For some time it has been a gathering that seemed to be more floral than substantive, a matter of chit chat, sometimes serious, over issues of the day. General guidelines are proposed. Bland suggestions are made. Declarations are always filled with well meaning suggestions, the well aimed bromide to assuage.<\/p>\n
In recent years, the leaders of the G-8 have acted as some de facto consortium of much noise signifying nothing. As Tom Barry observed in an article for Foreign Policy in Focus<\/i> as far back as July 2002, the G-8 \u201chad shown little leadership in addressing the deepening crisis of global governance.\u201d<\/p>\n
As forecast prior to the talks in Northern Ireland, the conflict in Syria dominated discussion and vacillation. The status quo has been affirmed \u2014 the United States, Britain and France wanting to push the Assad regime out, with Russia insisting that the move needed to be tempered with strict guidelines.<\/p>\n
The result, naturally unsatisfying for everyone other than the political mechanists, is that the G-8 have agreed that something has to be done regarding Syria, though what exactly should be done remains unclear and at best inchoate. The casualty rate is soon to peak at 100 thousand dead, but the G-8 leaders left the press corps with a vaguely imprecise list of options.<\/p>\n
A seven point plan was the resulting offspring of the talks. British Prime Minister David Cameron, in observing that there were \u201cvery different views around the G-8 table\u201d could tell his constituents that \u201cfundamental differences\u201d had been overcome through \u201cfrank discussion\u201d.<\/p>\n
The points themselves reveal nothing significant. The \u201cbloodshed and loss of life\u201d had to be stopped. A peace conference should be held in Geneva as soon as possible, leading to a \u201ctransitional governing body\u201d to take the reins of power. Humanitarian aid had to be increased. The disastrous \u201clessons of Iraq\u201d \u2014 namely, the dismantling of institutions \u2014 had to be kept in mind. The use of chemical weapons had to be condemned and investigated. Syria had to be cleansed of \u201cterrorists and extremists\u201d. Any succeeding government would have to be non-sectarian.<\/p>\n
In the end, the Russian President is probably bound to be the most content. Having been busy tipping the balance against Bashar al-Assad\u2019s enemies, he is the one with more cards than most. When the balance was swinging away from the Syrian regime, the Russians beefed up Syria\u2019s surface-to-air capabilities. While his politics might seem rank, Putin\u2019s position has been clear from the start. Everyone knows the horse he is backing and the oats he is giving it. Nor is he too keen on seeing a Sunni-mad regime come to power. Watch, he seems to be saying, what you wish for.<\/p>\n
In contrast, the Western powers such as France, the United States and Britain keep company with such peculiar customers as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who see their own version of regime change in the Middle East with heavily tinted glasses. The result is promised change with no change.<\/p>\n
The other feature on the agenda, and again, another well aimed bromide, was the global bogeyman of tax evasion. As Robert W. Wood of Forbes Magazine<\/i> (Jun 19) explains, \u201cThe G-8 nations agree: tax evasion is bad and hurts everyone. More inter-nation corporation is needed. But exactly what is legitimate and what isn\u2019t aren\u2019t so clear.\u201d Global tax evasion, in terms of figures, vary, but one estimate from the Tax Justice Network puts it at around $3 trillion a year.<\/p>\n
Cameron was pushing for the execution of the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters. Vital to this, as Wood points out, is the information sharing aspect of the document, enabling several jurisdictions to share information about bank accounts. None of this actually clears up the business as to what is legitimate tax \u201cminimisation\u201d and what constitutes actual evasion. The tax accounting wizards at Apple and Google know only too well that appearance is everything and that money has a habit of walking when needed.<\/p>\n
Leaders such as Canada\u2019s Stephen Harper have shown lukewarm enthusiasm, when he has bothered to, about such international reform. MPs from the NDP see Harper as heading the pack against such change. \u201cWhy Stephen Harper should choose to protect those who use international tax havens to evade paying their taxes is inexplicable and is unacceptable,\u201d suggested NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar (iPolitics, Jun 11).<\/p>\n
The resulting Lough Erne declaration from the G-8 summit was standard process without more, a stand favouring transparency over clandestine and unreachable tax havens. \u201cCountries should change rules that let companies shift their profits across borders to avoid taxes, an multinationals should report to tax authorities what tax they pay and where.\u201d As Dennis Howlett of Canadians for Tax Fairness surmised, \u201cThe commitments are hedged a bit and the roadmap for action is vague.\u201d That said, he was content that the declaration \u201cdefinitely moves us forward in efforts to curb tax evasion facilitated by tax havens.\u201d<\/p>\n
Such matters \u2014 death and taxes \u2014 are truly staples and plagues of human existence. But the G-8 discussions have shown that, whether it be the issue of debt relief (Gleneagles, Scotland in 2005); or the New Partnership for Africa\u2019s Development (Kananaskis, Canada), actions tend to lag behind undertakings.<\/p>\n
Binoy Kampmark<\/strong> was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n