Editorial: G8 summit a missed opportunity

Opinion

Not for the first time, and not by coincidence, a major international conference has been derailed by terrorism. The summit of the Group of Eight industrialised countries will forever be remembered for its conjunction with the bombing of London's public transport system. The wave of public expectation that accompanied the rich nations' leaders to Gleneagles dissipated to a murmur. And what many had hoped would be far-reaching responses to poverty and climate change metamorphosed into a show of defiance against the bombers.

To a large degree, the events in London let the G8 leaders off the hook. While the world looked elsewhere, they were able to serve up a lengthy communique varying little from the staple for such events. The sentiments were well-meaning, but there was little in the way of targets and timetables to suggest a determined, and effective, follow-through.

Africa, as had been foreshadowed, achieved some gains. The debt of 18 of the world's poorest countries, 14 of them African, was written off, and by 2010 annual aid to the continent will be twice the current $US25 billion. If the aid is co-ordinated and channelled towards African leaders prepared to embrace acceptable standards of governance and to enhance their countries' competitiveness, this will undoubtedly help. But if such is not the case, it makes no sense to keep pouring in aid.

The G8 undid much of the aid package's potential, however, by making only a tepid commitment to trade, another key piece of the African jigsaw. Africa's leaders have long sought access to Western markets unhindered by tariffs, subsidies and the like. The G8 leaders acknowledged their case by noting the need to end subsidies, but then failed to lay down deadlines. Instead, they noted that the solution lies in a global free-trade agreement orchestrated by the World Trade Organisation. While this is fundamentally correct, their backing for further trade liberalisation under the Doha Round of negotiations carried a hollow ring.

The message on climate change was much the same. A best-case scenario would highlight the United States' acknowledgment, in the communique, that global warming is a real phenomenon and that human activity contributes "in large part" to it. It would also mention the decision to conduct formal talks with developing countries such as India and China about reducing their carbon emissions.

But it is difficult to enthuse over the Bush Administration's belated recognition of the wisdom underpinning the Kyoto Protocol. Especially as the US ceded no other ground and, in fact, succeeded in diluting the communique. Its stand meant there would be no hint of emission targets or similar. The dialogue with developing countries could be a useful development, but only if there is a concerted follow-through and only if burgeoning industrial nations are of more of a mind than the US to listen.

In reality, such summits rarely achieve dramatic breakthroughs. The carefully crafted words that signal their conclusion are the product of months of diplomacy beforehand. Yet heightened public pressure and expectation suggested that matters might just be different at Gleneagles. Terrorism dictated otherwise.

In the end, there was little to back up British Prime Minister Tony Blair's contention that "huge progress" had been made. Or that his G8 colleagues had responded to the London bombings with a new determination. Some groundwork was laid. But the overriding impression is not of momentum but of missed opportunity. The world stood still as it took in the horror of London. So, to all intents and purposes, did the G8 summit.