At the time it seemed like a pretty simple promise.

Two years ago, the G8 met at Gleneagles and promised universal access to treatment for HIV/Aids by 2010. The G8 comprises most powerful industrialised nations in the world. The same group of nations controls all the major international institutions as in the case of the UN, IMF, World Bank and within the regional context, even the EU.

Since 2005, the G8 has had a second thought. The Americans in particular were concerned about the open-ended commitment made at Gleneagles and insisted that this year's summit was more specific. Universal access - according to the new G8 definition - means that 5 million Africans will receive treatment from the G8 over the next few years.

As is all too typical of these gatherings, this blatant watering down of the Gleneagles commitment was dressed up as a stunning success. The G8 trumpeted the fact that it would be spending $60bn over the next five years on HIV/Aids (and malaria and TB) - half of it from the US and the other half from the rest of the G8. Washington calculates that its $30bn package is enough to treat 2.5 million people with HIV/Aids, and by doubling that figure you get to 5 million. Throw in some dosh from non-G8 donor countries and around 7 million people may get the help they need.

You don't need to be Isaac Newton to work out that 10 million minus 7 million equals 3 million. And you don't need to be Florence Nightingale to work out that the prospects for the unlucky 3 million are pretty grim. Let's not beat around the bush; it's probably a death sentence for most of them. The estimate in 2005 was that 10 million people would require life-saving drugs, although the United Nations now thinks the figure could be 50% higher.

From Gleneagles to date, nothing substantial has been achieved as far as development of the developing countries is concerned. The overall aid from the G8 to Africa declined by 10% from the Gleneagles to date.

As African heads of state have realised promises made by the G8 members are always partially fulfilled; African and African countries are not crying out for aid but for fair trade, in particular, the removal of subsidies on European products and the opening of the markets for products from Africa and other developing countries. It is ironic that the wealthier nations in the world through inbuilt subsidies in their economies receive more aid than we the poor in Africa.

The meeting of the G8, which may appear illusionary, is a congress of the most powerful leaders of the world, who in their positions as demigod, distribute the wealth of the world as they wish. Thus, they decide Africa will be given US$60 billion to tackle the problems of Aids, malaria and TB. And with the conditions that will be attached to this are nothing but tokenism, for US$60 billion is nothing but a drop in the ocean, considering the magnitude of the problems in Africa.

It's also about keeping your promises. If the G8 was a private company, there would be a strong case for suing it for breach of contract. As it is, the backsliding goes unpunished. But it does make you wonder whether yesterday's big new G8 initiative on climate change is actually worth the paper it is written on.

But that is just another smokescreen, since the total aid budget for the West is about one-tenth of what the world spends on military hardware. The war in Iraq is budgeted at US$113 billion per annum. And for the US to successfully maintain its presence in Iraq for the next five year, some US$11 trillion is required. This is not about money; it is about priorities.

The fact that they determine the agenda makes it unpalatable and smells of the new imperialism call globalism. The developing countries continue to be at the periphery, a situation that perpetuates our dependency on the powerful nations. The attendance of the G8 by few ineffectual African leaders is a clear example that the interest in Africa is purely for media consumption. In reality, the G8 does not intend to assist the people of Africa in their struggle against poverty, illiteracy and war.

It is this perception that should guide African patriots of the 21st Century in their dealings with the G8. We therefore, re-echo the disappointment of African heads of state who attended the last G8 meeting in Germany