G-7 in a changed world
Now that the G-7 summit in the French city of Lyon has ended, the question that is bound to be asked around the globe is what the possible impact of the three-day meeting will be on other countries. After all, the G-7, or Group of Seven, comprises the world's most industrialized, richest and therefore presumably most powerful countries in the world -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States.
Most certainly, the accord that has been achieved by the leaders of the seven countries as contained in the final "chairman's statement" is worthy of attention. It incorporates a wide range of topics, ranging from economic issues to the need for reducing tension around the globe, a "renewal" of the UN, human rights and democratization, the environment, anti-terrorism cooperation, the Middle East and drugs.
To many people the resolutions made at the G-7 summit in Lyon sound promising indeed. On global security, for instance, the statement expresses the seven leaders' commitment to "achieve early and practical results in the renewal of the UN and to the promotion of a long-term solution of the world body's financial crisis." On human rights and democracy, the leaders restate their "firm commitment" to the universality of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to support the process of global democratization. Bosnia and the Middle East are other topics on which the G-7 leaders have shown admirable concern.
These are just a few of the undeniably noble commitments that have been made in Lyon during the past week and certainly it must be heartening to hundreds of millions of people that these pledges have been made by top representatives of some of the world's most powerful countries. At the other end of the scale, people around the world can feel fortunate that the G-7 leaders assembled did not come up with resolutions that are outdated or detrimental to the interests of developing countries.
However, more than two decades have elapsed since the first gathering of leaders of some of the world's most influential countries in 1975 at the French chateau of Rambouillet, paving the way for the birth of first the G-5 and later the G-7. Since then many changes have taken place in the world. The Cold War has ended, the political and economic landscape in Europe has undergone drastic changes and in Asia a number of countries have emerged as new industrialized countries that are forces to be reckoned with. The meetings themselves have changed from intimate exchanges of views to -- in the words of critics -- expensive media circuses.
The question now is, do the seven countries still carry the same clout they did more than a decade ago? The fact is that even in the industrialized countries the role and the value of the G-7 meetings are being doubted. Some critics say that the fact that a group of almost exclusively Western nations is setting itself the task of guiding the world on political and economic matters is regarded as arrogant.
All this notwithstanding there can be nothing wrong with leaders of rich countries expressing their concern over the ills that are plaguing the world. On the contrary, the industrialized countries can still do much to help the rest of the world, even under the present changed conditions. Surely the key in making help acceptable is not in who offers it, but in the manner in which it is offered.