Japan has acknowledged spending nearly $750 million to host this yearıs G-8 summit on the island of Okinawa, one thousand miles south of Tokyo. By any measure, this is a shockingly large sum to spend on a annual meeting the purpose of which has become vague and the impact of which usually is negligible. If the Okinawa Summit is remembered at all, it will be more for the infrastructure improvements the Japanese government made on the island than the participantsı pledges to promote global peace and prosperity.

When French President Giscard dıEstaing convened the first such summit in 1975, the idea was that the heads of the leading industrialized democracies periodically should get together informally to discuss pressing economic issues. Over the succeeding twenty-five years, informality has given way to rigidity, process has taken the place of substance, generalities have replaced sharp economic focus, and a meeting of seven (now eight) heads of state and government involves thousands of officials.

It is easy to criticize international meetings that produce lengthy statements prepared in advance by senior officials. Nevertheless, there can be value in leaders getting together to take each otherıs measure and to exchange views on whatever is on their mind. And the preparatory process probably does force national bureaucracies to deal with issues they might otherwise put in the Œpendingı box. Yet the colossal cost of the Okinawa meeting, while hopefully just an aberration, should jolt its participants to undertake a fundamental review of the G-8 process. There are several aspects worth reviewing:

1. Purpose: It is not clear that the G-8 participants really know why they meet annually, other than out of habit. Japan has a special attachment to the G-8 as it does not belong to any of the other prestigious international clubs e.g. the United Nations Security Council, NATO or the European Union. This may partly explain the extraordinary efforts Japan makes when it is host. Yet it has been many years since global economics was the primary focus of the leadersı discussion. They now wisely leave this topic to their finance ministers, lest global markets get rattled by an injudicious comment. Leaders tend to focus on political issues and this is probably the right emphasis. Yet the Okinawa Summit had such a large agenda (including health, crime, aging, food safety, cultural diversity, in additional to the global economy and political issues), that one wonders whether any topic could have received serious attention from the leaders.
2. Participation: The first economic summit in 1975 had six participants: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Canada, along with the Commission of the European Union, joined in 1976. Although Russia does not qualify as a major industrialized democracy, it was granted full membership in 1997. The largely political rationale for its inclusion is highlighted by the fact that Russia does not participate in the G-7 economic discussions. This raises the question whether other powers, such as China (which Japan attempted to include in the Okinawa meeting), should not be invited to participate. While expanding the group inevitably would change the character of the meetings and raise added logistical complications, this has already occurred with Russiaıs inclusion.
3. Process: The G-8 process currently is geared to the big event -- the meeting of the leaders. The personal representatives of each leader, known as Œsherpası, meet regularly to prepare the summit. The preparatory process involves numerous officials, including foreign and finance ministers. Some steps have been taken to streamline the G-8 process. Instead of having foreign and finance ministers accompany their leaders to the meeting, the ministers now meet several weeks earlier and the leaders meet alone. However, it may be time to forgo the G-8-related foreign and finance minister meetings. These ministers should meet when they have something to discuss, and not just to prepare a meeting of their bosses. They are not a convincing -- nor a necessary -- warmup act for the leadersı meeting. If taxpayers knew how much time and money went into preparing for a G-8 meeting, they would rightly be dismayed. Easily a thousand American officials are required to support the president at a G-8 meeting. Putting aside those involved in security, only a handful of the others have a substantive role at the meeting.
4. Summit statements: The Okinawa Summit issued thirteen separate statements: five by the leaders, and four each by their foreign and finance ministers. It is reasonable to ask whether these reflected the discussions of the principals, or, more likely, were the result of the labors of scores of senior officials. It is also reasonable to ask who reads them, and to what end. The main Okinawa Summit declaration is fifteen pages of numbing bureaucratese; most meaning has been pounded into blandness. The Rambouillet Summit declaration in 1975 was fifteen paragraphs. While one can hope that the leaders read, and perhaps even drafted, their statement in 1975, it is inconceivable that they did so in Okinawa. Ideally, the G-8 leaders would issue a short communique giving their conclusions on the topics they actually discussed. It would be worth exploring whether such a document could be produced in a timely manner.
5. Timing: The G-7, now G-8, has met annually since 1975. The host country has rotated among the members. With all the international and bilateral meetings that take place, it is legitimate to ask whether the G-8 needs to gather annually, if the purpose is just to meet. The only reason President Clinton dashed back and forth across the Pacific in three days, interrupting the Camp David meeting on the Middle East at a crucial stage, was to avoid embarrassing Japanese Prime Minister Mori. President Clinton probably wondered what he was doing in Okinawa, a thought undoubtedly shared by Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat as they wandered Camp David awaiting his return. While it probably does make sense to continue to meet annually, the process will have to be rejuvenated to make annual meetings worthwhile.

Those who have played leading roles in prior G-8 meetings may well argue that it is not worth the time and effort to reform the process. They may liken the meeting to a visit to the dentist -- get it over with and then you do not have to worry about it for another year.

A serious effort should be made to change this attitude. Global leaders need a forum where they can informally exchange views, share experiences and seek advice. If they feel compelled to issue a G-8 statement, it should be very short and in plain English. The enormous entourages that prepare and attend the G-8 can be pared back dramatically. A streamlined G-8 process would mean minimal expenses for the host country. The next American president should seek serious reform of the process before taking off for Genoa, site of the 2001 G-8 summit..