Is it so devilishly difficult for the rich and powerful to end world poverty? Gamal Nkrumah ponders the purpose of the 2007 G8 summit The 2007 Group of Eight (G8) summit of the wealthiest and most highly industrialised countries which just met in the German Baltic seaside resort of Heiligendamm has once again proven to be a mere talking shop. The widely publicised sloganeering of G8 leaders to fight HIV/AIDs has emerged as something of a figleaf for their inaction on poverty. There was the traditional European toe-dipping diplomacy at this year's G8 summit which took place 6-8 June. But this is no time for empty promises. Instead of more talk on some woolly "global landmark agreement" on how best to fight HIV/AIDs, G8 leaders should have been putting real efforts into ending poverty worldwide. They have the power and the means to do so. But, alas, they do not have the political will. The forces of reaction have obviously managed to thwart efforts to alleviate global poverty. The lackadaisical attitudes of G8 leaders amount to an abdication of responsibility. The final communiqué of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm paid the now predictable annual lip service to African concerns, primarily the fight against HIV/AIDs, but backtracked on its previous commitment to universal access to affordable medicine for HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria patients in Africa. Such pussyfooting has sorely disappointed the world's poor once again. African development, climate change and environmental degradation were also discussed at the G8 summit, but with little in the way of concrete proposals. It is not hard to understand why these particular problems took priority at Heiligendamm. There is a growing consensus among world leaders that global warming and African underdevelopment are the most pertinent problems of the world today. Moreover, as far as Africa is concerned, there is a ground- swelling fear in the West that China might change Africa's trajectory. The People's Republic is like a steel fist in a velvet glove in its foreign policies these days and the West is not happy with its new, extra-strength rival, nor is China in any mood to listen. The G8 cannot reduce China's incentive to cooperate politically and trade with Africa. Indeed, the continent is a place where Beijing's political weight could help. It is a bit rich that Western powers criticise China for not interfering in domestic African political concerns, when Africans have grown tired of the constant barrage of Western admonishments and recriminations. Transparency, good governance, democratisation, political liberalisation, economic deregulation and privatisation -- African patience is running out with these monotonous-sounding demands of the Western powers, though Americans and Europeans are falling over each other to do business in Africa with or without them. But it is the Chinese, with no political strings attached to their business dealings in Africa, who are making significant economic inroads in the continent, especially in building infrastructure and striking long-term stable deals. In what has become a permanent feature of G8 summits, in their final declaration, the G8 leaders pledged $60 billion to fight HIV/ AIDS in Africa. All well and good, but even with such pledges and unprecedented double-digital economic growth rates in some countries, Africans see little trickle-down effect. The deeper malaise that bedevils the African continent is income differentials -- the wide and growing gap between rich and poor, powerful and powerless. Western-style democracy and even billions pledged to fight AIDS is of no meaningful consequence if the poor remain homeless and hungry. Votes are bought, and the African electorates swayed one way or another by business tycoons with political aspirations. It is in this context that the West, if it has any real consideration for African well-being, must be careful about how it tackles the entire question of democratisation and political reform in Africa. The anti-globalisation activists showed up at the secluded Prussian resort, which has seen better times, and so did Russian chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov, who made a fool of himself badmouthing Russian President Vladimir Putin in a most vulgar fashion. "When you are so corrupt and used to living beyond the law, you are used to getting what you want," Kasparov snorted in reference to the Russian president. He spoke of Putin's "deadly combination of money, power, blood and impunity," but to whom is this more applicable: Putin or Bush? Readers can decide for themselves. United States President George W Bush reiterated his unscathing, albeit utterly fatuous, criticism of Sudan and Iran in Heiligendamm. Bush did not miss, however, a photo opportunity with pop stars Bono and Bob Geldorf. As a matter of fact, everyone wanted to be photographed with the stars and it was pathetic to see the paparazzi following Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and even the hostess German Chancellor Angela Merkel as they rubbed shoulders with Bono and Geldorf, the supposed champions of the rights of the world's sick and needy. The US withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement came under intense criticism from friend and foe. Washington tried to blame the global environmental catastrophe on the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil, countries that just happen to be gaining the competitive edge in world trade. Still, the US -- as the world's richest and most polluting country -- dwarfs them all as the chief cause of global warming today. The G8 leaders met their Chinese, Indian and Brazilian counterparts and a select number of African leaders, which shows how anachronistic the monicker G8 is. These countries, together with Russia, a G8 member state, are destined to become the economic powerhouses of their respective regions in the years to come. Energy consumption is bound to rise sharply in these countries and any world energy strategy must take them into account. There seems to have been some movement on this front, with Bush's proposal for a meeting later this year of the top 15 polluters greeted warmly by Merkel and Blair. So another G8 has gone. Is this group of any value, given the wide participation of non-G8ers and the increasing interconnectedness of international economies? Again, readers can decide for themselves.
