it is tempting for the powerful Group of Seven leaders, gathered at their annual meetings, to issue bland generalisations about the state of the world's political and economic affairs. But it is necessary to pay close attention to the Group simply because its decisions can influence the course of international events. The summits have become a well established part of the international calendar which underline the extent of globalisation, even though they do not have institutions to support them and carry out what they decide.
The Group's statement on terrorism comes into this category very readily. They met in the wake of the explosion at the United States military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which has sent political and strategic shock waves through the Middle East region. After the election of the Likud government in Israel and the summit of Arab leaders last weekend, the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians look bleak in the short to medium term. If, as many fear, there is a reversion to armed conflict, including terrorist attacks - and if these extend to the conservative Gulf regimes - the stage is set for a significant destabilisation.
This adds point to the concern about terrorism, but it also underlines that there are conflicting interests at play even among the Group of Seven leaders themselves. There is sharp disagreement over whether to engage in dialogue and negotiation with regimes suspected of harbouring and promoting terrorist groups, such as Iran and Libya, or whether it is best to isolate and boycott them. The US tends to the second option, most of the rest of the G7 leaders to the other. Their disagreements have been highlighted by the decision of the US to apply extra territonal sanctions against international companies trading with Cuba, to the justifiable anger of its main partners.
In the event, the summit statement on terrorism is very bland. It raises the question of whether there is any sense in generalising between such very different conflicts, by extrapolating as deplorable terrorist methods that are certainly that wherever they are used, but which are not capable of being confronted other than by national governments.
In other respects the draft G7 conclusions are much as expected, but disappointing particularly as regards Third World debt, on which the leaders' French hosts had hoped especially to make more progress. This came up against the stubborn hostility of a German delegation fearful of setting precedents for European monetary union by selling off gold or writing off debt. It does not look likely that much progress can be made on this matter as a result. There is more optimism about other elements of the world economy. It is highly regrettable that such a powerful group of states cannot summon the political will to respond to the plight of the poorest of the poor, mainly African states and peoples.
This summit is expected to give a clearer idea about whether the United Nations Secretary General, Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali, will retain the support of other permanent members of the Security Council, despite the US decision to veto him. He has attracted much support since last week's announcements, which may well mean that the affair is by no means closed. The line up so far does not make it any easier for the President, Mrs Robinson, to declare her interest in the position.