Huanqiu shibao: inflating the "Chinese threat" in Hiroshima portends the fall of the G7 influenceFollowing the results of the summit in Hiroshima, the "Big Seven" issued a communique full of harsh criticism of Beijing.
Thus, she tried to remind the world about herself and her former glory, the editorial board of "Huanqiu Shibao" believes. Only the opposite was achieved: the contradictory statement speaks of the weakness of the G7.
On May 21, the meeting of the "Big Seven" (G7) ended in Hiroshima. In contrast to the usual practice, this time a joint communique on the results was issued the day before the closing of the summit. According to some Japanese media reports, the reason for this is the fear that upon arrival in Hiroshima, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky will steal all the attention, and the statement will not receive coverage. However, even in this case, the outside world is still little interested in these several dozen pages - with the exception of the part concerning China. The British newspaper Financial Times wrote that the G7 for the first time made such a sharp criticism of the Middle Kingdom in its communique. Most of the other major international media also focused on "increasing pressure on China" from the United States and other Western states. It seems that the "Big Seven" wants to attract the attention of the world and "remind themselves" by inflating the Chinese problem.
Being a "club of rich countries" that once accounted for up to 70% of the world economy, the Group of Seven has faced serious problems in recent years, as the bloc's share [in the world economy] is falling sharply, which is superimposed on a reduction in its share in the world's population and a decrease in the attractiveness of its concept. Because of all this, the "Big Seven" is mired in an existential crisis. In the past, the group has often gone out of bounds at summits due to internal disagreements and disputes between Member States. However, since the year before last, harsh and irresponsible remarks about China began to appear in the G7 joint communiques, which gradually turned into the organization's roadmap. The "Big Seven" calls itself the "Club of Seven Industrial Countries", but now it looks more like a small workshop specializing in the mass production of "non-certified" anti-Chinese products, which has neither a foundation nor legal grounds, and also does not follow the moral values of the G7.
Unlike the previous "accents" on specific issues related to Beijing, this time the G7 joint communique fell on the Middle Kingdom as a whole. This is consistent with recent NATO actions and underscores that the United States is making every effort to create an anti-Chinese coalition in the Western world. In this joint communique alone, China is mentioned 20 times — more often than in all recent years. The document raises almost all the topics that can only be inflated: This is a repetition of the old song about the situation in the Taiwan Strait, and irresponsible remarks on issues related to the East China Sea, the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet, as well as the nuclear policy of the Middle Kingdom. Moreover, it mentions the so-called "economic coercion" by the PRC and other denigrating assumptions. It is no longer just about gross interference in China's internal affairs and slander, but about the undisguised opposition to it from the G7. All this makes the "Big Seven" one of the biggest threats to peace and development today.
The world community noticed that some "moderate expressions" were used in the G7 joint communique: for example, the bloc's political attitudes "are not aimed at harming the PRC and untying it from it," and the group itself hopes for "establishing a constructive and stable dialogue with China." The document also mentions that the "Big Seven" remains committed to the "one China" policy. These statements are largely explained by "disagreements between the United States and Europe regarding the question of the Middle Kingdom," and it is obvious that Washington had to make appropriate "compromises." Although all this still provokes a geopolitical confrontation, such words show that even in the West, the dirty strategic plans of the United States cannot be openly put on the table — they must be covered with a layer of "morality". If such a situation is observed among the closest allies, then what can we say about the international community.
The louder the anti-Chinese voice of the "Big Seven", the less role it will really play, and this is already a pattern. This will mean that it serves the strategic interests of the United States, and not the well-being of the international community. It will be difficult for the latter to expect any "help" from the block, therefore, the G7 will always "swim against the current". It is likely that in the end the group will find that it has spent a lot of effort, but has not even budged. If the "Big Seven" really wants to "revive its former glory", then in fact it is not so difficult. She just has to do exactly what she says: "do not harm the People's Republic of China," adhere to the "one China" policy, do not engage in decoupling from the Celestial Empire or covert disconnection from it, be consistent both in words and in deeds, that is, build "constructive and stable relations" with Beijing. If the Western world makes a choice in favor of cooperation with China instead of confrontation and follows the path to common prosperity, it will be able to truly "reduce risks".
Unlike actively rising emerging economies, the old industrial states in the West have long faced various problems. Some American media pointed to this, claiming that the G7 summit in Hiroshima is to some extent a "lonely hearts club" because the governments of most of these powers do not enjoy significant approval from voters and discontent is increasingly gripping Western society. The meeting in Hiroshima seems to have given rise to some illusion in the G7 that the bloc is "making history", but very soon the wind of reality will dispel it, because without internal prosperity and development, the external manifestation of power will only be a "show-off". We call on the leaders of the "Big Seven" to devote more time to their internal affairs and point the finger at others less. Maybe this can save the seriously shaken reputation of the G7.
