A Very Combative G7
Victor Ângelo
The
G7 brings together the largest liberal economies, that is, in descending order
of size, the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy
and Canada. Together they represent about 50% of the world economy. The
leadership of the G7 in 2021 falls to the British, who held a meeting of
foreign ministers this week in preparation for the summit scheduled for June.
They
have gone two years without meeting. The pandemic and the malaise caused by
Donald Trump's presidency explain the long hiatus. Now the realities are
different. Control of the pandemic seems possible, thanks to vaccination
campaigns. And the policies pursued in Washington are no longer unpredictable.
Still, it was necessary to decide between a face-to-face meeting or not. After
a year of virtual conferences, it was concluded that when it comes to
diplomacy, face-to-face contact is by far the most productive. Many of the
videoconferences held between politicians during the pandemic turned out to be
a mere formal exercise in which each one read the text in front of him or her, without an exchange of ideas, an
analysis of options or a personal commitment. We are now safely back to
face-to-face discussions.
Another
aspect concerns the list of countries outside the G7 but invited to the meeting.
It was limited to South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India, as well as
two supranational organizations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) and the European Union. The political reading of this choice is easy to
make. There is a clear preference here, and not just from the British. The
economic and geopolitical focus is on Asia, on strengthening relations with
countries that can stand up to competition from China. Latin America and the Middle East were simply
ignored.
China
was in fact a dominant concern. The consultations among the ministers started
there. The US is pursuing a very complex policy line in relation to China. They
seek, in the main, to combine antagonism with cooperation. Hostility in general
and agreement, in certain concrete matters, for example in the area of climate
change or on Iran. This line will not work. The message received in Beijing
from Washington can be summed up in one word - confrontation. And the Chinese
will respond to that perception club in equivalent currency.
The
Europeans themselves - and this has been shown in the statements made by
Germany and France - think that the American position with regard to China is
excessive. They agree with Washington when it comes to human rights, Hong Kong
or Xinjiang, or the protection of intellectual property. But they believe that
Europe has much to gain if the relationship with China is based on respect for
established rules and the pursuit of mutual advantages. Japan prefers to follow
a policy similar to Europe's, despite pressure from the Biden administration.
Russia
was also high on the agenda. The Kremlin is now seen as a threat to the
European and American democracies. In this matter, the harmony between the two
sides of the Atlantic is clearer. The issue of defending democratic regimes,
including the fight against the spread of false or biased information, was a
major theme.
The
American Secretary of State went to London to propose a new strategic approach.
Antony Blinken argues that the group cannot just be a coordination mechanism
for the big capitalist economies. It must become a platform for political
intervention by the most influential democracies. This is an expression of a
belief prevalent in the current American administration that the US has a
mission - that of saving the democracies. For some of us here in Europe, such a
proposition generates three kinds of uneasiness. One, related to the increasing
marginalization of the UN's political role. The other, with the worsening
polarization of international relations. The third, with the weight that a
phantom named Trump may yet exert in American politics.
(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the
Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)
No comments:
Post a Comment