Vladimir Baranovsky: International security issues at the G8 summit in St.PetersburgîÁÚÁÄ
Vladimir Baranovsky: International security issues at the G8 summit in St.Petersburg
The international security is among the central aspects of the G8 activities. This fully applies to the period of Russia"s presidency in this structure which was crowned with the summit in Saint-Petersburg on 15-17 July 2006. Approximately half of the documents that were adopted there are related to the key international security problems.
One could point to several ways of highlighting international security and focusing the G8 summit upon it.
1. The international security, in one or another way, is embraced by all three major themes that Russia suggested to the G8 for the period of its presidency - namely, the energy security, education and fight against infectious deceases.
2. Apart from these themes, the St.Petersburg summit agenda included seven additional items; many of them also relate to the international security. For instance, nuclear non proliferation and fight against terrorism are both cases in point.
3. During the St.Petersburg summit, a number of bilateral meetings took place as well. They also touched upon the international security. Noteworthy, in some cases (such as Russian and US presidents" meeting) the importance of bilateral talks was comparable to those that were held multilaterally.
4. When preparing and carrying out the summit, as well as after it was over dozens of events took place, such as expert discussions, NGO conferences, official negotiations and so on. They all allowed to consider a broad range of international security issues - both conceptually and with the aim of looking for specific solutions. In terns of substance, these issues went even beyond the scope that was formally outlined for the G8 summit.
5. The very fact of holding G8 summits promotes the international security. Indeed, the interactions of the leading states of the world, or the absence of such interactions, have a key importance for the stability of the international system. G8 summits allow to test this mechanism according to several criteria: to what extent it is capable to operate (i.e., to produce a certain result that would matter for the international security), to resist to erosion generated by domestic changes, to absorb eventual destabilizing impulses (for instance, promoted by regrouping on the world scene), and so on. And since the structure under discussion embraces those who may have the most significant influence upon the international affairs, analyzing it may allow develop a certain understanding with respect to the future great lines of the international security developments.
1. Major themes of the summit
As the result of the summit, the leaders of eight countries adopted altogether 16 documents. Three of them were devoted to the main themes of the summit: "Global energy security", "Education for Innovative Societies in the 21st century" and "Fight against Infectious Diseases".
In the document on "Global energy security", the participants agreed to understand the latter as "ensuring sufficient, reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of energy at prices reflecting market fundamentals". They identified serious problems calling for solution, such as growing demand for energy (estimated to rise by more than 50% by the year 2030), increasing import dependence in many countries, enormous investment requirements along the entire energy chain, and so on. Also, the direction where to move in order to reach energy security was defined as "[the] development of transparent, efficient and competitive global energy markets".
The participants adopted the "St.Petersburg plan of action" for strengthening the global energy security. The plan consists of 55 positions and include measures aimed at increasing transparency, predictability and stability of global energy markets, improving the investment climate in the energy sector, enhancing energy efficiency and energy saving, diversifying energy mix, ensuring physical security of critical energy infrastructure, reducing energy poverty and addressing climate change and sustainable development.
The document on global energy security reflects some contentious issues on which the participants were able to find compromises. Thus, the interdependence of energy producers, transit countries and countries consuming energy was highlighted and underlined. For Russia, it was a matter of principle to point to the fact that stability should not only be considered in the light of consumers" interests, but also takes into account those of energy producers. Also, the burden of responsibility for global energy security should be placed not only transporting on the suppliers of energy resources, but also on those who consume them or provides territory for them.
One more theme on strengthening interdependence as a security providing means addresses the openness of energy companies for external participation. In the recent times, debates on this issue have been rather sharp, but in fact they reveal the acceptance of participants to one and the same logic even if focused differently. Concerning Russia, the question is raised first of all about "Gasprom" as the world biggest monopoly in this sector; concerning the western consuming countries - about gas-distributing networks. Here, balanced and thoroughly weighted compromise formulas were required as well - because of cautious attitude manifested by the participating states to this delicate sphere. The document of the St.Petersburg summit states as follows: "It is especially important that companies from energy producing and consuming countries can invest in and acquire upstream and downstream assets internationally in a mutually beneficial way". The formula "upstream and downstream assets" refers to the whole energy chain - and therefore points to the possibility of external access to any of its elements.
Another disagreement concerns the terms of energy supply contracts. It is clear that here again it was necessary to find a common denominator for those, who are interested in stable income for the supplied resources, and those who are afraid to lose if they are obliged to buy them for the fixed prices whereas prices go down. The participants to the summit called "for better risks sharing between all stakeholders in energy supply chain"; they agreed that "economically sound diversification between different types of contracts, including market-based long-term and spot contracts, could contribute to such risks mitigation".
Obviously, such streamline formulas could be interpreted by any side in its favor. However, St.Petersburg summit could be credited for developing a large-scale and agreed understanding of the global energy security, a number of important approaches in this area, as well as key reference-points facilitating practical actions. How these ideas could be implemented into practice is another issue, and the G8 summit was certainly unable to provide any unconditional guarantees in this regard.
For instance, the document of global energy security reads as follows: "Concerted actions of energy producers and consumers are of critical importance in times of supply crises." Such a situation emerged half a year later, when Minsk decided to seize the gas that Russia was supplying to Europe through pipelines over the territory of Belarus. Russia, by all means, had all legitimate reasons to react by closing the gas valve. However, this was done not only without any coordination with the European consumers, but even without informing them (which German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not fail to point to when meeting with President Vladimir Putin in January 2007).
To the results of multilateral discussions on energy security, on could add the decisions on cooperation between Russia and the USA in the area of civil use of nuclear energy adopted by the presidents of two countries on the eve of the G8 summit. According to President Vladimir Putin, the main goal of such cooperation consists in promoting sustainable and secure supply of this type of energy and, at the same time, in reducing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Thus, two contexts of the international security have been addressed simultaneously: related to energy and to the non-proliferation (which will be touched upon later).
Russia and the United States called for interaction in these areas. In particular, they intend to prepare an agreement on cooperation of two countries in the peaceful use of atomic energy. In so far as such cooperation is based on the commercial basis, there are grounds to expect the expanding presence of Russia and the Unites States on the nuclear energy markets of each other.
Vladimir Putin and Georges Bush also expressed their readiness to work on the implementation of two other initiatives tin this area. One is the idea of Russia to develop a system of international centers that would offer services on nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment of the uranium, under the control of IAEA; another one is the US proposal on Global nuclear energy partnership with the aim of developing innovative reactors and fuel cycle technologies. These two projects look as mutually complementary and will contribute to strengthening the international security, both in the field of energy and in the area of nuclear non-proliferation, by promoting interdependence.
The second major theme of the G8 during Russia"s presidency, i.e. the education, has only turned connected to the international security in the most general sense. In this regard, the summit"s document "Education for Innovative Societies in the 21st century" possesses a number of undeniable truths. For instance, the document proclaims that "we must generate new knowledge and nurture innovation to sustain long-term economic growth" - whereas such growth could be certainly considered important for maintaining the international security. Some appeals formulated in the document could contribute to minimize the sources of international tensions - such as appeals for non-discrimination, on the basis of religion or ethnicity, in providing "affordable, quality education and professional training", for promoting cross-cultural understanding through education, as well as advancing social cohesion and immigrant integration.
The problem of fight against infectious diseases has a more distinct international political dimension - which was reflected it the G8 document on this theme. The participants to the summit stated their intention to promote improved international cooperation on the monitoring of infectious diseases and mounting an effective response. They envisaged a number of concrete steps to that effect. Special attention was paid to the most serious dangers - possible avian and pandemic influenza, as well as to the issues of combating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as the most massive, in terms of victims, infectious deceases. The G8 participants also decided to increase the effectiveness of the international emergency tools that could be used to mitigate health consequences of natural and man-made disasters. Among other means, it is envisaged to use special rapid response teams to that effect.
2. Non-proliferation, terrorism, conflicts...
Several "non-central" themes of the summit, as reflected in its documents, are directly related to the international security.
First of all this concerns the problem of weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation. The participants to the summit paid attention to strengthening the existing tools of non-proliferation - such as the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Although this list does not include the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CNBT) due to well-known reasons , it is worth noting that the G8 urged all states concerned "to strictly observe a moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions".
The G8 supported "the early commencement of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty", which could be considered as a kind of collective political pledge (even if formulated only in one line and a half) to promote the implementation of this idea. They encouraged India "to take further steps towards integration into the mainstream of strengthening the non-proliferation regime". The international community"s positive response to Libya"s renunciation of weapons of mass destruction was mentioned as a manifestation of "the benefits that follow a strategic decision to cooperate with the international community and be a part of the global nonproliferation mainstream". Following the line of two previous summits, the G8 agreed that "it would be prudent in the next year not to inaugurate new initiatives involving transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to additional states"; all other states were called upon to adopt this "strategy of prudence".
It is well known that the problem of non-proliferation has become especially acute due to some countries" activities that contradict non-proliferation goals. There is also a question about the reaction thereto on the part of the international community and certain states. The G8 summit addressed this theme from two angles. Proceeding from the recognized right of states to peaceful use of nuclear energy, the participants discussed the approaches promoted by Russia, the United States and some other countries on how to implement this right without damaging the non-proliferation regime. At the same time, the G8 assessed the policies of Iran and DPRK (North Korea) that have become nowadays the most serious challenge to the non-proliferation regime.
With respect to Iran, the G8 supported the proposal that had been addressed to that country in June 2006 on behalf of The United States, Russia, China and the "European Three" (United Kingdom, France and Germany). In a politically correct form but quite resolutely the participants expressed their disappointment over the fact that Iran had shown no readiness to engage in serious discussions on the substance of those proposals, and that it had failed to suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, as required by the IAEA. Therefore, stated the participants to the summit, they support the decision to return the issue to the United Nations Security Council. It is worth mentioning that this was a sine qua non for deciding on eventual sanctions on behalf of the international community. However, no decision on such sanctions was taken during the summit.
In fact, the G8 maintained the line on the increasing, but not forcefully accelerating political pressure upon Teheran - which apparently had to satisfy the proponents of "moderate" approach towards the situation in Iran and disappoint those who argue for more energetic and radical measures. However, "radicals" would consider such measures appropriate even without legitimizing them - either formally by the UN Security Council or politically in the G8 framework.
The G8 leaders were more unanimous when discussing the DPRK policy. Their attention was focused upon the launches by Pyongyang of ballistic missies that had taken place less than two weeks prior to the summit.
Such launches, stated the participants to the summit, intensify their deep concern over the DPRK"s nuclear weapons programmes - which Pyongyang was once again urged to abandon Since a similar condemnation had already been expressed in the UN Security Council resolution 1695 adopted just on the eve of the G8 summit, the statement of the latter hardly added something significant to attempts aimed at resolving the Korean nuclear problem. But it is obvious, that in the absence of agreement within the G8 framework, the Security Council would have been unable to adopt such a resolution.
One specific aspect of the non-proliferation problem is related to efforts aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism and its eventual implications. This theme has acquired a practical connotation after the dramatic events of 11 September 2001. In the framework of Russian-American summit, that had taken place the day before the G8 meeting, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Georges Bush adopted a Joint Statement announcing the global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism. As part of this initiative, Russia and the USA intend to work with countries possessing sensitive nuclear technologies to reaffirm their commitment to take all necessary measures to ensure proper protection and safeguarding of nuclear facilities and relevant materials in their territory. This bilateral initiative was supported by other participants the G8 summit.
The St.Petersburg meeting did not only address the problem of terrorism in its nuclear incarnation. Fighting with terrorism in a broader sense was the summit"s second "non-central" theme related to the international security.
The G8 leaders adopted a Declaration on counter-terrorism that defined concrete orientations for joint efforts in this area. In particular, this includes: implementing and improving the international legal framework on counter-terrorism; adapting national legislation to address new terrorist challenges; enhancing efforts to counter the financing of terrorism, the terrorist propaganda and the recruitment by terrorists of new supporters (including suicide bombers).
Here, one can also see the reflection of dissimilar approaches that the G8 members have both in conceptual sense and in foreign policy practice. Thoroughly formulated and balanced statements can cover open or hidden mutual reproaches, but also diplomatic trade-offs.
For instance, the principle of "ensuring and promoting respect for international law, including international human rights law, refugee law and humanitarian law in all our counter-terrorism efforts", impeccable in judicial sense, may provoke very specific allusions if applied to Russia"s domestic and foreign policy contexts. The same could be said about a remarkable note that preventing any abuse of the migration regime for terrorist purposes should go in parallel with "facilitating legitimate travel". But when the document insists on "bringing to justice [...] those guilty of terrorist acts, as well as their sponsors, supporters, those who plan such acts and those who incite terrorist acts", the political address of this statement looks absolutely different .
The third theme that deserves mentioning concerns conflict-settlement. According to the G8, the central role in international peacekeeping, stabilization and reconstruction operations belongs to the UN and its Security Council, as well as to recently established UN Peacebuilding Commission.
It is worth mentioning a special emphasis on post-conflict settlement measures. Indeed, the practice of recent years has shown that reaching a cease-fire, making the conflicting parties negotiate and fixing their reconciliation on paper can only be a part of success. Not less important are stabilization and reconstruction at the further stages; without these, it would be very easy to lose what has been achieved.
outlined the main directions of their activities aimed at resolving this task. They commit themselves "to establish a more coordinated approach with each other and key external partners to conflict prevention, stabilization and reconstruction". The Russian presidency was asked to organize and lead consultations on this issue.
Another explanation for G8"s focus upon this theme may consist in its lower profile for mass media and public opinion, in comparison to the efforts of solving conflicts at their "hot" phase. In other words, mobilizing political support for such activities is more difficult. The agreement of world leaders on this issue and their commitment to prioritize common interests of maintaining international security give an important signal that points to conducting a responsible global policy.
Regrettably, a similar signal failed to appear with regard to the arms trade, this traditional theme of discussions on international security. The G8 limited itself by a routine condemnation of illicit trade of arms - that is, carried out in violation of the UN decisions on arms embargoes. Because the illicit arms trade is primarily conducted through air channels, the G8 leaders called upon "the competent international and the interested regional organizations [...] to recommend, in coordination with the air transport industry, measures that will help to fight and prevent [such] violations".
It is hard to avoid an impression that the G8 just re-channeled the problem, instead of dealing with it in a serious way. Meanwhile, the problem is considerably broader and more complex. Larger scale approaches are needed for developing mechanisms of regulation in this area. If any attempts to address this challenge are conceivable, the G8 is perhaps the most appropriate format for such endeavor. But the G8 does not seem to look for this goal - even more so, since it embraces the biggest suppliers of arms to the international market. In this high-tech and high-profit area, with its political hyper-sensitivity, the priority is given to the imperatives of competitive struggle rather than to the motives of strengthening international security.
The G8 could not refrain from paying a considerable attention to the Global partnership - a programme that is aimed at promoting disarmament, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, struggle with terrorism and the maintenance of nuclear security. This programme, carried out from 2002, is unique in its scale and in the number of involved countries . The G8 summit adopted a special document on the Global Partnership and an Annex to it containing the description of approximately two hundred specific projects. While making an overall positive assessment of the Global Partnership, the participants recognized that there is a need to undertake an unbiased qualitative and quantitative assessment of this programme in the light of the approaching mid point in its lifespan .
In the spirit of the traditional (during recent years) attention of the G8 towards Africa, the St.Petersburg summit meticulously listed the efforts that had been taken in order to strengthen peace and stability on that continent. These include assistance in developing the peace-building capacities (for instance, support for setting up the African Standby Force), promoting conflict-settlement potential of international organizations in Africa, providing funding, hardware, personnel and technical support to the African Union mission in Darfur (Sudan). With respect to the latter, the G8 confirmed their readiness ready to support a UN force to take over from the African Union peacekeepers there. Also mentioned were efforts to assist unstable African states in post-crisis and post-conflict reconstruction, the establishment of the UN Peacebuilding Commission in December 2005, the launch in March of the UN"s Central Emergency Response Fund in order to facilitate a faster and better reaction to humanitarian crises caused by conflicts. The efforts of the international community, in partnership with local leaders, have helped avert famines in East and Southern Africa, where more than 26 million people had been at risk.
3. The G8 summit as a factor of international security
In the recent years, the very process of preparing G8 summits tends to have a larger scale. Numerous mechanisms are mobilized in the process of preparation, whereas the results of their operation become significant on their own, and not only in the context of meetings at the highest level. Summits play a role of integrator and catalyst of multilateral activities aimed at strengthening the international security .
The documents for the St.Petersburg summit had been under preparation for quite a long period. Their drafting began if February 2006 which gave sufficient time for ensuring high quality of the documents. This allowed to adopt them, during the meeting of the leaders, practically without any problems.
Igor Shuvalov, the assistant to President Putin and Russia"s G8 sherpa, spoke about 50 to 60 connected events that were to be held during the year. In the process of intensive preparation for the summit, the representatives of the involved countries were looking for developing a common view on rather broad spectrum of issues related to the international security. This was important both in terms of defining specific solutions and for maintaining positive dynamics in respect to problems with the time-scope extending beyond Russia"s G8 presidency.
In Russia, the interest towards the summit was manifested if not by considerable part of the population, then at least by a considerable part of political class. Russia"s presidency in the G8 was regarded as testifying in a weighty way that the country is not only recognized as one of the grands of "big politics", but also regarded by the other members of this group as an equal partner, not only in words, but in deeds. Russia"s political leadership paid to the preparation of the summit the most intent attention; huge efforts were mobilized for its organization.
However, during quite a long period that had passed after the decision on Russia"s presidency in the G8 , the atmosphere in relations between Russia and western countries had changed almost in a radical way. The reasons thereof are not considered here, but it was quite obvious: by 2006, Russian-Western relations were developing downstream, not upstream; they have accumulated so much mutual irritation that sometimes the very possibility of the summit started to look problematic. Worse, in some political circles they started to discuss Russia"s possible expel from the G8.
It is clear what kind of feelings this provoked in Russia where many were inclined to regard the very eventuality of non-holding the summit first of all as the symptom of anti-Russian tendencies, as the manifestation of the deliberate course aimed at inflicting damage to the foreign policy of our country. The implementation of this scenario - that is, if the summit of G8 leaders is recognized impossible -not only would have affected in the most negative way Russia"s relation withy the western countries, but also would have downgraded the international security as a whole to a lower level.
The same would have happened in case of summit"s failure, if it had turned into a forum for expressing complaints and accusations addressed to Russia with respect to its domestic developments and foreign policy. In fact, although such tunes did appear in the comments on the summit, they practically affected in no ways its overall atmosphere. This is itself may be a sufficient reason for the following assessment: the very fact that the summit took place and had by and large a constructive character may be considered a significant contribution to strengthening the international security .
Perhaps, "things-could-have-been-worse" argument is not very convincing for evaluating the St.Petersburg summit as unconditional success. But when assessed from critical positions, the list of reproaches addressed to the G8 mechanism turns out quite traditional. G8 summits are blamed for prevailing political show elements, limited (if existing at all) capacities for practical activities and conceptual breakthroughs, disappointing outcome as compared to efforts and allocated means, and so on. In fact, there is nothing new in such kind of criticism. But it is also true that the St.Petersburg summit failed to counterbalance this criticism with any weighty innovations in terms of developing a more positive image of G8.
The summit also did not contribute to another line of critical allegations addressed to G8-those that portray it as a kind of mega-governing institution defining the world"s destinies on the basis of selfish interests of the members of the club, in opposition to the rest of the world. This line produces accusations in elitist, non-democratic and hegemonic character of G8. Noteworthy, this theme exists in a mirror-image as well-G8 is then represented as a nucleus of the global governance that is necessary for the international system; in this case, criticism is replaced by cautiously positive assessments. However, both these motives had been rather marginal in the past, and the St.Petersburg summit hardly made them more salient.
Also noteworthy, the anti-globalist escort of the G8 leaders" meeting, that during some previous summits had tended to overshadow the main event, this time looked rather low profile. In a malevolent interpretation, this could be regarded as one more manifestation of the anti-liberal trends in Russia"s domestic development. Indeed, this was the reason why many protest-minded anti-globalists failed to arrive to St.Petersburg or refrained from doing so; those who showed up were effectively contained in their activities. But the authorities referred to the security considerations that required, among other means, more severe control. Meanwhile, the absence of "distracting effects", such as mass demonstrations or riots, may be considered as a positive feature allowing G8 summits to deal with the agenda in a more focused way.
To this one should add that both the participants and the guests of the summit were practically unanimous in assessing very positively the high level of organization and thoroughly thought-over media coverage. Even if Russia"s authorities were motivated primarily by the desire of forming the country"s positive image in the eyes of international community, by solving this instrumental problem they made the G8 summit more transparent and media-oriented.
As any multilateral event, the forum of G8 was also used by the participants for addressing bilateral issues; some of them are certainly significant in terms of international security. For instance, observers noted intensive Russian-American contacts when preparing and then holding the summit-which was assesses as a symptom of re-emerging positive dynamics in relations between two countries, after their considerable cooling. The participants to the summit were not able to resolve all bilateral issues under discussion, but the prospects of finding solutions for some of them became clearer.
In particular, presidents Georges Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed that a bilateral protocol on Russia"s joining the WTO will have been signed by 26 October. The absence of this document was the last serious obstacle on Russia"s long way to the WTO; it was removed a few months after the G8 summit and as a result of the decision reached in St.Petersburg. The parties also touched upon the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) that expires in 2009. Presidents of Russia and the United States instructed to review this treaty for making a decision about its eventual modernization.
The work of the summit coincided with the sharp aggravation in the Middle East related to the military operation of Israel against Hizbollah movement in Lebanon. This accidental synchronization seems to have controversial consequences.
On the one hand, this became a stimulus for faster decisions on issues under discussion in the framework of the summit. In a sense, their political relevance was removed to the background in the light of dramatic developments in Lebanon. Under these conditions, disagreements on problems that all had been agreed upon in the preliminary drafts might look inappropriate indeed. Also, the outbreak of hostilities has clearly shown the implications that may result from the absence of efficient means and tools of international governance (including - or perhaps first of all - at the level of G8).
On the other hand, the critics of G8 believe that its incapacity was also manifested in a dramatic way - incapacity both for reacting quickly to abrupt changes in conflict zones and for operating as authoritative political force that might soften accelerating clashes and take upon itself responsibility for settlement. Indeed, in the G8 statement on Middle East one may see a strong appeal to reduce tension. But to believe that it did stop the hostilities an restored the calm in the region would be an obvious exaggeration.
It seems more important, however, to underline: even if the statement on Middle East did not bring about miraculous results, it was due to the summit in St.Petersburg that it became possible. Outside this format, a common position of eight countries agreed upon in two days on such an sensitive issue would have been hardly conceivable.
In a sense, this could even be treated as an "overfulfilment" of the summit"s programme. Indeed, the meetings of G8 leaders are not aimed at adopting concrete decisions, even more so taking "on-line". But some estimates of G8 on specific international security issues do deserve attention.
Thus, with respect to Kosovo the participants highlighted several themes: their intention to continue the operation of the Contact Group on the basis of the UN Security Council resolution, the importance of preserving a multiethnic character of the province, the request addressed to the Kosovo-Albanian leadership to implement the internationally established standards for national minorities, the on-going involvement of the UN Security Council. The situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and some other regions were discussed at the meeting of the G8 foreign ministers in Moscow in June 2006. During the Summit, the issue of the situation concerning was raised. We reaffirmed that the G8 supported the mediation efforts by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (France, Russia, and the United States) on Nagorno-Karabakh, whereas Azerbaijan and Armenia were called on "to show political will to reach an agreement and prepare their peoples for peace and not for war".
The summit in St.Petersburg gave a certain food for thoughts on leadership in the existing international system, namely: what countries perform this function and how they do it. When the institution of regular summits of "grands" emerged approximately three decades ago, it had initially six-lateral and then seven-lateral format. Russia"s participation has turned into G8. But in the recent years high representatives of some other states and certain international organizations are invited to take part in its activities. For instance, China, India, Brasilia, Mexico and South Africa were involved in the work of the previous summit in Gleneagles (Great Britain). These countries were invited to the St.Petersburg meeting of G8 as well. For the first time, their representatives (including ministers of finance, education and health) took part in the preparatory activities.
Obviously, the participation of the invited countries had a limited and mainly symbolic character. But it is the symbolism that matters-for outlining the intention to overcome the elitist character of the club that pretends on intellectual and political leadership in the international system, to make this club more adequate to the realities of the contemporary world. The configuration of its leadership gradually expands; even nowadays it could be defined as "G8 plus". This will hopefully result in the development of a broader and multifaceted approach to the international security - which is of special importance for legitimizing efforts aimed at making it more solid.
The summit is St.Petersburg also showed that the structural composition of the leadership group could be variable. The bilateral Russian-American summit has been already mentioned-formally carried out on the eve of the G8 summit, its centrality for the latter was undeniable. But there was another event in St.Petersburg that had a narrower composition and took place on the periphery of the G8 scene rather than in its central part-and, in a sense, as kind of eventual counterweight to it. It was a mini-summit of Russia, China and India. Although the leaders of these three countries met very briefly, it was in fact an unprecedented event; it failed to provoke high attention only due to the fact that political observers and media were focused on other issues. But it is worth noting that only few months later the participants to this trilateral configuration decided to provide it with a more substantive existence-by initiating regular meetings of foreign ministers.
* * *
To assess how important was the summit held under Russia"s presidency for the international security, one has to keep in mind the purpose and the raison d"#234;tre of this institution. Rather than making concrete decisions, its role consists in identifying problems, developing their broad understanding, assessing possible approaches and joint actions. Maintaining contacts between the leaders of major countries, promoting their mutual understanding, reaching a certain degree of accord-all this becomes in itself an important contribution to strengthening the international security.
The G8 summit held in 2006 in St.Petersburg fulfilled these tasks.
