By He Lie and Lu Ningyuan
The Group of Seven (G7) summit is held in Hiroshima, Japan from May 19 to 21. Although it is called the G7 summit, all of the agendas and related activities of the G7 Hiroshima summit are centered on the US and are accommodated to the schedule of the US. People can't help wondering if this is G7 or G1? If the US always sits on the throne while other countries stand at the foot of the throne, why is G7 called the G7?
As the only Asian country in the G7, Japan should have used the G7 Hiroshima summit to voice for Asian countries and resolve the conflicts and differences between Asia and Europe and America. The Japanese media Nikkei reported on May 18 that the G7 will discuss issues such as the Indo-Pacific, production and supply chains, and economic security during the three-day summit. The Yomiuri Shimbun reported that the main content of the G7 Hiroshima summit joint statement will include support for a free and open Indo-Pacific and the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. These issues cater to the demands of the US and conform to the strategic arrangements of the US.
Both the agenda-setting and schedule arrangement of the G7 Hiroshima summit should follow the will of the US. According to the original plan, US President Joe Biden will visit Papua New Guinea and Australia and attend the QUAD leaders' meeting in Australia after attending the G7 Hiroshima summit on May 21. However, due to the debt default of the US federal government, Biden temporarily canceled his visit to Papua New Guinea and Australia. The US canceled the appointment, and Japan hastily adjusted relevant arrangements to match Biden's schedule. The Japanese side urgently communicated with the US, Australia, and India to hold a QUAD leaders' meeting in Hiroshima on May 21. It can be said that Japan has worked really hard for the convenience of the US.
Being kidnapped and coerced by US's geopolitical self-interest will not benefit the development of the G7. For example, the so-called "China's economic coercion" that the US wants to hype at the G7 summit is not in the interests of most G7 members. According to a report on the Deutsche Welle website, at the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting held before the G7 summit, disagreements emerged on restricting China's foreign investment. Both German and French officials have emphasized that the G7 is not an anti-China alliance, which means that the G7 has a certain awareness of the evil consequences of the US putting its so-called strategic interests above the immediate interests of its allies. It will be difficult for G7 to bear the pain of losing the Chinese market by following the US to "decouple and break the chain" with China.
A G7 kidnapped and coerced by the geopolitical self-interest of the US will by no means bring good to the world. Against the backdrop of weak post-pandemic world economic recovery and increasingly prominent global challenges such as climate change, the last thing the world needs is division and turmoil. G7 members enjoy the most development dividends from economic globalization and thus assume special responsibilities for promoting economic globalization, global economic growth, and solving global economic and financial problems. If the G7 does not think about how to do good things for the stability and development of the world, but instead disrupts the security and stability of the global industrial chain and supply chain under the baton of the US, splits the world into two systems, and goes against the general trend of openness and inclusiveness, its global influence may further decline.
Our world today does not need a puppet organization where one country calls the shots, nor do we need any value alliance. The G7 should say no to the political coercion of the US and show courage to refuse to be a strategic vassal of the US.
Editor's note: Originally published on haiwainet.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.