Xi Jinping visits Ireland

“Ireland has a rich history and culture as well as amazing natural beauty. It is a success story of moving, in a short period of time, from an agro-pastoral economy to a knowledge economy,” - Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping.

...Wait, what?

The Chinese Vice-Premier's visit to Ireland this weekend has struck me as slightly surreal. Entering into the 5th year since the crash, with endless talk of austerity and hard times, it's a change to hear some of the old Celtic Tiger speak of Ireland's economic example. (Although given the China's industrialisation and size and the Irish crash, I wonder how much China has to learn from us). The government has seized on the visit with both hands: Ireland is the only Eurozone state to be visited by the Vice-President, and Xi was shown around Irish farms and countryside as well as Irish sport and culture. Trade and economics form the hard base of the relationship, with deals signed on business and the invitation for Irish visits to China in March (Ireland also apparently does quite well out of its Chinese trade: we've managed to run a trade surplus for the last 3 years).

To me this seems like it should be a bigger boost than the visits last year. As important as the British and US visits were for economic and historic reasons, Xi Jinping can hardly be accused of visiting as a way to boost his political profile among an Irish-Chinese community or to set the seal on the troubles of the relations of the past - so the interest in Ireland is a bit exciting (and the reported interest in Irish culture in China - though I don't know how far that extends. I don't expect to see a Beijing Gaelic football team to appear alongside the London and New York teams).

Of course, it would be naive to think that this relationship will ever be as deep as Ireland's traditional relationships (I can't see a cabinet minister presenting the Chinese President with a bowl of shamrocks every St. Patrick's Day), and Ireland's EU links are probably the most important political reason for the visit, but the sheer fact that a country of 4.5 million people can get so much global cultural and political notice probably says something about the national talent for self-promotion. Still, for all the government pushing of the line that we're the only EU country to get a visit, Ireland's EU links and the upcoming Irish presidency of the Council of Ministers probably helped convince Xi extend the Irish leg of his journey longer than a pit stop by the Shannon would usually warrant. I wouldn't be surprised if any Irish talk of human rights was a brief mention beside discussions of what the Irish Presidency agenda might be...

Obama doesn't love us anymore...

Obama won't be attending the upcoming EU-US summit in Madrid. Do you feel abandoned? Alone? Unloved?

Despite the talk this will generate, there's not really that much to say. Obama is a smart man, and if there's a point to attending, he will attend. We might wring our hands over the loss in status and perceived snubs, but at the end of the day if the EU doesn't prove itself to be a valid global actor, then it won't attract a global guest list to its summits. That the summit is in Madrid doesn't really matter (as Julien Frisch highlights), but it does indicate why Obama won't bother coming: the central institutions are loosing out to the member states.

The Economist has a very good article on the need for Ashton to assert herself against a Spanish rotating presidency meddling in EU foreign policy. If Ashton can't even slap down member states for floating policy ideas as policy fact, then what does that say for the credibility of the Lisbon institutions? Would you dial a number if the person at the end of the line is too afraid to speak?

In short, there's no point wringing our hands over this latest loss in prestige. We need to get to grips with where we want to go with our foreign policy (and on who will do what both in foreign policy and domestically), and how we're going to get there. Then others will be willing to talk to us about it.

The G8... and other minor issues

This may be the first blog post I've written about a G8 meeting (and a late one at that), but it is probably a waste of time, judging from the media coverage of the summit and the well-deserved cynicism that summitry in general tends to meet with these days. One of the few blog posts I've read on the G8 L'Aquila summit had the blunt title "G8 - Waste of Space?". The G8 focused on 3 main areas last week; the financial crisis, climate change and food and aid for the developing countries, though they also discussed issues like the Iranian elections, intellectual property, etc. You can find the summit documents here.

Overall it was quite underwhelming: the major achievement as far as climate change goes was getting an agreement to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 and so prevent the rise in temperatures beyond 2 degrees Celsius. Before the summit, this had been Barroso's stated aim, but, though achieved, a political and non-binding agreement with no detail to have something done in 41 years time is hardly an impressive or ground-breaking achievement. The talks will have been useful in preparing the ground for Copenhagen in December; it's a weak diplomatic weapon, but the agreement could be used to urge greater action this winter. There will also be an institute to look at carbon capture: the "Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute", which will be based in Australia. I don't know any of the details behind it: budget, remit, etc. and it's likely that all of that is still to be finalised; still, it doesn't take too much imagination what sort of stuff it will be doing.

The lack of action an real targets has led to a rubbishing of the G8's conclusions - even Ban Ki-Moon, the low-key Secretary-General of the UN had some strong words:

"“The policies that they have stated so far are not enough, not sufficient enough,” Mr Ban told reporters. Referring to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he said: “This is the science. We must work according to the science. This is politically and morally imperative . . . for the future of humanity.”"

When it comes to the financial crisis, it doesn't look as if there's much new here: just a commitment to getting credit flowing again and to try to make the Doha round of trade talks a success - since I haven't heard of any country taking the opposite line, this doesn't especially strike me as an impressive diplomatic victory. The G8 also considered the issue of food security and aid, and Obama has spoken about Africa being self-sufficient. This has resulted in a promise for $20 billion (around €10 billion) to be invested in rural aid over the next 3 years in developing countries, though, again, there will be the small matter of following up on the promise now that the leaders have left L'Aquila.

As for the significance of the G8, I'm torn. On on hand, it has become obvious that power in the world has shifted so that the G8 can no longer be expected to come up with the solutions to the problems of the day anymore. This can be seen from the simple fact that the G5 were invited along to attend. On the other hand, there is a value in a group of (mostly) like-minded countries coming together to discuss various issues at the highest level. It helps grease the wheels of diplomacy (though I suppose, depending on the leader, the foreign affairs officials may see that differently), and could help co-ordination and lead to better achievements at more specific summits. It may be the end of the G8's significance, but that doesn't mean that it's the end of the G8's usefulness.