The Globe and Mail

After all the interminable photo-ops and endless television focus on professional protests, what was this $1-billion G20 summit all about?

A declaration of good intentions, it turns out, that allows countries to read into the final statement a ringing endorsement of what they are already doing, or intend to accomplish.

Thus, the headline-grabbing commitment to halve deficits by 2013, unenforceable as it is since the G20 is obviously a voluntary organization, reflects something every country would like to do, but not every one will.

The commitment can be used as a defence, if necessary, by countries under domestic attack for fiscal restraint, and in that sense has some political utility. It’s unlikely, however, if the world tips back toward or into recession that the commitment will last.

For Canada, meeting the commitment is easy. The Harper government already promised more than that in its last budget. Resumed economic growth will do the halving trick for Canada. The Harper government wouldn’t have to cut a penny of government spending to reach that target. In fact, if the economic recovery continues, the target might be reached next year.

For the U.S., a target of halving the deficit is likely a pipe dream, something President Barack Obama can talk about all day long, but without the Congress being willing to cut spending and/or raise taxes, it won’t happen. And who believes Congress is willing to do either, let alone both?

The British and Germans are already headed in the direction of the G20 summit target. The French will of course say they are going in that direction too, but at their own pace, which means slowly.

No country in deficit trouble took on anything it was not nominally committed to doing anyway, although the capacity and willingness of some of the advanced industrial countries to meet the target should be viewed with considerable skepticism.

In a sense, the declaration was about the woes and challenges of the developed countries, since they are the ones burdened by deficits. The Brazils and Chinas, by contrast, are awash with money and to keep their spending on domestic programs, they remain intent on pushing as many exports as possible.

What they want to be able to continue doing is to protect large parts of their domestic economies from competition, while opposing protectionism elsewhere. They will therefore be well-pleased with the summit declaration’s continued opposition to protectionism, with no mention of the kind of neo-mercantilism they and countries such as India practise.

Aspirational declarations seeking unanimity must avoid statements that point fingers or address controversial matters with sharp language. So the commitment at the last summit to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies went nowhere, since who seriously believes big fossil-fuel producers within the G20 really support that objective?

The Chinese demanded that any specific mention of their manipulated currency be stricken from the declaration, including praise for their pre-summit promise to ease up just a little on the manipulation.

Farm subsidies, at the heart of the stalemate at the World Trade Organization, were not even mentioned. More aid for Africa was referred to, but since aid-givers have largely fallen short of previous commitments, not much was specific on that score either.

In Canada’s case, the Harper government did pledge $1.1-billion in funds for maternal and child health, part of a G8 initiative it spearheaded, but since the government has already announced a freeze on overall foreign aid increase as part of its intended elimination of the deficit, it remains unclear where that money will come from.

The Toronto summit, coming so soon after the last one and about six months before the next (in South Korea) was never going to be one that shaped the world’s economic direction. That work had already been done. Toronto confirmed the direction.

Toronto also confirmed that never again should a G20 summit be organized in this fashion, with a completely unjustifiable cost to the host-country taxpayers.

As if we had not already seen this act before, any summit brings out anarchists, No Logo-ists, hoodlums, and plenty of peaceful protesters who somehow believe anybody inside the closed confines of the summit is paying them the slightest intention.

Their intention is to draw media attention to themselves, by getting television face-time, baiting police, sometimes getting the police to overreact, breaking windows, setting fire to cars and other sundry strategies.

They succeed for 24 hours, and are then completely forgotten.