THE PRESS FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1989. G-7 and Mr Gorbachev

Press, 21 July 1989, Page 8

THE PRESS FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1989. G-7 and Mr Gorbachev

The yearly summit meeting of the Western world’s seven leading industrial nations — Britain, France, Canada, the United States, Japan, Italy, and West Germany — is usually an occasion of grandeur and generalities, without much substance. It is hardly a time of surprises; which is just as well because the final declaration is. usually drawn up long before the Heads of Government meet and big changes would cause big problems. This year’s event was grander than usual because it was held in Paris at the height of celebrations to mark the bicentenary of the French Revolution. However, it did hold a surprise: a letter from the Soviet leader, Mr .Gorbachev, saying that the Soviet Union wanted to take a full part in the world economy. According to one report, this at least gave the . seven leaders something to focus on in their dinner conversation.

The Gorbachev /letter was. addressed' to President Mitterrand and, appeared to be totally unexpected. It included the comment that Moscow wanted to establish a basis for joint development, free from ideology. There was also a proposal that a group of Eastern and Western economists should confer to work out approaches to problems. This proposal seems to signal a willingness to allow Soviet economists to be schooled in the thinking of Western economists. Just why Mr Gorbachev sent such a suggestion has not yet been fathomed. Perhaps it was a further demonstration on the part of the Soviet Union that it sees its future lying in the freer market policies of the West and Mr Gorbachev did not want to pass up the opportunity of appealing to the leaders of the Western world collectively as well as individually.

Perhaps Mr Gorbachev simply wanted to make it clear that the Soviet Union was willing to play its part in the development of the world economy. Perhaps, as was apparently suggested at the dinner discussion, Mr Gorbachev’s intention was devious: he wanted to draw some of the world’s attention away from'the summit meeting to himself. In -any case, the summit meeting seemed unable to 'decide what to do about such a letter and-' left it to ' President Mitterrand to ■ J _ /As usual, the summit meeting was strong on sentiment and weak on action. It expressed concern about the environment but made no specific recommendations about controlling the use of chlorofluorocarbons or the levels of carbon dioxide. It deplored the loss of rainforests, but made no specific offers to poorer countries to compensate for forgoing the income from harvesting trees. Japan made such an offer but, for some as yet unexplained reason, the reception given to the,; idea was lukewarm. Environmental (groups / had . hoped for some specific undertakings. It is a reasonable request, even 4f the history of past meetings , of the Group of

Seven made such high hopes overly optimistic. Strong evidence is accumulating that the physical state of the Earth is deteriorating. It is also very clear that no individual State alone can prevent further deterioration and that an international effort is required. The leaders of the seven leading Western industrialised nations could have taken an initiative on those issues.

They appear to be willing to assist the Third World over debt problems. A number of poorer countries held a meeting of their own in Paris at the same time as the Group of Seven met, and representatives were allowed to submit an appeal to the Group of Seven. That issue was considered to be of great importance to the summit meeting and, if; Mexico had not been in the middle of negotiations with its creditors, perhaps a more specific plan would have been adopted. However, no-one wanted to discourage Mexico from making arrangements to reduce its foreign debt; a big cash offer to debtor nations might have disrupted these arrangements.

The Group of Seven encouraged Poland and Hungary in their bids to reform their economies and political systems. This encouragement will include help to reschedule Poland’s foreign debt. Support, but not the granting of any right of abode, has been offered to Hong Kong residents who are worried about what will happen to them in 1997 when China takes over Hong Kong from the British. China was criticised by the summit meeting for its ruthless suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators. The economic summit meeting usually extols the virtues of free trade and warns against the rise of trade protectionism. The final declaration did not include this customary view. Possibly because the idea of free trade is so deeply ingrained at the moment and Eastern bloc countries are rediscovering the marketplace or, in the case of the Soviet Union, taking tentative steps towards the marketplace, the usual bow in the direction of free trade was taken for granted. Generally, the leaders found that they agreed so much with each other that the meeting ended early.

This year’s meeting was the fifteenth. Because few actions are ever taken, doubts have been cast about the worth of the meetings. If they have any value, it lies in the fact that the leaders generally find themselves in broad agreement in sentiment at least and, lonely as it might be at the top, the seven are able to offer each other mutual support and shared values. At present it seems outlandish to think of the Soviet Union taking part in these meetings; but exactly this possibility was raised by President Bush. However, although he phrased it differently, he implied that a lot of water would have to flow under the. briiiges of the Volga and flie Don before a Soviet. leader made ,it-lG.rK>•"*;