|
|
Change Your Life! |
G-8: The sidekick of Mideast summit |
|
News
|
|
|
July 25, 2000
NAGO, Okinawa (AP) - It was the highest-profile summit of the year, with the leaders of the world's richest and most powerful nations tackling the globe's most pressing problems. But at the end, many critics saw only one thing in the Group of Eight summits of wealthy nations and Russia: disappointment. "The output ... has become less and less useful over time," said Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C. This year's conference on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa was no exception. Like other recent G-8 summits, the meetings that ended Sunday produced a lengthy document that addressed just about every conceivable issue, from the economy to cultural diversity. Important commitments were made. The leaders pledged to help poor countries reduce their debts and improve their schooling, health care and computer technology. They also urged the World Trade Organization to hold another round of talks this year, despite the violent protests at last year's gathering in Seattle. But the approach was clearly scattershot. No one issue was dealt with comprehensively, there were no breakthroughs, and there was little real money behind the grand initiatives. Some of the leaders rebuffed criticism that the summit failed to provide a road map for concrete action. French President Jacques Chirac, for example, argued the meetings are still valuable. "The most certain way to ensure that things don't progress is to not talk ... for everyone to remain in their corner," he told reporters Sunday. The declining role of the summits was especially apparent this year, when President Bill Clinton arrived a day late, and left hours early to lead more critical Mideast peace talks at Camp David in Maryland. Critics say the summit wasn't always such a secondary event. In the group's early years in the 1970s, for example, the gatherings were more informal, without the intense bureaucratic flurry and the rambling, precooked statements that characterize current meetings, some say. Schott, a negotiator in the 1973-79 Tokyo Round of the GATT, the precursor of the World Trade Organization, said the 1978 summit provided real advances in global trade. The reasons for the decline are many. One problem is that as the meetings have become more high-profile, they have become increasingly orchestrated events, with little left to bargaining between heads of state. And the heap of issues on the G-8's plate has also expanded. While the original group was aimed at economic issues, the meetings in Okinawa focused on such security concerns as the proposed U.S. missile defense shield and North Korea. "A failure of strong leadership from the heads of government ... means the results are almost inevitably these long laundry lists of marginal things," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics. The inclusion of Russia - a key political player but a marginal economic power - has furthered this trend by bringing in a member that does not participate fully in the economic discussions. In addition, the world is no longer the place it was in the 1970s. The rise of Asia in the global economy, for example, has challenged the overwhelming European presence at the summit. The G-8 also has had problems following up effectively on the important advances it does make. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized the group for failing to make progress on a pledge last year to provide debt relief to poor countries. For some, the annual summits have become annual lost opportunities. Critics say leaders should make more of their chance to make the kinds of tough bargains and agreements that lower-level bureaucrats don't have the authority to make. One key step to giving the future summits could be to limit the scope of the meeting so summiteers could concentrate - and provide some breakthroughs - on the most important issues. Bergsten, for example, proposes a more manageable G-3 - the United States, the European Union and Japan. "You'd be much more effective," he said.
|