The statement of the Group of Seven, which was issued by the foreign ministers, before the start of the summit work on Friday to last Sunday, in the coastal resort of Carbis in western Britain, came in 12,000 words, and was led by two sentences clarifying the goal of the G7 summit. The first sentence: “We realize that we are meeting in an exceptional and rapidly changing context.” The second sentence is: “We come together to shape a future that is less polluted, freer, fairer, and safer for the planet.” Contrary to their short appearance, the two sentences are, according to analysts, big in the balance on the ground, but where did the summit stand in their content? Did the attendees discuss implementation mechanisms in practice in the future?
The present outputs do not say so. On the other hand, it was believed in some media reports that the G7 summit did not contribute, as some expected, to the lowest level of tension in a number of parts of the world, especially with China and Russia in particular. Although the summit was able to achieve a great deal of this, the question remains: Why did the summit not do anything on this front? Was there an intention to make the world “less polluted, freer, fairer and safer”?
Analysts of words and statements, whether in press conferences or side conversations behind the scenes of the resort, and followers of what some of the leaders of the seven wrote in newspapers and social media, picked up two sentences that appeared in an article by US President Joe Biden published in the “Washington Post”, that would set the summit agenda. For its results to come contrary to what the expectations went to, what are those two sentences? The first: “The United States should lead the world from a position of strength,” and the second: “Confronting the harmful activities of the governments of China and Russia.” These two sentences clearly communicated America’s desire to the rest of the members of the group, to form a “confrontation front” in which all would participate.
Many have questioned the success of such a “front” because of the great difficulties that beset it, due to the intertwining of commercial interests and huge projects between China and Russia on the one hand, and the countries of Europe (most notably Germany) on the other.
Talking about a “front” of confrontation with certain countries harmed the American initiative launched by President Biden at the summit, to allocate a billion budget to developing countries, and went with its gloss, to make it clear the role it will play, and it is likely different from what the American Marshall Plan played for European countries after the world war Second, some analysts even went on to say that it might be a plan to confront the Chinese “Belt and Road”.
* Journalist and journalist