We were preparing for the worst. Anxious, the chancelleries were doubling their efforts to carry out intense multilateral consultations and avoid a G8 failure. At the beginning of the week, major French newspapers dramatically fueled the rumor. One of them specified the nature of the threats made by Vladimir Putin, who was resolutely determined to “point his missiles at Europe” in retaliation for the installation of an American shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Another, certainly more nuanced, spoke of a feverish atmosphere of “armed peace and balance of terror” likely to dominate the summit of the wealthiest countries on the planet. In the meantime, the American press reaffirmed the intransigent refusal of the President of the United States to commit to greenhouse gas emissions, while the Moscow press raged against the constant Western temptation to downplay the legitimate ambitions of Great Russia. For its part, Paris took malicious pleasure in recalling the firmness of campaign statements made by the new President of the Republic regarding human rights violations in Moscow and Chechnya and seemed to be preparing our compatriots for probable “lively and frank exchanges” between the two heads of state.
And the miracle occurred. The spring mildness in that small Baltic seaside resort may have played a positive role, if one lacks rational explanations, referring to Charles de Montesquieu’s climate theory. The apple-green tailored jacket of the German Chancellor undoubtedly did the rest. Half-dazed, half-satisfied, part of the world discovered those who were supposed to clash, walking arm in arm, all smiles and exchanging, in a good-natured atmosphere, many childish jokes to eventually officially agree on—almost—everything. The audience, willing to believe.
The media strategy was the same for many of the Heads of State and Government participating in this summit. Highlight the difficulties, announce the catastrophe to better boast of a slim success. This is not really the new way of doing politics that we expected. Realism and authenticity would have been found in more nuances about the summit preparations which would have allowed for more modesty and credibility in announcing its results. After all, even if it is not binding, the set target of substantial reduction of greenhouse gases and the doubling of aid for development and fighting major pandemics represent highly respectable advances. But it is very likely that within a few days or weeks, the happy ending that typically turns any drama into a comedy, will experience setbacks. The Kosovo issue, the aid to Africa or the Iranian nuclear matter, not to mention military crises that could poison the international scene, might cast a shadow over this apparent improvement. Nevertheless, let us trust the strategists of political imagery to make the most of the situation, present as a triumph what is merely a partial success, and put into the mouths of the defeated, as Seneca said, “heroic speeches.”
