24 June 1997
Commentators from around the globe weighed in with their
assessments of last weekend's Summit of the Eight at
Denver. An overwhelming majority of analysts did not focus
on the final results of the summit, but on what they
described as the "latent division" between Europe and
America--which, they said, was only brought into higher
relief at the summit. Paris's right-of-center Le Figaro
asserted: "The summit was the meeting of two visions....
Europe stuck together to defend its own model.... Bill
Clinton, as the world's organizer, wants to impose his
vision on Europe." Pundits underlined the "irritation"
felt by Europeans in confronting the U.S. superpower and
its economic and political pre-eminence. Some charged that
in "lecturing" about the virtues of the U.S. economic
"model," U.S. President Bill Clinton behaved in a
"presumptuous" manner at the summit. Opinionmakers, for
the most part, contended that the president, in the end,
did not inspire many fellow summiteers to follow the U.S.
economic example. London's independent Financial Times,
for example, concluded: "Any hopes the U.S. might have had
that...leaders would leave the summit proposing to emulate
the highly successful American economic model were
disappointed.... The echoing American theme--barely
suppressed triumphalism about its economic
performance...clearly irritated the other heads of
government." A number of editorialists determined that
"annoyance" with the U.S. is "understandable" because
America asserts itself not only in the economic sphere, but
in the diplomatic and political ones as well. Paris's
right-of-center Les Echos said: "U.S. hegemony is taking
place on a worldwide scale." Others expressed doubts about
the soundness of American prosperity. Paris's centrist La
Tribune held: "The other side of the U.S. success story
is ethnic division, ghettos, insecurity in the job market
and millions of working poor left on the sidelines....
Europe...has the right to reject [such] a model." There
were other media voices, however, who, while not
necessarily happy with the U.S.' apparent omnipotence, took
a less critical tack on America and centered on Europe.
Milan's leading business Il Sole 24-Ore, for instance,
observed: "With its multiple leadership crises...eternal
divisions...incapability to reform itself...Europe condemns
itself to playing a secondary role on the world stage."
Regarding President Yeltsin's expanded role at the summit,
there was speculation as to how fully Russia had been
integrated into the group of the seven most industrialized
nations. While Moscow's press generally welcomed Russia's
inclusion as "a full member of the world community
politically and economically," analysts elsewhere judged
that it was time that other economic and military powers be
added to the select economic club. On the summit's final
outcome, a few observers noted that there were a "number of
positive aspects"--ranging from the declaration on the
Middle East peace process to agreement on Bosnia. In
Africa, the press there was hopeful that Mr. Clinton's
Africa initiative would prove beneficial to the continent,
but doubts remained that many African nations could meet
the plan's criteria. Other commentators questioned the
efficacy of G-7 summitry, with many stressing that these
gatherings should concentrate on "essential" economic
issues, rather than churning out numerous appeals that
"just scratch the surface" of a variety of topics.
This survey is based on 77 reports from 29 countries, June
21-24.
EDITOR: Diana McCaffrey
G-7 AND RUSSIA
GERMANY: "Stick To The Essentials"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in a front-page editorial
in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (6/24), "The
development of the G-7, and in the future G-8, summit
meetings is frightening. Costs and benefits are out of
proportion. The agenda is hopelessly overburdened, and
there is still no concentration on a few focal points....
Such summit meetings can gain in significance only if they
restrict themselves to the essential."
"U.S. Leadership: A Curse And A Blessing"
Regional radio Norddeutscher Rundfunk of Hamburg (6/23)
aired the following commentary by Gerd Denecke: "In all
essential questions that were discussed at the summit, the
Europeans suffered a defeat.... The United States leads
and Europe has to follow--angrily and reluctantly. From
one summit to the next, from Denver to New York, the
United States leads and sets the tone, and in Denver, it
also set the decisive course for the outcome of the Rio
follow-on summit in New York.... The United States leads,
and this is the natural function of a superpower. In many
respects, this is a blessing and an advantage which the
despondent Europeans have enjoyed long enough, but the
United States as a leading power in international
environment and development policy is rather a curse."
"Bosnia Was Only Subject Of Agreement"
In the editorial view of Jochen Siemens in left-of-center
Frankfurter Rundschau (6/23), "Contradictions concerning
environmental protection, disagreement on the future
policy towards Africa, differences when it comes to NATO's
enlargement: Once political subjects were addressed in
Denver, we cannot help the feeling that more things
separate than unify the friends and allies on either side
of the Atlantic. The Western European summiteers' front
stood firm against the U.S. host. There was only one
subject where all participants agreed: Bosnia."
"Controversy, At Last"
Dominic Johnson opined in an editorial in left-of-center
Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (6/23), "Finally, controversies
are dominating the great fora of international politics.
The G-7 summit in Denver, and shortly before the EU summit
in Amsterdam, were no longer dominated by empty commitments
to better cooperation, but they were summits for
exchanging controversial opinions. The G-7 meeting was the
stage for the confrontation of two camps with different
economic policy models.... The clash of two cultures in
Denver resulted in a lack of a quorum and, at the same
time, in a highly welcome politization...since it makes
the real aims of the various governments more transparent
and will make democratic criticism easier. This makes it
also easier to develop and discuss political alternatives.
While the United States and Great Britain could do with a
little bit more of a social state, Germany, which is
confronted with a high unemployment rate, would be well
advised to recognize the Anglo-Saxon model."
"Europeans Angry At Clinton's Self-Praise"
Right-of-center Westdeutsche Zeitung of Duesseldorf (6/23)
remarked: "The Europeans were angry at the quite obtrusive
way in which Bill Clinton praised himself and his economic
successes."
"A Ritual Without Content"
Gerhard Hennemann wrote in an editorial for centrist
Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (6/22), "If economic
summits are supposed to make sense again, the participants
must, first, concentrate on economic subjects again, and,
second, they should give up plans to discuss topics that
mainly serve domestic policy."
BRITAIN: "U.S. Model Fails To Win Admirers"
The independent Financial Times stressed under the headline
above from Denver (6/23): "President Clinton clearly
relished persuading most of the other summit (members) to
join him in donning cowboy boots for the western-style
dinner and musical extravaganza in Denver on Saturday
night. But any hopes the United States might have had that
European and Japanese leaders would leave the summit
proposing to emulate the highly successful American
economic model were disappointed.
"Throughout the weekend the echoing American theme--barely
suppressed triumphalism about its economic performance in
the last few years--clearly irritated the other heads of
government and finance ministers.... There was little
enthusiasm for the American model of economic individualism
based on flexible labor markets, an accommodating
regulatory approach, and a small and diminishing public
sector with minimum social protection.... 'They keep
telling us how successful their system is,' said one
European official. 'Then they remind us not to stray too
far from our hotel at night.'"
"Economic Triumphalism"
According to the conservative Times from Denver (6/23): "An
upbeat statement which praised the United States and
Britain for turning round their economies dominated the
economic communique, sounding the note of economic
triumphalism that has been heard throughout the summit."
"Clinton Can Claim Considerable Credit"
An editorial in the conservative Times held (6/23), "The
summit leaders in Denver seemed to be influenced by the
optimistic philosophy of the aptly-named Mile High City.
In both the economic field, where a landmark agreement on
mutual recognition of standards and qualifications was
signed between the United States and the European Union,
and on such contentious foreign policy issues as Hong Kong,
Iran and Bosnia, this summit produced significant results.
"President Clinton can claim considerable credit. The main
achievements of his presidency have been economic. Even
such passionate advocates of the European economic model as
Helmut Kohl and Jacques Santer showed signs of recognizing
the potency of the American economic formula based on
competitive markets, modest government spending and a
monetary policy designed to foster economic expansion and
allow the creation of jobs.... Less was achieved at the
summit on the environment and carbon dioxide emissions,
although this was supposed to be a key item on the agenda.
America, Japan and Canada are still unwilling to meet tough
new commitments. Summits often suffer from excessive
quibbling about communique language. Denver was no
exception. But behind the flaccid language some important
commitments were made."
FRANCE: "Why Does Europe Resist The U.S. Approach?"
Yves Pitette complained in Catholic La Croix (6/24),
"Americans are very annoying. Their strong belief that
they are the best has become insufferable for Europeans....
The American liberal theory has been successful.... Why
then does Europe resist using a proven method? Because the
social cost is too high: exclusion, ghettos, job
insecurity."
"U.S. Imperialism"
In its editorial, right-of-center Les Echos said (6/24),
"The understandable annoyance expressed by some of the G-8
participants should not distract anyone from reality: U.S.
hegemony is taking place on a worldwide scale. This
diplomatic imperialism is the result of the fall of the
Communist bloc and also of the impossibility of U.S. allies
to offer an alternative.... The United States not only
asserts itself in major issues such as NATO, it also
decides on
smaller issues which might appear to be insignificant, such
as Congo, Timor, Cyprus and Western Sahara.... France,
Portugal, Greece and Spain, who are directly concerned...no
longer have the capacity to intervene, either individually
or as a group, within a European Union devoid of foreign
policy."
"Two Visions"
Pierre Rousselin maintained in right-of-center Le Figaro
(6/23): "The summit was the meeting of two visions....
Europe stuck together to defend its own model.... Beyond
Bill Clinton's lesson on how to fight unemployment,
discussions underscored that there is a trade war being
fought on a planetary scale. The United States would like
to impose its prescriptions. To help Africa, the United
States reasons in terms of markets. To protect the
environment, it refuses strict regulations because they are
against its liberal dogma. Bill Clinton, as the world's
organizer, wants to impose his vision on Europe. Despite
renewed requests to include Slovenia and Romania in NATO,
the United States has repeated its refusal. More than
ever, this yearly summit of the leaders of the world
appears to be an instrument of the United States, which
intends to take every advantage of its dominant position."
"Lonesome Rich Cowboy"
According to centrist La Tribune's Pascal Aubert (6/23):
"The other side of the U.S. success story is ethnic
division, ghettos, insecurity in the job market and
millions of working poor left on the sidelines.... Europe,
which often doubts itself, also has the right to reject a
model which ignores solidarity and social unity."
"Europe Can Also Overcome Its Crisis"
Dominique Bromberger said on government-funded France Inter
(6/23): "Europeans, except for the British, who are Anglo-
Saxons, have firmly been asked to set their economies on
U.S. time. To make it quite clear that the point is to
imitate the U.S. model, they were all asked to dress up
like cowboys--a stunt somewhere between naivete and
arrogance.... After Europe's successful '50s and '70s, the
United States was on the decline in the '70s.... Twenty
years later, the situation is reversed, and a triumphant
Bill Clinton in his boots is marching all over his European
partners. Europe can also overcome its crisis. There is no
eternal damnation in historic developments. But words are
not enough. We must act. And make the necessary reforms
to change the course of events."
"Better To Be Jobless In Europe"
Privately run Europe 1 radio broadcast this commentary by
Alain Duhamel (6/23): "It would be stupid to say there is
nothing to learn from the United States, when you see its
economic success and its low unemployment rate. But that
does not mean we must give up on the European or French
model.... When you are jobless, it is better to be in
Europe than in the United States. If you come from a
modest social background and want to have equal
opportunity, it is better to be in Europe than in the
United States."
ITALY: "'Do Not Wear The Cowboy Boots: Europe Will Never
Become American'"
Stefano Cingolani wrote in centrist, top-circulation
Corriere della Sera (6/24): "Never were the two sides of
the Atlantic so far apart. The Denver summit...ended up by
digging a deep ditch between the United States and
Europe.... The comedy of the cowboy boots was the straw
that broke the camel's back.... Europe bears with fatigue
this America which is always ready to give free advice.
Even more so now that America is led by a president whose
triumphs are so empty.... Often, we forget that cowboy
boots are not all the same.... This is Bill Clinton's real
mistake: He did not choose the right boots for his allies
who are so snobbish and proud of their own identity. In
Denver we have all realized that the 'clash of
civilizations'...takes place in the West too."
"U.S. Order Dominates Over Others' Weaknesses"
Adriana Ceretelli held in leading business Il Sole 24-Ore
(6/24): "America dominates and will continue to dominate
the world because, in the short term, U.S. global
leadership has no equals or alternatives.... This is the
unequivocal message coming from Denver.... Boris Yeltsin's
Russia has had to recognize it...just after swallowing the
bitter pill of NATO enlargement to the East.... Japan also
had to recognize it, while dreaming of counter-balancing
American 'satellitism' over Russia with its own over
China.... Nobody can win the game against the United
States, not even Europe which had to recognize this in
Denver.... Why is it that Chancellor Kohl's voice was not
clearly heard in Denver? Why did only some grumbling come
from Jacques Chirac?... Because...everywhere the European
model is sick, while the...American system has enviable
vitality and strength.... Because with its multiple
leadership crises, its eternal divisions, its incapability
to reform itself...Europe condemns itself to playing a
secondary role on the world stage."
"Lessons From Denver: Europe Has No Ideas"
An editorial by Alberto Pasolini Zanelli in leading
rightist opposition Il Giornale said (6/24): "Europe has no
ideas and this is the reason why it had to sit down,
grumbling in a way that is at times understandable and at
others just plain hysterical, to listen to Bill Clinton's
lessons."
"Why It Hurt"
A commentary by Alberto Pasolini Zanelli in leading
rightist opposition Il Giornale noted (6/23): "Europeans,
especially 'Latin' Europeans, are leaving Denver in a bad
mood, whispering confused words about Bill Clinton's
'presumptuousness' and his 'imperial behavior.' They may
not be totally wrong on the form, but on the substance, the
'lessons' of the U.S. president hurt precisely because
they have hit the mark."
"Uncle Bill And The European Left"
A front-page commentary by Ennio Caretto ran in centrist,
top-circulation Corriere della Sera (6/23): "At the Denver
summit, America offered answers for challenges facing the
international community. But it did so more as a hegemonic
power than as the leading nation.... Clinton insisted
that the European left take the globalist medicine.... The
European left would make a serious mistake were it to
totally reject Uncle Sam's lesson. At the Denver summit,
America was like Gulliver among the Lilliputians.... While
the European car is stuck on the rails, the U.S. locomotive
is flying.... But accepting the U.S. model without any
criticism would also be a mistake.... The European left
can win this challenge only if it seeks a third way that
will prevent the huge increase of inequality which is under
way in the United States.... The European left should not
be afraid of flying unexplored skies, including that of a
certain independence from America."
"Lowered Expectations Produce Satisfaction"
Arturo Zampaglione stated from Denver in left-leaning,
influential La Repubblica (6/23): "It would be more
serious to lower expectations and not expect sensational,
historic results from super-summits, appreciating instead
the small steps forward made by the international
community. In this toned-down perspective, G-8 leaders can
be satisfied. In Denver, where the 'new left' of Clinton
and Blair has began to join in a common front, more solid
political bases were laid down than final communiques may
suggest."
CANADA: "Latent Confrontation at Denver"
French-language Le Devoir (6/23) observed, "The Denver
summit will become the summit of the latent division
between Europe and the United States. On a series of
subjects, European irritation--and more widely that of the
rest of the Western world--was expressed in the face of
the American calm 'possession of the truth.'... Is the
Western world, despite its hesitations and symbolic
denials, in the process of swallowing surreptitiously
Yankee leadership and the Yankee model, by a continuing
diminution of social protections and one retreat after
another on diplomatic strategic confrontations? Or will it
refuse to mimic the 'American way' presented by Bill
Clinton and his supporters as the only reasonable or
possible one in the modern world?"
JAPAN: "President Clinton Shows Strong Leadership In World
Economy"
Quasi-governmental NHK-TV's Denver correspondent Igarashi
commented (6/23): "President Clinton, as host of the
summit, stole the show from beginning to end. A high-
ranking U.S. government official said the United States,
supported by its continuing booming economy, has become an
economic superpower. It is true that the president has
made clear the strong leadership of the United States, not
only in world politics and diplomacy, but in the world
economy as well."
"Russia Dominated Subjects Of Discussion At The Denver
Summit"
Commercially-run TV Asahi's Denver correspondent Kitasue
commented (6/23): "Except for the concern expressed by
President Clinton over a delay in Japan's financial and
other reforms and the rise in its trade surplus, the Denver
Summit of the Eight turned out to be an occasion for the G-
7 nations to formally recognize Russia as a full member of
the Western summit, and to express support for Russia's
admission to the WTO. Otherwise, the summit was a low-key
affair."
"G-7 Statement: Lots Of Work Ahead For Japan"
Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri editorialized (6/23): "A
noteworthy aspect of the G-7 (economic) statement at the
Denver summit is that it lists the policies each individual
G-7 member should be pursuing in terms of priority. Such a
list had not been issued since the Tokyo summit in 1993."
RUSSIA: "Yeltsin In Top Eight"
Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (6/24) editorialized
on page one: "The outcome of the Denver summit with Boris
Yeltsin's participation is impressive, indeed: The Seven
have become an Eight, with Russia recognized as a full
member of the world community politically and economically.
An invitation for Russia to join the Paris Club, generally,
attests to an end of a financial cold war."
"Chance To Speak And Be Heard"
Vladimir Nadein filed from Denver for reformist Izvestia
(6/24): "Big Eight membership can hardly be translated into
rubles. It does not promise budget revenues any time soon
either. The main advantage of being in that narrow circle
of people in charge of the better half of the world's
economy is a chance to speak and be heard. It is a chance
for us to influence decisions before they influence us."
"Good Start. What About The Finish?"
Dmitry Gornostayev wrote in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(6/24): "Russia's success at the summit is obvious, as are
problems which, if unsolved, can turn Russia's having been
recognized as a world leader into a mere formality. A
formality is what many Western observers call the Denver
forum. Its results, from the standpoint of global economic
and political problems, are rated very low because of the
lack of concrete decisions and new ideas. What Russia has
been offered, compensation for her geopolitical losses,
will have to be repaid. Official propaganda will continue
extolling the results of the Denver summit as a big
victory.
"But we must realize that we have only started out and we
have to follow the right track to be a success at the
finish."
"Equal Partnership Is Still A Dream"
Yaroslav Karamov said on page one of reformist, youth-
oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (6/23): "It is hard to agree
absolutely with Foreign Minister Primakov and First Deputy
Premier Chubais stating optimistically that the West has
ultimately recognized Russia as a fully fledged political
and economic partner. Moscow, in effect, has pretty little
influence on cardinal issues, which is especially true of
economics and finance. It is not easy to disregard it in
global politics, though. Equal partnership with 'friends'
Bill and Helmut will remain a dream until every Russian
palpably benefits by the projects of Mr. Chubais who is so
respected in the West."
"Summit American Style"
Reformist Segodnya (6/23) front-paged a report by Dmitry
Kamyshev in Denver: "The summit of the Eight was organized
in true American tradition. The hosts did their best,
evidently to prove again that American meant the best in
the world. The huge and well-appointed press center was
particularly impressive.... The most salient feature of
the summit was perhaps the triumph of the dollar. The
meeting of 'the Big Eight' was a good chance for Americans
to make a buck. It was also an immensely delightful
experience for the Russian leader whom Americans greeted
with applause wherever he went, although some of them,
inexplicably, called him Khrushchev."
"G-7 Is No More"
Russia's Independent Television network (NTV) said on the
Itogi program (6/22): "Moscow can say now, evidently with
joy, that the Big Seven is no more. The Club that
initially gathered to discuss intimately how to get out of
an energy crisis in the 1970s and to counter the Soviet
Union's plans in the 1980s has turned into its direct
opposite. For one thing, it is hard to keep your contacts
intimate, with some 5,000 journalists watching you as
eagerly as they do a divorce story in the British royal
family. For another, the former enemy is sitting at the
same table almost as an equal, almost because he himself
feels that he has too many problems of his own to get into
those of industrialized countries."
EUROPE
AUSTRIA: "Clouded Climate At Summit In Denver"
Gerfried Sperl wrote on the front-page of independent Der
Standard (6/23): "Over recent years, all the important
decisions were taken in Washington. ... The status quo in
the Balkans could not be maintained without U.S. troops.
In Madrid, the United States decided who will join NATO.
The fact that, in Amsterdam, several European countries,
including neutral Austria, were worried about making NATO
the synonym for European defense, speaks for itself. How
independent is Europe?... The fact that in Denver, the G-7-
countries agreed on the 'euro,' but not on environmental
issues and Africa, marks further points of fractures. And
they are much more decisive still than the power issues of
military security. Everybody knows that things cannot go
on like this. But the disagreements are so big that one
prefers heading for disasters."
BELGIUM: "Clinton Boasted, Russia Consecrated As Member Of
Club"
Foreign editor Axel Buyse stated in independent Catholic De
Standaard (6/24), "What remains with us from the summit is
the absence of unanimity in most fields. Denver gave
President Clinton an exceptional chance to get applause at
home. The U.S. head of state was not embarrassed to parade
and boast about the extremely low unemployment figures in
his country--much to the displeasure of the European
leaders present, especially French President Jacques
Chirac. Things could not go wrong either for Russian
President Boris Yeltsin.
"As it were, Denver consecrated Russia's definitive access
to the club.... In Denver, the great lords dealt with
virtually all issues that dominate international relations:
from China-Hong Kong, black Africa, NATO enlargement, the
Middle East peace process to Bosnia-Herzegovina."
"Reasons Behind U.S. Power"
In conservative La Meuse/La Lanterne (6/24), Andre Thiel
wrote: "Never since the war did the Old Continent look so
old and the United States so happily, youthfully, proudly
victorious.... The reasons for that power are simple. The
United States holds the nuclear arsenal which protects its
allies.... The...(output) of the U.S. economy amounts to
22 percent of the world's production, almost twice as much
as the production of all the European members of the G-8
together. Above all, (the United States) knows what it
wants. 'One country dominates the world today, it decides
everything,' a European participant said after the G-8
meeting. 'Fortunately, this dominant country is friendly,'
sighed another one."
"U.S. Triumphalism Dominates Summit"
RTBF radio observed (6/23): "The Denver summit was marked
by U.S. triumphalism; the Europeans were irritated by Bill
Clinton's propensity for lecturing. Of course, the U.S.
economy is doing fine, the unemployment rate is low, but
this economic success is being achieved at the expense of
the outcasts of U.S. society."
"A Show Made In USA"
Under the headline above, conservative La Derniere Heure
said (6/23), "A show made in the USA. The Denver G-7
offered Bill Clinton the opportunity to demonstrate to the
world that the United States has again become the number-
one power. Confronted with an increasingly divided Europe,
Bill Clinton, somewhat irritatingly, wanted to play
Professor Know-It-All. This behavior did not fail to vex
the French and the Germans, who expressed it by boycotting
in their own way the western evening organized by the
sponsors of this great Colorado mass. Although the U.S.
president had asked his guests to wear a cowboy outfit for
Saturday's dinner, Chancellor Kohl and President
Chirac...preferred not to play the game and appeared in the
most traditional suits."
BULGARIA: "They Met, But Did Not Reach An Understanding"
Socialist Party Duma (6/24) held, "The world and the
world's problems change, the venues of the summits change
too. The only thing that remains unchangeable is the final
official statements of the participants. These statements
are always full of 'constructiveness,' 'unanimousness' and
'decisiveness.' There was no such thing in Denver this
time.... The host himself had to admit that the
participants failed to bring their views closer--neither on
the favorites for NATO membership nor on other global
issues such as the aid for Africa and the peacekeeping
operations in Bosnia.... Despite the fact that for the
first time the summit was styled the G-8, they didn't reach
an agreement on when Russia would be accepted as a full
member.... This year the leaders of the great nations
met, but didn't come to an understanding. Next year they
may not recognize each other at all."
DENMARK: "No Important Decisions Are Made"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende observed (6/24): "G-7
summits are starting to look more like trailer-owner club
meetings than the forum where the most influential
countries in the world make decisions. The...members, who
appear to enjoy each others company, seem to do their
utmost to maintain the good atmosphere by refraining from
talking about things on which they disagree. No important
decisions are made, however, we do witness a lot of rituals
and hear a lot of words. This development reflects, among
other things, that the world has become a more peaceful
place over the last few years. Notwithstanding this,
problems enough still exist, but these are discussed in a
number of other fora. The development of the G-7 meetings
is also an
expression of the fact that the member countries do not
have the same strangle-hold on the global economy as they
used to. The United States is still the leading economic
and political power, but countries such as China, India,
Brazil and a number of Asian tigers are moving forward.
Likewise, the countries of Eastern Europe and Latin America
are making progress. Organizations such as the EU, NAFTA
and ASEAN have grown in numbers and influence. The
globalization of the world's economy will, in the coming
years, further invert traditional power structures.
"Even though the G-7 itself seems to resemble a talking-
shop, its importance as a forum where world leaders can
forge good relations and thus prevent crises from
developing should not be underestimated. "
THE NETHERLANDS: "What Do They Do At All Those Summits?"
Influential liberal De Volkskrant opined (6/24), "Taking a
further close look at the results of Amsterdam and Denver,
one must conclude that there was a lot of talk and little
substance.... There are major mutual irritations... in
U.S.-Europe relations where the Western Europeans--the
French in the lead--do not want to be told by the
Americans...where the Americans, being the only superpower,
have the tendency to be somewhat arrogant.... The United
States wants to lead, but not spend any money.... The same
is true for the EU.... All these irritations were very
visible at the Denver summit. The Americans showed off
their economic success and recommended their Clintonomics.
The French president, who had already swallowed a lot of
humiliation, beat up on the United States by calling it the
largest polluter. France is not totally wrong here, but
such a burp does not work well for the atmosphere.
Creating good spirit is one of the most important purposes
of a summit like the one in Denver."
SERBIA-MONTENEGRO: "First Dayton, Then Everything Else"
Independent, centrist Nasa Borba (6/23) carried a report
Vladan Marjanovic: "The leaders of the most developed
countries gathered at the Summit of the Eight in Denver,
Colorado, took a stand for full implementation of the
Dayton agreement and sent requests to leaders of Serbia,
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to make additional efforts
in order to maintain peace or face cut-offs in all aspects
of foreign aid and jeopardize their integration into
European and world institutions. The text (of the
declaration) is stressed in a critical tone, particularly
toward the FRY and Croatia, because they did not express
'stronger attachment to the peace process.' They are
requested to make more significant progress in the flelds
of human rights, democratic processes, freedom of the media
and treatment of minorities and refugees. At the same time,
from the government in Sarajevo and (from) the leadership
of the Bosnian Serbs, faster development of democratic
institutions is requested, and particularly the freedom of
the press; while the authorities of both Bosnian entities,
Croatian and Serbian on top of all this, have been
requested to fully cooperate with the international
tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The
international community--i.e., those countries which most
frequently personalize that phrase--will not increase
pressure, but on the contrary...depending whether, and to
what extent Belgrade, Zagreb and Sarajevo will implement
what they are expected to (will) depend on whether the
United States, the EU and the other states will wish to
talk at all about any type of closer cooperation--not to
mention any type of institutional connections. It would
seem--it is enough for the clever. If only in post-
Yugoslav capitals there is someone to hear that."
SPAIN: "The Voice Of The Powerful"
Conservative ABC concluded (6/23): "The final product of
the G-7--this time the G-8 with Russia's presence--is a
lengthy communiqu , which has broken old traditions and
transformed the summit into a forum for geopolitical and
social themes rather than the great economic issues that
occupied the group since its inception.... This
metamorphosis is justified because the members are enjoying
a relatively comfortable climate of peace and economic
well-being, while a large number of trouble spots are
simmering following the end of the Cold War.
"For this reason, Bill Clinton wanted Russia to join the
seven members; it would be difficult to analyze the causes
of conflicts on four continents without the presence of
Boris Yeltsin.... The Denver meeting has radically changed
the way the new and powerful G-8 countries work together.
Despite the inevitable disagreements, it is always positive
when the greatest countries of the world have a forum in
which they can work together."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "Europe's Assault May Help Howard"
The Washington correspondent for the national, conservative
Australian said (6/23): "In a confrontation that will
assist Australia, the United States is resisting pressure
from the Europeans to nominate a specific target for
curbing greenhouse gas emissions at the Denver Summit....
European leaders strongly criticized the United States, and
to a lesser extent Japan and Canada, for resisting their
commitment to a 15 percent cut in 1990 emission levels by
2010.... The United States' reluctance means that the
Howard Government will still remain isolated in its
demands for special dispensation from any binding uniform
targets for developed countries. But it will be left
slightly less exposed and given more maneuvering room at
the international Earth Summit due to consider the issue in
New York next week."
CHINA: "One Mile High, But Only One Inch Deep"
Li Yunfei, Washington correspondent for official Communist
Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao) filed (6/24): "The
eight countries issued a communique at the end of the
summit. Past documents at least had a theme, but this
year's document only enumerated problems. Heads of G-7
countries originally just discussed economic problems. Only
recently has politics been added to the agenda, making
these meetings more political in tone. With a growing
agenda, this year's G-8 discussions just scratch the
surface. Substantive differences were left unresolved."
"Seven-Plus-One And Eight-Minus-One'"
Russian correspondent Xu Hongzhi, pointed out in official
Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 6/21): "The
G-7 summit has been an annual event for many years, but few
issues are resolved at these gatherings, which have tended
to be more ideogical and less pragmatic in tone. This
year's media spotlight on the change from a gathering of a
'group of seven' to a 'group of eight' countries appears to
go beyond the concerns about the concrete results the
summit is going to achieve. The press believes that
Russia's entry marks a change in the relationship between
Russia and Western countries. Although Russia met its
initial goal of being included in the group instead of
being an add-on, it did not participate fully in all of the
meetings during the summit. A one-hour meeting was held
without Russia. Whether 'eight minus one' can become a
real 'eight' will depend on the pace of economic recovery
and development in Russia."
INDONESIA: "The G-7 Summit And Myanmar"
Leading independent Kompas noted (6/23): "In Denver, the
Seven-Plus-Russia continued to be critical of Burma.
However, don't forget that they are all ASEAN dialogue
partners, so it will be necessary for them to receive
Burma at the upcoming meetings in Kuala Lumpur."
SINGAPORE: "Group Should Open Its Doors To New Kids On The
Block"
The pro-government Business Times (6/24) concluded in an
editorial, "The time has come for the Group--the 'G'
process which is supposed to bring together the leading
powers of the world to decide on the architecture of the
international system--to open its doors and permit the new
kids on the block a 'seat at the table' of global decision-
making. Does this global board of directors, which
includes Canada and Britain, two medium-sized economic and
political players,
but excludes economic powerhouses and important military
players like China and Korea, 'look like the world?'...
Now that there is serious talk of including Russia as a
permanent member of the 'G' Club, isn't it time to consider
the membership of China, India, Brazil and South Africa?"
SOUTH KOREA: "G-8 On Korea"
Government-owned Seoul Shinmun (6/23) editorialized that
"Now with Russia joining the club, the gathering has
changed, becoming more of a political summit. That the
Denver summit addressed international issues, including
drugs and terrorism, proved that.... The G-8 does not
include China, which leads us to wonder if it is meaningful
at all to discuss world issues without Chinese
participation. We hope that the G-8 will create a better
international order."
AFRICA
KENYA: "An Initiative For Africa"
The independent East African observed (6/23-29): "It might
be unrealistic to believe that anything very practical will
come of the Africa initiative which President Bill Clinton
put before the world's wealthy nations at the weekend, but
since hope is about the only commodity many African nations
have, let us try to be optimistic. For years, African
states were used merely as pawns in the Cold War, after
which we were effectively dumped. If the Clinton plan is a
sign that consciences are being stirred, then Africa should
take every advantage of this new attitude and demand the G-
8 nations redeem the promises implicit in the initiative
and respond to the progress that is being achieved, slowly
and at considerable human cost, in a number of African
countries.
"Africa has little real leverage over U.S. administrations.
Unlike the Jewish lobby which presses tirelessly on behalf
of its co-religionists in Israel, few African-Americans,
though vastly greater in number, perceive any duty to use
their votes to back Africa's cause. It is probably just as
well. The dependency syndrome has done our continent
enough damage. If we can secure economic advantage by
reforming our systems and some of our bad habits, then
surely that is the route to follow."
UGANDA: "Will Uganda Reap From The Trade Deal?"
The independent Monitor observed in an editorial (6/23):
"This week the leaders of the world's leading economies met
in the U.S. city of Denver and discussed how to integrate
Africa in the new world economic order. Earlier in the
week, U.S. President Bill Clinton had announced a new
intitiative on sub-Saharan Africa aimed at boosting trade
and investment in African countries. The U.S. initiative
might sound new and fresh, but it is what President
Museveni started singing years ago--that it is trade, not
aid, that will save African economies.... But how ready
are we to produce those goods and services?... The Clinton
administration envisages that African countries that will
benefit from it have to reciprocate by opening their
markets to U.S. business, too. However, Uganda has the
most expensive water rates in Africa. Its
telecommunications rates are prohibitive. The result is
that, while Museveni campaigned so hard on this issue,
Uganda could benefit the least because other African
countries will be much cheaper to produce in."
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Summits Of Extravagance"
The independent Jerusalem Post told its readers (6/22):
"Summit season is upon us. First there was NATO, the
European Union, and now the Group of Seven. They all
feature more or less the same main guests, the same foot
(Russian) stuck in the entrance door, and the same Third
World noses pressed against the window panes looking for
crumbs.... It is getting harder to gauge whether the
average voter in the EU or G-7 countries knows or cares
what these
hugely costly junkets mean or achieve.... The Denver theme
was quickly set as an American gloat-fest. President
Clinton welcomed the delegates, told them how successful
the American economy was, and bid them do likewise.... The
secondary theme, picked up from the NATO summit, was once
again 'be nice to Boris.'... Surely these elected leaders
have better things to do--like running the countries that
elected them."
JORDAN: "The Denver Summit And Mideast Peace"
An editorial in center-left, influential Al-Dustur noted
(6/24): "In a message addressed to Israel, the Denver
summit declaration urged both parties to the Mideast
conflict not to do things that impede the peace process,
particularly things that prejudge the final status
negotiations on Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian
territories.... We admire this declaration that revealed
the extent of the leaders' interest in the Middle East.
We are pleased to hear President Clinton express concern
for the peace process. We hope that this concern will be
translated into practical steps in the form of an effective
U.S. intervention in the process."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Summit Had Some Positive Aspects'
Top-circulation Okaz (6/23): "The Denver summit had some
positive aspects, particularly its call for some
international parties to be involved in and support the
peace process. The United States has not by itself been
able to surmount the obstacles erected by the Israeli
government.... Time is not in favor of the Arab cause, and
the freezing of the negotiations may lead to a complete
collapse."
SOUTH ASIA
BANGLADESH: "Expectations From G-7"
The centrist Independent observed (6/23): "Most of the
lesser developed countries (LDCs) have chosen the course of
economic liberalization and restructuring in the hope of
ensuring a better life for their citizens. They naturally
have great expectations from the developed countries which
have been championing the cause of development through
democracy. The fragile democracies in many of the LDCs
face the grim prospects of strife and political unrest if
economic policies fail to improve the lot of their
citizens. The industrial democracies have a special
responsibility to ensure the success of economic reforms
and to treat LDCs as true partners in development."
INDIA: "Time For Affirmative Action In G-7"
Readers of the centrist Times of India (6/24) saw this
editorial: "The present arrangement of restricting
international economic decisions to the seven richest
nations clearly divides the world into haves and have-nots.
President Clinton has been campaigning against growing
racial segregation in his own country and one wonders
whether it has occurred to him that the G-7 is based on a
foundation of global segregation in economic matters and
there is as good a case for affirmative action here on an
international scale as there is within the United States.
It does not make sense to preach democracy, human rights
and marketization (sic) on a global scale but have
international economic management. The world's rich have
to change their old mindsets."
PAKISTAN: "The G-8 Summit"
The center-right Nation (6/24) held, "The leaders of the
United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan and Russia stressed their interest in the
reinvigoration of the faltering Middle East peace process.
In order to achieve this, the G-8 countries wanted a return
to the basic principles of the Oslo accords and the Madrid
conference.... How far the G-8 group of countries can
influence, persuade, or pressure the Netanyahu government
to take pause in its adventurist and expansionist posture
in favor of a return to the land-for-peace principle
underpinning the Middle East peace process, is a matter for
conjecture.... Unless the United States wishes to see a
return to the bloody conflict which has dogged the Middle
East over the last 50 years, and under which Israel can
never rest secure, it should use its own clout and allow
the clout of the other members of G-8 to be utilized in
nudging Israel back from the brink of a confrontation."
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA: "The American Friend's Prescription"
Oscar Raul Cardoso, international analyst for leading
Clarin, wrote (6/21) "Today, the dominant idea is very
similar to what salesmen of cheap clothes say: 'One size
fits all.' The American prescription--open the economy to
the domain of big corporations, eliminate the social
welfare system, pay the price for being the most unfair of
the richest nations--is perhaps the only feasible way for
this era, but the goals seem to materialize when the only
thing which is still without globalization is consensus.
In fact, none of the G-7 leaders who will have to swallow
Clinton's proud warning (Jospin may be, perhaps,
the...exception) seems too far from the American formula.
The problem they have is that their electorates move in
the opposite direction of the 'irreversible globalization'
formula and this contradiction will be interesting to
follow."
BRAZIL: "Meeting Globalization Challenge"
Center-right O Estado de S o Paulo commented (6/22):
"Urgency for new commercial agreements was the main flag
waved by President Bill Clinton, on Thursday, upon
arriving in Denver, Colorado, for the meeting of the Group
of the Eight. The strengthening of Mercosul, to resist the
North American pressures, was the theme during the
Southern Cone ministerial and presidential meeting in
Asuncion, which ended on the same day. At the beginning of
the week, in Amsterdam, leaders of the 15 countries of the
European Union tried to maintain the schedule for
instituting the euro, as the future regional currency,
seeking to reconcilie employment and fiscal stabilization
goals. There are few times, such as now, that the picture
of the forces in action in the globalized world have been
so clear. The Summit of the Eight--where Russia is the new
guest--should serve to discuss themes such as unemployment
and other macroeconomic questions. Despite some advances,
the problems in coordinating the fiscal, political and
monetary policies remain--which affect the entire world,
because of the enormous weight of the major economies of
the group. The delay by President Bill Clinton in
obtaining the fast track authority--a special mandate to
negotiate commercial deals -so far favors the Mercosul
governments, who have more time to prepare themselves for
the negotiations of the FTAA. Americas' delay certainly
contributed to stimulate the Chilean government to align
itself with Mercosul in relation to the FTAA. The
strengthening of Mercosul does not depend exclusively on
diplomatic deals.... The strength will come with the
integration and growth of the commercial companies, which
depend on fiscal and monetary conditions; large
infrastructure investments in education and in research
and technology."
##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
6/24/97
# # #