The crisis has been with us for some time. It is now six weeks since Lehman Brothers went under; it is three weeks since Iceland’s prime minister warned that that country was close to national bankruptcy. Over the past few weeks there has been a flurry of high-level meetings, as global decision-makers slowly begin to understand that this is not a run-of-the-mill sort of crisis, this is something that needs concerted international action. Yet the overall movement in this time has been disappointing. There is general understanding that reform of the sort that Gordon Brown suggested — internationalising regulatory frameworks — will have to be introduced; but there has been absolutely no movement towards outlining what form these new structures will take.

Take the example of the 43-nation Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) at Beijing over the weekend, attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh among others. The closing statement declared that consensus for “comprehensive” reform of the system existed. But the only thing spelled out was that the IMF needs to be more proactive in lending to countries in danger — and that, spin aside, is little more than what the IMF’s mandate has always been, however it has chosen to carry it out. It stops well short of any sort of attempt to actually alter the international financial architecture.

Indeed, the ASEM’s concluding statement is representative of a lot of what has emerged from these meetings, in that it contains no real meat: suggesting “firm, decisive and effective measures in a responsible and timely manner” is not helpful without an idea of what measures are firm, decisive and effective. What is needed is for the summit planned on November 15 at Washington to be substantively different from the various talkshops we’ve seen so far. Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to want it to be merely about “principles”. This is unacceptable. It is possible that President Bush is concerned that, as an outgoing president with a successor that will by then be chosen, he cannot make decisions that in any way impinge on his country’s already prickly sense of sovereignty. In which case, it is the duty of other countries to ensure that the international crisis agenda is not held hostage to domestic politics and compulsions, and that the November meeting produces a real outline for proposed reform. India now has a seat at the high table. It has to start demanding details rather than diplomacy.