On May 19-21, 2023, Hiroshima, Japan will host the G7 summit. It is already clear that it will take place in an atmosphere of Western exceptionalism, as evidenced by the results of the last ministerial meeting in the city of Karuizawa, where high-ranking diplomats from the G7 expressed their position on a number of issues. These include disapproval of a number of countries, as well as clearly unsubstantiated statements made in the hope of scoring points with representatives of other countries, because confidence in the collective West is rapidly declining.
All of this was reflected in a lengthy twenty-page communiqué from the foreign ministers of the G7 countries (+ EU representative), published on April 18.
It should be noted that the foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, and the United States, as well as the High Representative of the European Union, have declared their commitment to “maintain and strengthen a free and open international order based on the rule of law”-a system that emerged after World War II, greatly strengthened after the collapse of the USSR, and largely dominated by the United States. Until recently, it remained virtually unchallenged, but the turn toward multipolarity is eroding its foundations step by step..
In a panicked attempt to maintain its hegemony, Washington invents more ways and reasons to justify this unipolar and parasitic model, and its satellites are forced to contribute to it, even if it does not benefit them.
Speaking to the press, Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi explicitly said that one of the G7 commitments is to “strongly oppose unilateral attempts to change the status quo anywhere in the world,” which is the desired goal of China and Russia as they work to create a single economic space for a multipolar world order.
As for the various problems and threats, Western politicians put Russia at the top of the list, even noting “the use of food and energy resources as weapons”. Although it was the West that imposed sanctions, blew up the Nord Stream pipeline and imposed a number of bans on various products from Russia. Clearly, it is the West, led by the U.S., that is using as a weapon all areas available to it, including humanitarian law. And with the help of its media it is trying to conduct aggressive propaganda, where much of the information is crude disinformation.
And then it goes straight to China, which, like Russia, is accused of destruction.
The G7 are concerned about escalation and tensions around Taiwan, but also other issues. Some provisions, however, are expressed in a peremptory manner: “abstain from threats, coercion, intimidation, or the use of force. We remain seriously concerned about the situation in and around the East and South China Seas. …There is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea».
China is followed by North Korea, with talk not only of nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles (to which North Korea has every right as a sovereign power), but also of some “humanitarian crisis” inside the country and “systematic violations of human rights”. This passage clearly has the nature of interference in the internal affairs of the country.
The leadership of Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Iran are condemned with equal fervor. Iran is also credited with “destabilizing activities, including transfers of ballistic missiles, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), i.e. drones, and related technologies to state and non-state actors”. Also condemned is Iran’s support for Russia and, of course, detentions within the country.
A huge block is devoted to disarmament, which the G7 allegedly supports. Then why expand NATO and supply weapons to the Kiev regime and Taiwan? Also rather hypocritical is the statement about following UN rules, including decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The G7 clearly has a short memory – the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S., supported by Britain, was carried out without the consent of the UN. As was the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan, from which the U.S. and its accomplices fled in shame twenty years later.
Interestingly, China immediately reacted to this communiqué. During his regular press conference, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Wenbin said that the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting “grossly interfered in China’s internal affairs and maliciously smeared and discredited China”. And the communiqué itself reflects the group’s “arrogance, prejudice and deliberate desire to block and contain China. We deplore and reject this and have made a strong démarche to the host Japan”.
The minister mentioned that the G7 is trying to manipulate narratives to mislead the public. And it can by no means speak on behalf of the international community.
Wang Wenbin also pointed out the apparent contradictions in the G7 document and gave fair characterizations: “The G7 puts itself in the seat of the judge and makes wanton remarks on other countries’ strategic security and arms control policies, while constantly undermining the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation system. How can such a behavior win the trust of the international community? The US sits on the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world. It has withdrawn from treaties and organizations concerning arms control, follows a first-use nuclear deterrence policy, keeps upgrading its nuclear triad, strengthens and attempts to replicate nuclear-sharing arrangements, and advances forward deployment of strategic forces. The US has become the single most disruptive element and largest source of risks for international peace and security. What’s more, the US and the UK are openly transferring nuclear-powered submarine reactors and weapons-grade highly enriched uranium to Australia, which constitutes grave nuclear proliferation risks and contravenes the object and purpose of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
I would like to stress that Japan, which holds the G7 rotating presidency, has taken a very hypocritical policy stance in the field of arms control. Japan has long characterized itself as a victim of nuclear explosions and an advocate of a nuclear-weapons-free world. But in fact, Japan sits comfortably under the US’s nuclear umbrella, and it is against and hindering the US’s renouncing of the first use of nuclear weapons. Some Japanese politicians even suggest the possibility of nuclear sharing with the US. Besides, the Japanese government has ignored the international public interest by pushing ahead with the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean. This move has imposed the unpredictable risk of nuclear contamination on people around the world.
We once again urge the G7 to stop maligning and slandering other countries and stop inciting antagonism and confrontation. They need to reflect on their own strategic security policies, earnestly fulfill relevant international arms control obligations, and shoulder their due responsibilities for world peace and security”.
The criticism from China came in handy. For in building a multipolar world, it is necessary to debunk the myths and false narratives of the collective West.
By the way, is the G7 really “great”? After all, when this club was formed, the share in the world economy of these countries was very different. And now China’s GDP is almost close to that of the U.S., and the other G7 members together have about the same GDP as the PRC. We should probably introduce a new term, “Greedy 7”, for it corresponds to reality, it cannot be great in the real sense, and the abbreviation will remain the same.
Written by Leonid SAVIN
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.