The main event of the past week was the G7 summit in the English county of Cornwall, which marked the way out of the pandemic stagnation for world leaders. Against the backdrop of the three-day meeting that followed Elizabeth II’s evening reception and the ongoing environmental protests during the summit, a new round of transatlantic engagement has emerged.
But Europeans have a lot of skepticism about Biden, one of the key figures in the event that announced that the US “is back”. EU leaders have questioned the Democrat’s reliability as a partner since previous American leader Donald Trump shattered Europe’s credibility. At the same time, authors of a NYT material outlined the fears of Europeans, in particular, Poles, that Biden may be “sleepwalking” towards a reset of relations with Russia.
At the end of the summit, the G7 adopted a joint communiqué, the main topics of which were the global fight against the COVID pandemic, within which it is planned to allocate 1 billion doses for vaccination in countries in need, as well as dealing with climate change issues and economic recovery. The discussion on Russia did not take up a significant part of the summit.
But the most interesting point was opposition to China’s policy, which reflected the most rigid in history joint position of G7 countries in relation to the Asian state. For the first time, the strengthening of China’s military power was viewed as a serious challenge, and the position of official Beijing regarding the Uighur minority and the situation around Hong Kong was condemned. It was decided to help developing countries overcome crises, introduce infrastructure investments and rebuild the global economy by creating new jobs, supporting innovation and developing programs for equality in the professional environment. This was a kind of counterbalance to the Chinese Silk Road project, which had long caused concern in the West. On a large scale, the Summit’s initiatives herald the beginning of a new Cold War against the geostrategic opponent.
A clearly formed position on confronting the economic and military influence of China is an indicator that the G7 countries nevertheless showed solidarity, despite the fact that their European part was focused on local problems caused by the post-Brexit period. Interestingly, the leaders of the G7 countries will not be able to resolve the issues of climate change without Beijing. And this with taking into account the fact that the implementation of the climate agenda at the summit has already been recognized as a failure.
The decisions taken by the G7 rightly outraged China: representatives of the Chinese Embassy in Great Britain demanded an end to interference in the internal political affairs of the PRC and damage to the interests of the Celestial Empire. All the accusations were called unfounded, the “slander” of the G7 leaders – an untenable attempt to decide the “fate of the world.”
The supremacy of the bloc of several countries in solving issues of the structure of the modern world is no longer advisable in a multipolar system. The problems of the current socio-economic and environmental agenda should be resolved through consultations with the participation of all countries of the world community, as well as “be based on the principles of the UN Charter and the norms of international law”. If such a thesis is accepted as an axiom, there is no talk of a global triumph for the G7 – even with regard to the United States that returned to Europe.
A similar opinion was expressed by the Italian political expert, chairman of the International Institute of Global Analyzes Vision & Global Trends Tiberio Graziani, also commenting on the upcoming meeting between the Russian and American leaders:
Borrell proposed a “more generous visa policy” for Russians
“The G7 in the final resolution did not actually put forward strategic directions that could seriously affect the international dynamics, namely the unstoppable advancement of China in the world arena and the amazing resilience of the Russian Federation. Certainly, Biden remains the recognized leader of the West and, as such, he will attend the summit with his Russian counterpart, President Putin. But in the confrontation with the head of the Kremlin he will have to rely on the reasons of force rather than those of politics and diplomacy. Indeed, he will have to rely above all on his condition as primus inter pares of the transatlantic coalition. But even in this case, it must be noted that the NATO of 2021, certainly in full reaffirmation, apart from the budget problems, already announced by Trump, is not in excellent health and his strategy suffers from all this. Tha Nato’s “march to the east” finds the hard rock of Ukraine, the western outpost as Zelensky defined the country of which he is president. In fact, with the eventual inclusion of Kiev in the Atlantic Pact, NATO risks becoming entangled in a situation that is too risky for its European partners, certainly not inclined – indeed unaccustomed – to assume military and strategic responsibilities since 1949, the year of foundation of the transatlantic alliance”.