the problem in the first place almost guarantees failure.
Complain about this comment
"So why do they bother?" you ask.
I'm glad they do bother. Better that they do have direct personal contact occasionally, than rely solely on diplomatic channels and advisors. I'd be happy to learn they all played cards for the day - or watched the football, as long as it helps build relationships and prevents nations detaching themselves. The time to worry is when leaders abstain from such meetings.
Complain about this comment
SM #7
"Better to have pretended and lost, than never to have pretended at all"
So that's it SM. How very European.
Complain about this comment
I wonder what the G20 leaders to be assembling on our shores think about the examples shown by our minister for domestic security, incarceration and, dare I mention, pardon.
What do they think the Prime one can tell them when the subordinates are off track?
N.
Complain about this comment
First of all, excellent article! Now...
Why does the EU get in on this, if they also have France, Germany, Italy and the UK involved? One or the other! I notice that we don't have California at the table alone... could the EU decide what it is and stick with it for a while?! Perhaps this is just my being very American, but this looks like a very Europe-heavy group already; either give continent-wide unions the table, or countries (though Africa could use a lot more representation, as always!). While it makes sense that the Euro is represented and the freedom of trade across borders in the EU, it still leaves three (four, if you count the UK) countries somewhat overrepresented.
Again, I am sure I am being an insensitive American, and I am sorry for that, but it really bugs me... I suppose the USA got questions like these mostly out of the way by now, but we also had the debate about Federal vs State authority, and a civil war over a similar topic; it is still evolving today. We also had the debate on proportional representation vs one state one (or two, as it has become!) vote(s)...
Complain about this comment
This link is interesting.
We live off Financial Crimes! Enjoy!
Complain about this comment
You're right robin! Wiith such important issues that the world is currently facing, planning can't really fit in a span of only 14 minutes.
cell phone lookup
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS