By Dr. Binoy Kampmark
Global Research, July 09, 2017
Url of this article: http://www.
“I
think it’s very clear that we could not reach consensus, but the
differences were not papered over, they were clearly stated.” – Angela Merkel, BBC News, Jul 8, 2017
Such
gatherings and summits are not always smooth, but on a planet bearing
witness to a Trump presidency, there was always going to be a chance for
more excitement at the G20 meet at Hamburg. Storm clouds have been
brewing over economics, trade, and security, and these threatened to
open with a deluge of resentment and threat. As proceedings continued, a
general sense did eek through discussions: the G20 would have been far
more appropriately termed the G19+1.
Opening shots suggesting this discord came from Jean-Claude Juncker,
who described the EU as being in “elevated battle mood” at the US slide
towards protectionism, notably on promises to protect the steel
industry.
“I won’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing. But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days – we won’t need two months for that – we could react with countermeasures.”[1]
Germany’s Angela Merkel has
also expressed concern on several fronts. Prior to the summit, she
insisted that US departure from the Paris climate accord made Germany,
and the EU “more determined than ever to lead it to success.” By virtue
of circumstance, she has become the anti-Trump alternative, drawing
enthusiastic moths to her veteran flame.
In
a classic abdication of analytical responsibility, media outlets have
become “handshake” watchers, pioneering a new field of irrelevance in
what not to say. How would the handshake between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump pan out? Would Merkel actually receive one? Would Trump return for a vigorous “rematch” with Macron?[2]
A survey from Vox was a gaze-and-a-half. Emmanuel Macron of
France and Justin Trudeau of Canada gave “adoring” treatment to the
German Chancellor. Putin “mansplained” himself, causing Merkel’s eyes to
“roll”.[3]
All
eyes were on Trump-Putin, though there wasn’t much to go on, at least
on the surface of the anticipated encounter. Trump gave journalists the
usual serving:
“We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everyone concerned.”
He then claimed it was, “an honour to be with you.”
Putin reciprocated:
“I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr President. And I hope as you have said, our meeting will yield concrete results.”
Such
results were two-fold: a concession to Russia having not been involved
in hacking the presidential elections last year; and a ceasefire deal
affecting southwestern Syria.
The
leaders have been engaged in a shadow play, with Trump’s admiration for
Putin tempered by the necessities of imperial disapproval from
establishment hacks. On Thursday, the US president insisted that Russia
was a destabilising force and testing the resolve of the Western powers.
Russia
was to “crease its destabilising activities in Ukraine and elsewhere,
and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran”. Sounding
like a heavily scripted necessity, Trump suggested Russia “join the
community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and
in the defence of civilisation itself”.
When
things did get down to the matter of business, an often sterile affair
notable for what it omits, the G20 Leaders’ Declaration, optimistically
claiming to shape “an interconnected world” suggested much in the way of
disconnection. Old canards, albeit shaken ones, persist.
“Expanding
on the results of previous presidencies, in particular the 2016 G20
Summit in Hangzhou, we decide today to take concrete actions to advance
the three aims of building resilience, improving sustainability and
assuming responsibility.”[4]
There
were the usual nostrums: globalisation had to be shared in its
benefits, though this has slowed; markets had to be kept open (a poke at
protectionism), though there was recognition “that the benefits of
international trade and investment have not been shared widely enough.”
But
just to emphasise how things have nudged, of only a little, away from
the obsession with open markets, the communiqué did note that states had
a right to protect their own markets. How that objective fits within
the religion of free trade is more than problematic.
The
same went for the acknowledgment of the sovereign right of states on
the issue of controlling refugee and migrant flows, a situation that
simply perpetrates an ongoing parochial order based on “national
interests and national security”. Responsibility seemed less relevant.
The
global financial system had to be rendered resilient through reform;
greater financial transparency and international tax cooperation had to
be fostered (the shadow of the Panama papers looms).
Then
came the issue of climate change. Yes, the members remained
“collectively committed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions” through a
range of technologies using clean, efficient energy. But the elephant in
the room did get described: “We take note of the decision of the United
States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.” The reaction,
one couched in a diplomatic slap, was that the “Paris Agreement is
irreversible.”
On
the ground, protesters were keeping the authorities busy. The agendas
there were standard ones, but have been given a certain punchiness since
2016. Figuring prominently in the gallery of detested subjects: Trump,
Putin, wealth inequalities and climate change. Such points were
expressed through looting, setting fire to vehicles, and violent
encounters with the police.
In
sum, another summit with little resolution, another indicator of a
fractured international community, with more, rather than less
discordance, to come. Trump was pleased enough:
“Law enforcement & military did a spectacular job in Hamburg. Everybody felt totally safe despite the anarchists.”
How flattering for the otherwise toothless anarchists.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com.
Notes
Featured image from CTV News
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
Copyright © Dr. Binoy Kampmark, Global Research, 2017
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
Copyright © Dr. Binoy Kampmark, Global Research, 2017
