The recent G7 summit in Italy concluded with an official statement that underscored
key takeaways and ongoing challenges.
BY PROF. ENGR. ZAMIR AHMED AWAN
JUNE 18, 2024
The recent G7 summit in Italy concluded with an official statement that underscored key takeaways and ongoing challenges. While the summit aimed to address pressing global issues, it was evident that underlying political dynamics and strategic objectives, particularly regarding China and Russia, played a significant role. This analysis highlights the successes and shortcomings of the summit, as well as the broader geopolitical implications.
Key Takeaways from the G7 Summit
Focus on AI and Technology Regulation:
Italy, under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, prioritized the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). Pope Francis, a former chemist, made an unprecedented appearance to advocate for AI regulation, emphasizing its potential harms.
Italy’s temporary ban on ChatGPT in March 2024 showcased its proactive stance on AI scrutiny.
Outreach to Non-Western Nations:
The G7 attempted to broaden its engagement beyond Western democracies by inviting leaders from India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Algeria, Kenya, and Mauritania. This move aimed to bridge the “West vs. the Rest” gap, especially concerning the Ukraine crisis. It was an attempt to expand blocks beyond West and take some other emerging powers on board.
Financial Sanctions on Russia:
A core issue was the proposal to use dividends from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. This proposal, initiated by Washington, faced opposition from European members and Japan. The debate highlighted the complexities of international financial sanctions and the geopolitical tug-of-war over their implementation. Some of the US allies were of opposite views and President Joe Biden failed to convince them.
Failures and Criticisms
Geopolitical Motives and US Hegemony:
The summit’s agenda appeared heavily influenced by the US’s strategic objectives to counter China and Russia, raising concerns about the G7 being used as a tool for US geopolitical dominance.
The exclusion of Russia since the 2014 G8 shrinkage to G7 and the recent focus on isolating China reflect a shift from economic cooperation to big-power rivalry.
Out of 7, six leaders were having domestic issue at home and were not strong enough to make a solid contribution at the Summit. President Biden, who is going to have a tough election by the end of this year, was losing his popularity within American voters. He might face very tough competition from former President Trump. He is equally unpopular globally for his irrational support to Israel and genocide in Gaza. Furthermore, during his tenure, Afghan debacle, Ukraine War, Gaza Genocide, and de-dollarization happened, making his presidency a weak and failure. French President is also going for election soon. Canadian Prime Minister, who is very much popular globally, but, may face very tough completion at home from opposition. Japanese Prime Minister is one of the weakest prime Minister in the history of Japan. German Chancellor is also facing domestic issues. I think only Italian Prime Minister was strong and enjoying full support of his people. Under this scenario, the six leaders were not in a strong position to contribute something solid at the G-7 summit.
Divisions Among G7 Members:
The inability to reach a consensus on using Russian assets for Ukraine highlighted fractures within the G7. European and Japanese resistance to US pressure revealed underlying tensions and differing priorities among member states.
The lack of agreement on this financial issue demonstrated the limits of G7’s cohesion and effectiveness in addressing complex global challenges. Some of the US allies were of opposite views and President Joe Biden failed to convince them.
Perception of Selective Human Rights Advocacy:
The summit’s approach to Russia’s financial assets raised questions about the selective application of human rights and international law. Critics argue that such actions undermine the credibility of Western institutions and set a dangerous precedent for future geopolitical conflicts.
The G7’s stance risks alienating non-Western countries, especially those involved in BRICS, by demonstrating a willingness to violate international norms for strategic gains.
Emerging Counterbalance: The Rise of BRICS
Expansion and Single Currency:
The BRICS bloc is gaining momentum as a counterbalance to the G7. The upcoming BRICS summit in Kazan, chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin, aims to expand membership and create a single currency to facilitate economic relations amidst Western sanctions.
The development of an independent payment system for BRICS countries reflects a strategic move to reduce reliance on Western financial systems and mitigate the impact of sanctions.
Diverse and Open Partnership:
BRICS emphasizes an inclusive and non-bloc partnership, contrasting with the G7’s perceived elitism. This approach is attracting numerous countries, with around 30 seeking BRICS membership, indicating a shift towards a more multipolar global order.
Challenge to Western Hegemony:
The BRICS initiative to create a viable structure for economic cooperation and resilience against Western pressure signifies a growing challenge to US and Western hegemony. The group’s focus on mutual interests and equal dialogue contrasts sharply with the G7’s current trajectory.
Navigating Uncharted Waters
The G7 summit in Italy highlighted the group’s attempts to address global issues while navigating complex geopolitical landscapes. However, the summit also exposed the inherent contradictions and challenges within the G7, particularly its alignment with US strategic interests and the resulting divisions among members. The movement for European Sovereignty is gaining momentum too. As BRICS continues to emerge as a formidable counterbalance, the international community faces a shifting dynamic where traditional Western-led institutions must adapt to a more multipolar world order. There are almost 100 countries interested to join BRICS in the near future. The future of global cooperation will depend on the ability of these blocs to reconcile their differences and work towards inclusive, sustainable solutions.
Meloni gets her way at the G7: war, Mattei Plan and ‘sovereign rights’
At the G7 meeting, Ukraine was the number one issue, as shown by the special role given to President Zelensky, the bilateral meeting between him and Joe Biden, and the summit’s focus on Russian aggression.
It was the same with the seven leaders’ final statement: “We reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
Then again, Ukraine is the only point of the document on which the seven – and especially the host, Giorgia Meloni – have any concrete achievements to show: the €50 billion loan covered by the interest on frozen Russian sovereign wealth funds – dubbed “Era: Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine” – and the 10-year bilateral agreement with the United States. Complementing all this was the condemnation of Russia’s “brutal and unjustifiable war of aggression,” and its “irresponsible” appeal to nuclear rhetoric.
While the situation on the ground in Ukraine is more and more difficult, the document put together by the seven used the same watchwords we have often found in their speeches in recent days, which seem to highlight rather than dispel a serious underlying concern about the future course of the conflict. Thus, we read insistent assurances that it’s not true that “time is on Russia’s side,” that “destroying infrastructure and livelihoods has no consequences for Russia,” or that “Russia can prevail by causing Ukraine to fail economically.”
The not-so-subtle threats against China, which is supplying technology to Moscow that is being used to build weapons, were a recurring theme, both in the long chapter on Kyiv as well as in the entire chapter on the Indo-Pacific, which, in the diplomatic language used on these occasions, Beijing is framed as the source of instability throughout the region, from Taiwan to the Philippines and North Korea – with the exception of Myanmar’s military junta, which was deemed to deserve blame all on its own.
Of course, there was no chance that the persecution of Muslims by the newly re-elected Indian government led by Narendra Modi would make it into the document, on the day the Indian prime minister came to Borgo Egnazia (and held a bilateral meeting with Meloni in the evening) along with the other leaders invited as part of the so-called “outreach” – trumpeted for days as proof that the G7 is not a private club intended only for the rich and predominantly white – including Turkey’s Erdogan, Argentina’s Javier Milei and Brazil’s Lula.
The second-most-prominent theme in the final document was Gaza. However, after the dutiful condemnation of the Hamas massacre, the words used in defense of the rights of civilians in the Strip, as well as in the Occupied Territories, were more milquetoast than those already uttered on several occasions by the president of the United States in an attempt to stem Benyamin Netanyahu’s murderous and unscrupulous advance into the Gaza Strip, where almost nothing remains standing.
“We fully endorse and will stand behind the comprehensive deal outlined by President Biden,” the document reads, “that would lead to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages, a significant and sustained increase in the flow of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza, and an enduring end to the crisis, with Israel’s security interests and safety for Palestinian civilians in Gaza assured.”
That, of course, would be the panacea for all ills. “We are deeply concerned by the consequences on the civilian population of the ongoing ground operations in Rafah,” the seven lamented as the offensive has already been underway for weeks, “and the possibility of a full-scale military offensive that would have further dire consequences for civilians.” They also tut-tutted at settler violence and paid the usual fealty to a two-state solution. There are also a few sentences on the fears of the conflict widening, from the Houthi-patrolled Gulf of Aden to Lebanon and Iran: Tehran “must cease its destabilizing actions.”
In third place, Meloni managed to put her own pet project, the Mattei Plan for Africa, under the heading “Fostering Partnerships with African Countries”: “We will reinforce mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation with African countries and regional organizations.” Accordingly, the G7 “welcome the Mattei Plan for Africa launched by Italy.” The counterpart, and counterpoint, could be found several pages further, in the “Migration” section.
The G7 leaders reiterated the same vague three-point recipe as always: “focus on the root causes of irregular migration” (sounding as ambitious as ever), “efforts to enhance border management,” and “safe and regular pathways for migration.”
However, the real core of the policy shines through further down: “we will step up our efforts to prevent and address irregular migration, counter the illegal activities that facilitate it, and tackle the challenges it poses to individuals and societies. We affirm the sovereign right of states to control their borders, as well as their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction.”
The stress on the “sovereign right” is another achievement by Meloni, while Biden is reeling from the consequences of his disgraceful executive order shutting down the southern border of the United States, abandoning countless promises in the process. All in all, the Italian prime minister had her way on all fronts.
No comments:
Post a Comment