When the G7 met in Texas

In July 1990, President George H.W. Bush hosted the G7 summit in Houston. This was a pretty big deal for Houston, a city that likes to think of itself as the Gulf Coast’s New York or Los Angeles. My translation company, Translations Verbatim, was fairly new, having been officially chartered on November 7, 1989. I devoured news reports about the meetings and conferences and task forces that would convene during that event.

And sent out invitations to reporters at the Houston Post and Houston Chronicle, at Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine, at New York Times and Washington Post. “If you need translation services, we’re available! And if you need a place to camp out while you write your reports, we’ll have a nice spread. For free!”

Nothing on the published event schedules noted that President Bush was providing free translation and interpreting services for all international journalists. Complete with fancy meals. My little company took a big hit financially.

But I am getting ahead of myself.

The runup to this G7 summit exposed the tensions that lived just under the surface in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wende, Germans call it, the turning point. Although I didn’t agree with all of GHWB’s politics, I certainly appreciated his grasp of the fragility of reunification and the purported end of the Cold War. When he went on American television in December 1989 and called for the East Germans to open the border in Mödlareuth — butchering that little town’s name, but still — I was proud he was my president.

In 1990, few world leaders seemed to understand that the Wall wasn’t just in Berlin. It extended the length of Germany, with watchtowers, machine guns, and landmines along that border. And a month after the Wall fell, that border was pretty much intact.

We watched, holding our collective breath, as the USSR took baby steps towards what we hoped would be democracy. On June 4, 1990. John Kettle reported in The Guardian that Soviets had relaxed almost all exit visa restrictions for her citizens, while simultaneously making it nearly impossible for Russian citizens to travel abroad. Gorbachev kept the foreign currency limits the same — about $200-300 per Soviet citizen — but suddenly regulated where the FX could take place. The 200 rubles were now worth only $20-30.

The Independent of London published an editorial four days later. They foresaw doom and gloom for the upcoming G7 economic summit. Three topics were on the table: The Soviet Union, the environment, and debt forgiveness to ‘Third World’ countries, including all of Eastern Europe, but most especially Poland. Eastern European debt to the United States alone exceeded $165 billion [$405 billion in today’s currency]. If the Soviet Union collapsed, Eastern European debt would be uncollectible.

That editorial staff noted that they had seen “no coherent plans” for dealing with the Soviet Union, despite months of attempts at developing one.

Any of the three topics would require more cash than most G7 countries were willing to spend. All three at one time? Chaos. President Bush’s G7 was shaping up to be a failure.

Eight days before the summit was to begin — even as I was figuring out how many trays of food to buy for those reporters — Ellen Hale, reporting for Gannett News Service, stated that it appeared President Bush would be hiding behind “German reunification, economic aid to Europe, instability in the Soviet Union and other political issues” to sidestep environmental issues.

The other six members of the G7 had made it clear that the environment was their #1 priority. Bush read his US base correctly and knew that the environment would be on the same level as “no new taxes” for his political future. Hale believed that the environment would take a back seat to other issues.

Bush had another problem. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany was coming into her own, stronger than she’d been since 1939. Germany had been meeting with Soviet officials in advance of the G7 summit. Kohl knew his base. Germans did not like US nuclear weapons on German soil. Kohl’s team therefore met with Gorbachev’s team to discuss full de-nuclearization of Germany (USA) and the USSR.

President Bush did not trust Soviet negotiators. He therefore preempted the German-Soviet announcement a few days before the G7 summit was to begin. Bush proposed that the US unilaterally withdraw 1400 nuclear weapons from West Germany and four other Western European countries. In addition to giving himself leverage with Gorbachev, Bush believed that this voluntary withdrawal of nuclear weapons from German soil would ease Gorbachev’s mind about a reunified Germany joining NATO. And yes, it really has only been thirty-five years since this was under discussion. It feels like a lifetime ago.

Max Walsh of the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) expanded on this a couple of days later. On July 5, he described the feud that brewed just beneath the surface. Chancellor Kohl of Germany and President Mitterrand of France pushed President Bush to involve the United States in a “new Marshall Plan” — for the USSR.

Walsh wrote, “Financial aid, it is argued, will avoid the risk of psychological defeat that occurred in the Weimar Republic of post-World War I Germany and led to the emergence of a paranoid nationalist regime in the form of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. The important difference is that the USSR is a thermonuclear power.”

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sided with Bush in this debate. Both she and Bush feared the potential of a German-Soviet alliance. Thatcher also opposed monetary union — the proposed Euro — fearing a strong Germany.

Although their reasons diverged, with Bush concerned about NATO and nuclear weapons, and Thatcher focusing on a strong Germany, they presented a united front against France and Germany. Meanwhile, the non-G7 Australian desire to see the G7 work on the Uruguay trade round was all but a non-starter.

Canadian newspapers ran an editorial from the “The Canadian Press” that represented the Canadian viewpoint. “The Berlin Wall has crumbled. Communism is out of style. And Woolworth shops will soon reopen in East Germany. Such are among the many changes — big and small — that will confront Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and fellow leaders of the seven richest economies who gather in Houston for their 16th annual summit on July 9-11.

“Their meeting will be unlike any other: they will consider redrawing the economic map of Europe for a post-Cold War world.”

Those Canadian journalists said something out loud that most US, British, and Australian journalists danced around. No matter what anyone wanted to have as the top priority for the sixteenth G7 summit, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union would overshadow everything else.

“Indeed, the man who will be most talked about at this summit won’t be there — Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.”

The Canadian delegation to the G7 summit stressed that Gorbachev would not get their aid unless and until Gorbachev undertook “top-to-bottom reforms.” Reform had also been part of Thatcher’s protest, but her concerns regarding reform appeared to have been overshadowed by her fear of a German-Soviet alliance.

And the Canadians were most specific about actions Gorbachev must commence before they were willing to send direct aid to Moscow. The end of government-subsidized industry, privatization of production, understanding that they (Soviets) could not be handed prosperity, they had to earn it by changing their ways.

The unnamed Canadian delegate noted that one dry run for the privatization of government-owned business would be the former DDR. Those East Germans would be writing the template that other Eastern Europeans, including the Soviets, could follow.

Roger Crowe of The Guardian echoed the sentiments of that Canadian news team two days later. He saw the real (not stated, but real) priorities of the G7 as: 1) Assistance to Eastern Europe and the USSR. 2) Farm subsidies. 3) Environment. Maybe.

In the same issue of the Guardian, Martin Walker reported on the Japanese wish-list for Bush’s G7 summit. Not aid to the USSR, but aid to China — that was what the Japanese delegation wanted.

“The Japanese are coming to Houston to remind their fellow-summiteers that the prospect of instability in the Soviet Union is also alarming Asians. But they have another problem: the prospect of instability in a nuclear power suffering the death struggles of Communism — China.

“China, and the prospect of resumed Western aid and investment, is the main issue of this summit for the Japanese. In briefings in Tokyo and Washington, Japanese officials have said that giving aid to the Soviet Union at this time was ‘like giving sugar to a diabetic.’ Economic commitment to China, in contrast, will repay rich and stabilizing dividends.”

Walker noted that from where he sat, there were three economic and political systems that would do battle in Houston.

“There will be the Japanese corporate system, with central planning by government working in harmony with aggressively competitive private industry. There will be a predominantly Germanic social democracy, of welfare states within a single European market. And finally the tarnished American model of private enterprise thriving around the core of a military-industrial complex which triumphantly won the Cold War.

“The challenge of Houston will be to maintain the capitalist community and persuade it to confront the new enemies of pollution, Third World debt, and the poverty of two-thirds of the world’s people who were the real victims of the Cold War fought by the rich white folks up there in the northern hemisphere.”

Ironically Walker’s piece was published above UK stock prices for the day.

The next day, Canadian journalists explained why the Japanese wish list would not happen. While Soviets had to reform a great deal before they could be trusted, China’s crackdown at Tiananmen Square the year before had rendered their request for aid impossible. The Japanese delegation would not go home happy.

Prime Minister Mulroney stated clearly that on the other hand, it was important to support Gorbachev, so he could pursue reforms in the Soviet Union.

Two days before the summit started, 100 KKK members marched in front of Rice University where it was to kick off. They chanted, “No Economic Summit,” and “Bush should not negotiate with foreign countries.” About 250 counter-demonstrators jeered the KKK.

On July 8, Kate Thomas of the now-defunct Houston Post wrote an insightful article entitled, “World trade agreement would be the proof of summit pudding.” Thomas reminded her readers that President Bush was not contending merely with other world leaders, but with powerful, well-connected US lobbyists. Regardless of Bush’s (or others’) wish list for the summit, the lobbyists wanted him to complete the Uruguay round — the same stated goal that Australian journalists had expressed. Too bad they were not part of the G7. For once, lobbyists’ desires were not fulfilled.

Business lobbyists also wanted better trade deals with regards to tariffs (some things never change), intellectual property and patents (some things never change, part 2), and farm subsidies. They threatened Bush with going over his head to Congress if he could not deliver.

Martin Walker of The Guardian wrote on July 10, after a full day of meetings and festivities, that it was clear the new world order was Japan, Germany, and the USA, and that everyone else didn’t matter. While Japanese and German delegates donned cowboy boots and ten-gallon hats, Brits sat glumly on the sidelines of the special rodeo performance Bush had orchestrated. Margaret Thatcher didn’t even tap her feet!

Walker said, “It is not just that the British did not enter into the spirit of the Houston welcome laid on by President Bush. A dismal economic performance which is making us the poor man of Europe is also making us the tail-end Charlie of the summit process.

“These events are becoming a meeting of the Big Three of the US, Germany and Japan. You could stretch it to the Big Four now that the President of the EC is a regular. But Britain, Italy, Canada, and France are the also-rans.”

Right in the big middle of this G7 summit, the organizers gave the delegations ‘down time’ to spend with local business communities. And this is where I come in.

The German American Chamber of Commerce, Houston chapter, asked me to sit at the head table of the event they had planned, so German G7 delegates and dignitaries would have a German-speaking American with whom to converse. Which meant I got to hear the speeches loud and clear, along with running commentary at the table.

As noted above, the German government was decidedly in favor of giving direct aid to the Soviet Union with Mikhail Gorbachev at its helm. But not for the reasons most often reported.

And as I write this, I am still shocked that no one in the room reported on the speech I heard. Because it was… frank? Incredibly honest?

Germany wanted the USSR added to the G7 and discussed this openly at its delegates’ luncheon. Not because they desired a German-Russian alliance. No. Far, far from that.

Germany wanted the USSR to have a seat at G7 summits so the rest of the world could keep an eye on the Soviets. They mistrusted the Soviets, even Gorbachev. Their experience over forty years of living as a divided country colored everything they thought and did regarding the Soviet Union.

We cannot let the Soviets get too strong, that German speaker said. Out loud. If they are part of the G7, we can keep them just strong enough. But not too strong. Europe with the USSR as superpower is not safe. And we need security.

It did not even matter that Gorbachev won reelection shortly after the conclusion of the G7. Or that Boris Yeltsin left the Communist Party. Or that Gorbachev’s reelection was seen as surviving “upheavals and unhappiness.” Westerners naively saw his reelection as a sign that the USSR was firmly and forever on the path to progressive reform, capitalism, and eventually democracy.

On July 16, after Houston had swept up and cleaned up, after President Bush returned to Washington, after some delegates returned home to applause and others to silence regarding what they had failed to accomplish, after all was said and done…

Those Australians got it right again. Peter Stephens, writing in The Age (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) said: A new world is emerging.

“Anyone who had not realized that, almost daily, a new global power structure is being created, would have been shaken into awareness in Houston.”

Thatcher’s closing press conference: “…it was clear the G7 could be divided into three factions: those based on the Yen, those based on the $US, and those based on the Deutschmark. …

“Already, West Germany leads the other European Community members in financial and policy matters and at Houston it was evident that Chancellor Kohl no longer feels bound to concede American supremacy in the G7.

“Mr. Bush seemed awkward in his recent dealings with the Soviet leader, Mr. Gorbachev, during the Washington summit because the two men can no longer sit down at a table and talk as equals. The US holds all the cards. The Soviets need American help and the Bush Administration has assumed much of the responsibility for ensuring that Mr. Gorbachev and his reform program survive. …

“In the new order of things, the Soviet Union is suffering the insecurity and humiliation that follows defeat in the Cold War. America, which did so much to rebuild Japan and Germany after the destruction of World War II, must now share the stage it occupied alone for so long. Success, too, has a price.”

And now, we’re right back where we started. With our strongman (who knows less than 0.0001% about world politics as George H.W. Bush) advocating for a return of the Soviet Union, I mean Russia, to the G7. Completely failing to understand why it was a big hairy deal the first time around. How much distrust that conversation triggered between allies.

Tariffs, farm subsidies, intellectual property, patents, debt forgiveness, immigration, the environment, what wasn’t resolved in 1990 remains unresolved in 2025. Except now we don’t have a stable partner who’s looking for reform in the former USSR. The UK persists in being a “tail-end Charlie,” joining Italy at the side table. The G7 has lost its panache as a meeting of equals.

But now? Now we in the USA cannot look to a rational, logical person with whom one can disagree and still understand his thought process. George H.W. Bush was at least that.

My wish list for us as a global community has less to do with specific resolution to any of those longstanding problems. My wish list?

Rational, logical leadership in every country on the face of the earth.
“Delegates” who speak their mind. Out loud. (Can you imagine where we could possibly be today if that German delegate’s musings had been more widely shared?)
Peace. Peace. Peace.

Everything else will follow.

COMMENT WORTH KEEPING

This was an exquisite essay.

--Leslye Joy Allen, historian, June 19, 2025.

Questions? Comments? Speak your mind below. Before doing so, please log in using the email address that corresponds to your orders or newsletter subscription. Note: MARKDOWN is the app's label for formatting shortcuts.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to leave me a tip, I would be grateful! Buy Me A Coffee!

Return to Common Table index.

Image credit: Top photograph--July 9, 1990. President Bush meets with world leaders at the G7 Economic Summit in Houston, Texas. Photographer was Susan Biddle. Photograph is public domain. Bottom photograph--Shopify, public domain for platform users.

No part of this post may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the copyright holder, except for the “fair use” of quotations that are properly cited and credited, including identification of the translator if applicable. No part of this post may be included in any Large Language Model without proper licensing from the copyright holder, Denise Elaine Heap.