The G8 would be more frightening, and effective, if it reached consensus often, writes Lara Marlowe
The objection raised most often to annual Group of Eight summits, like the meeting that will end in Évian this morning, is their legitimacy. "We don't see why the eight - on the pretext that they are the richest, or the most powerful in the case of Russia, should dominate the world and take decisions that affect the entire planet," said Mr Christophe Aguitton, a leader of the French group ATTAC and one of the organisers of the "counter-summit" held in Annemasse and Geneva.
President Jacques Chirac, the summit's host, insisted that "the G8 has never aimed to govern the world, but to co-ordinate actions". He noted that the 21 heads of state and government at the opening of the summit represented "two-thirds of the world's population, and 80 per cent of GDP and international trade".
When his 13 guests from developing countries left after the first day, the percentage of the world economy represented by remaining leaders fell to 50 per cent.
This condominium of the rich and powerful would be more frightening - and effective - if it reached consensus often. It's easy to agree that Iran and Korea should not have nuclear weapons, that terrorism must be fought; much harder to find a common policy when national interests are at stake. The G8 "action plan" has replaced the old words "form a committee".
The summit yesterday issued "action plans" on: famine, science and technology for sustainable development, health, water, marine environment and tanker safety, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, corruption and trade.
In 2001, the Genoa summit created the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). On Sunday, discussions in Évian were devoted to NEPAD, and African leaders presented a self-praising 20-page report replete with allusions to "core issues of human dignity and development" and "a bold and clear-sighted African vision".
Yet two years after NEPAD was created, little progress has been made on its eight goals: promoting peace and security; strengthening institutions and governance; encouraging trade and investment in sustainable development; decreasing debt; increasing knowledge; improving health and fighting AIDS; increasing agricultural productivity; and improving water management.
Mr Chirac has repeatedly lamented that "Africa is marginalised". African leaders say they have lost out because international attention is focused on President Bush's "war on terrorism" and the Middle East. One of the chief provisions of NEPAD - that African leaders should evaluate their peers - has shown its limits, with tolerance of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and rigged elections in Nigeria. The Fund for Africa was promised $65 billion annually; Canada is alone in contributing $500 million.
Despite declaring Africa the priority of the G8 summit, Mr Chirac has been criticised for not fulfilling his promise to forgive bilateral debts owed to France. At the France-Africa summit in February, he proposed harmonising preferential trade regimes on the basis of those most favourable to African countries, stopping export subsidies for agricultural exports to Africa (including food aid), and regulating fluctuations in the prices of agricultural commodities which wreak havoc in African economies. The plan has been approved by the EU, French officials say, and will be discussed at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Cancun in September. But experts say the EU would do more for Africa by dismantling the Common Agricultural Policy.
Another crucial issue postponed until Cancun is the access of developing countries to generic pharmaceuticals, especially anti-retroviral drugs for fighting AIDS. Access to low-cost drugs was to have been included in the "plan of action on health" drawn up by France for the Évian summit, but was dropped because of US opposition. By promising $15 billion for the fight against AIDS, Mr Bush apparently hoped to divert attention from Washington's protection of the $192 billion-a-year pharmaceutical industry.
Mr Bush argues that genetically modified crops are the answer to world hunger. He last week accused Europe of attempting to starve Africa by opposing GM foods, and has filed a complaint against Europe in the WTO.
These issues impassion anti-globalisation campaigners, who marched in their tens of thousands on Sunday. Mr Pascal Lamy, the EU Commissioner for trade, compares the movement that has profoundly affected the agenda of G8 meetings to the sometimes violent anti-capitalists at the end of the 19th century. Like the backlash to the industrial revolution, he says, opponents of globalisation have split into constructive "alter-globalisation" activists who make alternative proposals, and those who merely want to destroy big business and government.
Globalisation is slowing down, though for reasons beyond the control of leaders and protesters. After the information technology bubble burst, and especially since September 11th and subsequent al-Qaeda atrocities, investors are retreating into their national shells. Foreign investment in emerging economies in South America and Asia - the engine of globalisation - has dropped to its lowest level in a decade. Fear of terrorism and diseases like SARS discourage international travel.
If the G8 survives, future summits may look back with nostalgia to the days when they tried to control globalisation.