During the time when the summit marathon is taking place, the western side of the mountain is blocked off. When it comes to China, though, the alliance is far from being as unified as it would seem to be.
 |
| [G7 Summit 2022] |
Beginning with the European Union and continuing on to the Group of Seven and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization without a break, the western allies' summit marathon that lasted for six days is finally done. At each and every one of these talks, the Western allies' top priority was to show that they are united in their opposition to the aggressive war being waged by Russia and Putin against Ukraine. Also successful in accomplishing this goal were the leaders of the nation's governments and states. Even Turkey is on board and has indicated that it is okay with the plan to bolster the northern flank as well as consenting to Sweden and Finland's participation in NATO.
When it comes to dealing with another equally challenging actor, however, Western nations are everything but in sync with one another; the issue at hand is dealing with China. Even though the conflict in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia were the primary topics of discussion at all three summits, even the United States was forced to recognize, much to its shame, that any further tightening of the sanctions is dependent on China.
Taking the example of the boycott of Russian oil, for instance: the United States has not purchased any Russian oil since the beginning of the war, and with the exception of Hungary, the states that make up the EU want to stop importing from the aggressor state by the end of this year at the very latest. However, the sanctions have no impact since China is purchasing more oil from Russia than it ever has before and doing it at a price that is 30 percent lower than the price on the international market.
The United States of America wants to fill these gaps and as a result has suggested restricting the price at which Russian oil may be purchased. The United States capital is particularly interested in two outcomes: Despite Western sanctions, Russia's revenue has recently gone up because to large rises in the price of oil and gas. This happened despite the sanctions. A price ceiling would prevent it from happening. In addition, in light of the high inflation rates, a price ceiling would restrict the adverse impacts on third-party markets as well as on consumers all over the globe. However, the same principle applies here: A price ceiling of this kind for Russian oil could only be successful with China's participation. Therefore, Western powers are required to make contact with Beijing.
The United States is at the root of the movement to restrict imports of gold from Russia. Gold is one of Russia's primary exports, making it one of the world's leading producers. A regulation of this kind would cause the Russian government to lose billions of dollars in income. The Europeans would eventually sign up. However, only a little quantity of gold makes its way from Russia to the Western world. India and China are the most important nations in terms of demand. The same is true in this situation: If Beijing does not collaborate, then nothing will be successful.
The extent to which the activities of the West now rely on China was made abundantly obvious by the two instances that were presented during the G7 meeting in Elmau. When it comes to dealing with China, however, the Western allies are far from being unified in their approach.
At the G7 meeting in Elmau, Bavaria, there was not a controversy about this matter since it seems that individuals concerned did not want to disrupt the ideal mood there. However, the ban will still be in effect. Instead, the issue of how to interact with China was discussed at the NATO summit that took place in Madrid. Democracies in the Asia-Pacific area that felt threatened by China were invited to Madrid by NATO at the insistence of the United States. These countries included Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan.
The unified proclamation issued by NATO delivers quite a punch. A whole paragraph in the newly accepted policy document in Madrid, which was presented to and approved by the member states, is devoted to China. According to what was said in the document, "the aims professed by the People's Republic of China and its strategy of coercion pose risks to our interests, our security, and our values." In addition, the strengthening of China's relations with Russia runs counter to the interests of the West. In addition to this, NATO has accused China of assaulting NATO members via "malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its aggressive rhetoric." At one point, the United States and the United Kingdom considered classifying China as a "risk" or possibly a "danger." However, Germany and France both declined. The language has been adjusted to reflect this toned-down approach.
The fury that came from Beijing didn't take long to arrive. Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, made reference to "slander." The NATO strategy plan ignores the facts and muddles up the distinction between black and white. The so-called Chinese threat is being blown out of proportion, as Zhao pointed out, which is absolutely meaningless. And the official Chinese media adds, "First it was Russia, and now it's China. But the actual danger to global peace is NATO itself." [Citation needed] Therefore, Germany's attempts to mitigate the criticism leveled against China in the NATO strategy document have been mostly unsuccessful. The level of indignation in China has not subsided.
The so-called "Partnership for Global Infrastructure," an investment program for developing nations that is also intended against China, was one project on which Western allies were more united with one another. The Group of Seven (G7) intends to compete with Beijing's "New Silk Road" project, which was initiated in 2013 and is in the process of opening up new trade routes to Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. With this project, China is in the process of opening up new trade routes.
Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States and the man responsible for the project's inception, said that "together we intend to mobilize over 600 billion dollars via the G7 by 2027." The United States of America plans to raise a total of two hundred billion dollars from public and private sources for the purpose of funding this cooperation over the course of the next five years. The President of the European Union Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, made the announcement that "Team Europe" will be participating with $300 billion. The G7 nation of Japan made a commitment of 68 billion.
According to a US government source, the effort would focus on nations with low and moderate incomes. Investments in infrastructure "that the nations require without being dictated from the outside" are the goal of this initiative. In order to "guarantee that these investments are economically and commercially driven and do not result in debt traps," the projects would be required to adhere to stringent requirements.
But regardless of how accurate the US representative may be, in the same breath he unintentionally names a problem with the Western initiative. Many countries that have used funds from the Chinese project are now realizing that their mountains of debt have grown massively, and they are hopelessly over-indebted to China. This is a problem with the Western initiative. But what made China's offer so appealing to many governments — and what, at the same time, might pose a challenge for efforts coming from the West — is the following: The government of China does not impose any ethical requirements on the country's investment assistance. But the G7 states that this is exactly what they have in mind for the future. However, because of this, the authoritarian regimes are less likely to be interested in their investment program.
The New Silk Road Initiative of China is governed centrally in Beijing, while the G7 are not as closed as Scholz thinks they are in Elmau. This is another challenge that the G7 are facing in terms of their organizational structure. mainly due to the fact that it has not been decided whether or not the enormous infrastructure projects will be managed at all, and if they are, where the management will take place. Or if each industrialized nation spends autonomously and in a way that is not coordinated anywhere in Central Asia or Africa, as has been the case up to this point in time.
In addition, it is not obvious if the G7 governments will be able to make the billions of euros available at all; at the very least, many people doubt that they will. In the past, the G7 had also promised specific amounts for development assistance and the battle against global poverty, as well as for the commitment to assist developing nations in the process of transitioning to a climate neutral economy. They were never followed up on in any way.