Global Trends by Martin
Monday 11 July 2005
Mixed results from the G8 Summit
Blurb: It was a terrible
week for Britain, with the London bombings overshadowing the G8 Summit.
The results of that summit were mixed, with some progress in aid and debt
relief, but little on climate change and none on trade.
Britain became the focus of
world attention last week. There could hardly have been more of a roller-coaster
experience for that country.
The first event was the Live
Eight concert at Hyde Park, London on 2 July when 200,000 people joined
the pop stars to send a message to world leaders to “make poverty history.”
Then came British people’s
euphoria on 6 July when it was announced London would host the 2012 Olympic
Just after that, the Group
of 8 summit in Gleneagles started with leaders of the rich countries having
dinner with the Queen on Wednesday night and an opening on Thursday morning.
But by that morning, news had
filtered through that London was being hit by bomb blasts, and the British
premier Tony Blair left the meeting for that city to take charge.
By Saturday it became clear
the damage was greater than originally announced, with the death toll
crossing 50, and more than 20 still trapped or dead in the bombed underground
tunnel between Russel’s Square and Kings’ Cross stations.
The bombs in London overshadowed
the G8 Summit, bringing again the message that nowhere seems to be safe
Alongside the resolve that
those responsible shall be caught and that security must be tightened
further, came the renewed call that the root causes of terrorism must
These require measures such
as ending poverty and despair in the Third World countries, achieving
peace particularly in the Middle East, ending occupation and foreign control
(especially in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan), assisting and allowing developing
countries to have the policy space to develop.
By last weekend, analysts and
citizen groups were poring over the results of the G8 Summit, to see how
far the decisions contribute to addressing the world’s problems.
The verdict is mixed. The
Make Poverty History campaign of citizens had put a challenge to the G8:
increase aid, eliminate poor countries’ debts and establish just trade
Tony Blair put African development
and climate change at the top of his own agenda.
The G8 communique and related
documents showed some progress in a few areas, but a distinct lack of
progress or failure in others.
On aid, the G8 announced an
increase of US$48 billion in additional annual aid (as compared to the
2004 level), starting in 2010.
Bob Geldof, the pop star in
the forefront of Live Eight and the aid campaign, was euphoric, giving
the G8 “ten marks out of ten” for aid.
However, experts in development
groups analysed the figures and found that the real increase was only
$20 billion, with the rest being the repackaging and recycling of aid
Nevertheless, it is a significant
step forward in quantum. Having that aid further increased in quantity
but especially in quality (in the way it is used) is important.
On debt, the G8 leaders confirmed
what their Finance Ministers had agreed to last month. The debts of 18
countries to the World Bank and IMF would be cancelled, with another nine
countries becoming eligible in the next year or two.
Debt campaign groups have concluded
that this is a start, but not enough. First, there are another 70 or
so countries that also require debt cancellation or relief, that are left
Second, the debts cancelled
are only partial, as commercial debts are not covered. Third, to be eligible,
countries have to follow policy conditions, many of which are detrimental
to their own development. These weaknesses should now be addressed.
On trade, the verdict of most
development groups is that the G8 did badly. They did not come up with
any new commitments to end agricultural subsidies (merely repeating general
statements already made before), nor to open up their markets in a meaningful
way to the developing countries.
Worse, they seem intent to
continue the policy of opening up developing countries’ markets.
The G8 statement did mention
that least developed countries should have “appropriate flexibility” in
the trade negotiations, so that they can decide on their economic reforms.
But the term “least developed countries” only covers the poorest countries,
thus excluding a majority of developing countries which (like India) also
have many poor people.
At the World Trade Organisation,
the G8 countries are pursuing an aggressive campaign to open the developing
countries’ agricultural, industrial and services sectors, which can cause
dislocation and damage to the local economies.
Unless the G8 changes course
on trade, the gains to developing countries in aid and debt will be be
offset or wiped out by the G8’s damaging trade policies
Climate change was the other
area of greatest disappointment. With the US adamant against joining
any targets to cut emissions of Greenhouse gases, there was an attempt
to get it to at least admit that there is a climate crisis and that human
activity is at least partly responsible.
In the end, President Bush
agreed to vague language to that effect. The new action is that meetings
will be held that would include G8 countries as well as “major emerging
economies” such as India and China to discuss the way ahead, including
exchange of technology for clean energy and emission reduction.
Blair claimed that this was
a step forward, as it would involve the US as well as key energy-using
developing countries, which is needed if an international agreement is
to be eventually obtained.
However, climate scientists
and environmental groups saw the G8 as failing, since the meeting could
not even agree on the parameters of the problem (such as that a 2 degree
increase in temperature is the crisis point, and that carbon dioxide content
in the atmosphere beyond 400 parts per million would trigger that temperature
rise), let alone agree on concrete action.
As the crisis is imminent,
and the time to begin tackling it is long past, the G8 failure to agree
on emission-reduction targets and timetables is a great opportunity lost.
The communiqué only says that
the G8 will act to stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gases as
“science justifies.” This allows the US to refuse to act until it decides
the science is conclusive.
“It’s a disappointing failure,”
said Lord May, president of the Royal Society. “Make no mistake, the
science already justifies reversing, not merely slowing, the global growth
of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Environmental groups are now
calling on Blair to get countries other than the US to move ahead on climate-related
action as a follow up to the G8 Summit.
In fact, Blair does have the
opportunity, being in charge of the Presidency of both the G8 and the
European Union, to press ahead with changes in policy on aid, debt, trade,
climate change, after the G8 Summit.
Many have blamed him for taking
the UK to war in Iraq, and in the aftermath of the London bombings, some
voices are heard that this tragedy would not have happened if the UK had
not joined the US in invading Iraq.
It is said that Blair does
not want history to remember his premiership mainly for the fiasco of
the Iraq war. Whether he can make use of the rest of his G8 and EU presidency
for development and climate remains to be seen.
MAIN | ONLINE BOOKSTORE
| HOW TO ORDER