Bombings wont stop G8

From the BBC:

Bombings 'cannot stop G8 deals'

The London terror attacks will not damage the chances of leaders reaching agreements at the G8 summit, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.
The G8 heads of state are due to spend the final day of their Gleneagles meeting discussing trade, aid and debt.

They will be joined later by the leaders of seven African countries, as well as the heads of international lending agencies and the UN.

Security has been stepped up across Scotland after Thursday's blasts.

The G8 leaders are expected to announce a joint position on climate change - originally scheduled for Thursday - later in the day.

Key issues

Mr Straw said the attacks had created a united front at the summit.

"We were moving towards agreement on all these key issues of Africa and climate change and many other issues as well," he said in an interview with the BBC.

"What it has emphasised however is that the disagreements which sometimes take place around the room, of course they do, between leaders and countries and infinitesimal compared with what it is that unites all the world leaders who are here assembled in Gleneagles."

The G8 leaders insisted much had been achieved.

"The discussions on climate change have gone very well," said Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, referring to talks held in the absence of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who had temporarily travelled to London for police briefings.

"We have noticed a shift in the American position," French President Jacques Chirac said late on Thursday.


G8 nations agreed to full debt cancellation for 18 countries, while African countries call for debt relief for all Africa
EU members have pledged to reach a collective aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015
President Bush proposed doubling US aid to Africa over the next five years to $8.6bn (£4.8bn)
No deal yet made on lifting trade barriers
No progress made on climate change yet - the US has said it won't cut emissions but will look at clean technologies
"The agreement which we are set to reach is an important agreement, even if it doesn't go as far as we would have wanted.

The agreement is expected to be a compromise that would allow both Europe and America to claim victory.

Any deal is expected to take on board the view that the decision for action to reverse the build-up of greenhouse gases should be based on the scientific evidence of this process.

But no major proposals for action are expected, nor any new money to develop clean technologies.

Africa aid

Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper blamed the Bush administration, insisting that it had "again done its best to derail international action to tackle climate change".


Group of eight major industrialised states, inc Russia
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, US


Originally set up to discuss trade and economic issues
Now leaders discuss global issues of the day

2005 Summit agenda

Climate change
On the issues of poverty reduction, the leaders are expected to reiterate that the debts of 18 of the poorest countries in Africa will be forgiven, and they will probably reconfirm a promise to write off the debts of a further nine countries if they can comply with a set of criteria.

An announcement on aid is also expected, namely a promise to boost aid to Africa to $25bn, with a possible commitment to raise total aid to poor countries in Africa and elsewhere in the world to $50bn by 2010.

On trade, the so-called G5 developing countries Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, called for tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to be removed as part of efforts to eradicate poverty.

Some of the leaders - most notably Mr Bush - insist they would like to see an end to farm subsidies by 2010, though others - including Mr Chirac - remain sceptical.
I think the BBC are missing the point here - or they're being manipulated. The bombings in London had absolutely nothing to do with G8. They were designed to remind politicians that ALQ still exists and is still a force to be reckoned with. I also believe it was a cynical move aimed at making the US and UK think twice about potential force reductions in Afghan - troop stretch is something they believe will ultimately lead to a lack of enthusiasm for the continuing 'war on terror'.

We all know this is tonk - we love operations - and so does BLiar.

Similar threads

Latest Threads