World Affairs
We are deeply concerned. Again
Published 04 July 2005
Browse through the G8 communiques of yesteryear and what strikes you is not so much the broken promises - though a few catch the eye - as the hubris. By gum, these people think they have the answers, and yet hindsight cruelly shows that, important and clever though they may all have been, sometimes they hadn't a clue.
"We shall work," declared the old Group of Seven on its first visit to Britain, "to increase the flow of aid and other real resources from the industrial to developing countries, particularly to the 800 million people who now live in absolute poverty; and to improve the effectiveness of aid." That was 1977, the Jim'll Fix It days. Two Jims were present, Callaghan and Carter, along with their mates Pierre Trudeau, Helmut Schmidt and the rest. The World Bank was going to help, as were "individual buffer stock agreements", but the trump card would be improving "access to international finance" for poor countries. Debt, as we now call it.
Cut to Venice 1980, with Margaret Thatcher now among the chaps: "We are deeply conscious that extreme poverty and chronic malnutrition afflict hundreds of millions of people of developing countries," they said. The remedy? Better food handling in these benighted places would make a difference, as would some sort of effort at holding down their populations. And also (get this): "The democratic industrialised countries cannot alone carry the responsibility of aid . . . it must be equitably shared by the oil-exporting countries and the industrialised communist countries."
Three summits later, with Ronald Reagan at Williamsburg, the G7 was viewing "with concern", though surely not surprise, the debts of poor countries. Restoring growth and opening up markets would put things right, the leaders declared, though they also promised "special attention to the flow of resources", including improvements to something called the General Arrangements to Borrow. Bonn in Live Aid year, 1985, saw no change: the leaders were still "deeply concerned", still lending (now with a Special Facility for Sub-Saharan Africa) and still cross that the commies weren't doing their bit.
Then suddenly in Toronto 1988 (remember Brian Mulroney?) they think they have it cracked. "Progress in dealing with the debt burden of these countries," boasted the communique, "has been encouraging." All down to "concessional resource flows", "enhanced cofinancing" and even "partial write-offs". Yet oddly, march on to Munich 1992 and what are the leaders (John Major, George Bush Sr . . .) feeling about sub-Saharan Africa? Alas, "concern" is back.
More fine words at Halifax 1995: "An overriding priority is to improve the plight of the world's poor. Persistence of extreme poverty and marginalisation of the poorest countries is simply not compatible with universal aspirations for prosperity and security." So they adopt a "comprehensive approach", "attacking the roots of poverty". At Lyons (1996) we have "a new global partnership for development". And at Denver (1997): "We remain committed . . . to meeting the interrelated challenges of eradicating deep-seated poverty, investing in human potential and blah, blah, blah." How grimly familiar, then, was the message of Okinawa in 2000. "We are particularly concerned", said the Eight, at the plight of poor countries, "particularly those in Africa".
Will they be "concerned" again at Gleneagles in 2005? If history is any guide you can bet your golf clubs on it.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
