Review: G7 and Global health: inaction or incisive Leadership?

Source: The Lancet

Volume 385, No. 9986, p2433, 20 June 2015

Editorial

The paper discusses the analysis of "well meaning" critiques on the recent G7 summit held in Germany.

It touched on the importance of the G7 leaders seizing the moment at such a peculiar time in history, with the coming inception of the brand new sustainable development goals in September and the climate treaty in December.
A statement by Ban-ki-moon before the summit was centered on the leaders "seizing the moment and protecting the people and the planet."

Further more the special attention given to climate change and environmental protection was highlighted.
G7 leaders recognised the need for an ambitious solution at the COP21 meeting in Paris, and they reaffirmed that the increase in global temperature must be kept below 2°C, an important red line that seemed in the past to have been sacrificed to the exigencies of politics. As part of a global response, they committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions towards the upper end of the 40–70% reductions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended by the end of the century.

Unlike the issue of climate change, according to the paper other pressing issues of equal global importance did not seem to have received financial commitments.
On the issue of health, Ebola and pandemics, verbal promises to help strengthen health systems were made; of which Joanne Liu of MSF has pronounced “lip service” to the seriousness of the threats posed by pandemics. She believes that action points not mere talk is needed at this point to combat these global health threats.

G7 leaders were also accused of being silent and having failed to commit to funding AMR research and Innovation (the new Global anti microbial resistance innovation fund). This according to the paper is frustrating to NGOs as people, especially the economic minority continue to die from anti microbial resistance.

Neglected tropical diseases, ending preventable child deaths, and improving maternal health were also touched on.

Are the criticisms surrounding the last G7 conference well founded?

The paper believes the condemnation is unfair. And that the summit showed that G7 leaders can agree on the importance of crucial universal issues—such as protecting health and climate. With these commitments being welcome proof of political will, actions (not advocacy) must now follow.

In my opinion we can not conclude yet as to the true intentions of the G7 leaders until we see the action points highlighted and the promises made at the summit become fully operational.
Words have been wasted in times past after empty promises were made which were followed by relative inaction.

Hence we call on the G7 leaders, the International community and every member of the public to be effective watch dogs of the declarations made at this summit.

Let's cooperate to hold our leaders responsible for the promises they made on our behalf.