Policy Alert #231 | June 16, 2021
On June 13, the leaders of G7 nations ended their three-day summit in southwest England. At his first in-person meeting with the leaders of the world’s most influential democracies, President Joe Biden took the opportunity to announce the U.S. “is back in the business of leading the world alongside nations who share our most deeply held values.”[1] Among a wide range of global issues, the ongoing COVID pandemic and the rising influence of China are at the center stage of the meeting. In the joint communique, G7 nations pledge to donate one billion COVID vaccines to developing countries while allocating $100 billion through the IMF, among other funding sources, to support the “Build Back Better World” initiative for global post-pandemic recovery.[2] Moreover, the communique calls for China to respect human rights in Xinjiang and freedoms in Hong Kong, while urging a transparent investigation of COVID origin in China, as well as underscoring the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.[3] In addition to the communique, G7 nations also signed an Open Societies Statement with India, South Korea, and South Africa to reaffirm their “shared belief in open societies, democratic values and multilateralism.”[4]
In this Policy Alert, we examine the Rising Powers’ reactions to the outcomes of the G7 Summit.
China
On June 12, the Chinese Embassy in the United Kingdom commented that the “days when global decisions were dictated by a small group of countries are long gone…There is only one kind of multilateralism, that is, the genuine multilateralism based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law… not pseudo-multilateralism serving the interests of a small clique or political bloc.”[5]
Three days later, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian criticized the G7 communique as “deliberately slandering China on issues related to Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan as well as maritime issues, and interfering in China’s internal affairs.” Zhao also stated China’s opposition to “the malign intentions of the US and a few other countries to create confrontation and widen differences and disputes” while suggesting “the US is ill and it’s bad” and advising “the G7 to save its prescription for the US.”[6]
- An editorial from the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, sees division among G7 nations on countering China despite the strongly worded communique: “But while the G7 is more united with Biden at the helm of the United States, its leaders do not speak with one voice on China. The hawkish language of the US and Canada is not shared by Europe and Japan, which favor a practical approach towards the important trading and investment partner. They have divergent views on the depth of the Chinese challenge, apparent in disagreement over funding for the Belt and Road alternative ”[7]
- In an op-ed for state-run nationalist tabloid Global Times, Liu Zongyi, Secretary General of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, argues that the infrastructure support pledged by G7 for India is far from enough: “In case of the G7’s new infrastructure plan, how much funds supports will Western countries provide in actual implementation is still questionable…Even if the West plans to invest in India’s infrastructure, how much can they support India at a time when many of them are facing skyrocketing levels of debt and can barely finance their own domestic infrastructure?”[8]
India
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the G7 Summit virtually as the lead speaker on the session for Open Societies while also speaking on the session for climate change. Modi said India is a natural ally of G7 in defending the shared values from a host of threats stemming from authoritarianism, terrorism and violent extremism, disinformation, and economic coercion.[9] At the same time, Modi highlighted the non-democratic and unequal nature of global governance institutions and called for the reform of the multilateral system as the best signal of commitment to the cause of Open Societies.[10]
In an interview after the G7 Summit, P. Harish, Additional Secretary of Economic Relations at the Ministry of External Affairs, said that for the first time, India has engaged in ministerial and working-level tracks as a guest country. Harish also stated that India’s engagement with G7 stands on its own and that the Indian government hopes to take forward the engagement in various initiatives.[11]
- In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, C. Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at National University of Singapore, sees India’s participation in G7 as a signal of deepening ties between India and suggests that China is the key factor driving the improving relations: “The frequent military crises at the northern frontiers – in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2020 – have compelled Delhi to reevaluate its threat perceptions. Besides the threat to territorial security, India finds that its hopes for strong global cooperation with China – through such forums as the RIC (Russia-India-China), BRICS – have taken a big beating in recent years… The growing trade imbalance with China and the negative impact of Chinese imports on India’s domestic manufacturing saw Delhi walk away in 2019 from the Beijing-dominated RCEP.”[12]
- An editorial from the pro-government The Pioneer questions the unity of G7 and the group’s ability to follow up on its pledges: “The G7 looked desperate to show how united they were… Its follow-up on its declarations has been rather lackluster. Its membership often completely ignores the emerging trends…President Joe Biden has pledged to restore the US’ historical commitment to multilateralism. But G7 did not show unity or firmness in Russia’s role in Syria, and Russian interference in the US and European elections.”[13]
Japan
On June 12, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga spoke with President Joe Biden on the sideline of the G7 meeting and discussed COVID-19, climate change, North Korea, China, and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.[14] During the discussion, Biden affirmed Washington’s commitment to the U.S.-Japan alliance and support to the Tokyo Olympics. Suga also “accidently” ran into South Korean President Moon Jae-in and exchanged greetings, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders.[15] At the end of the Summit on Sunday, Suga said G7 nations will lead the international community in tackling the coronavirus pandemic and authoritarianism. Suga also added that all leaders gave “very strong support” for Japan’s Tokyo Olympics.
- In an op-ed for the center-right The Japan Times, Brad Glosserman, Deputy Director of the Center for Rule-Making Strategies at Tama University, suggests that the outcome of the G7 Summit is clouded by the uncertainty over whether the nations will deliver on the underwhelming pledges: “While the pledge to provide over 1 billion vaccines to poorer countries sounds impressive, it was dismissed by campaigners for global equity… While activists hoped that the group would set a date to phase out the use of coal, the communique only called for ‘an overwhelmingly decarbonized power system in the 2030s’… For all the pomp and fine intentions, the G7’s influence is limited… The real instrument of international economic leadership is the G20, whose members account for some 80% of global GDP and two-thirds of the world’s population.”[16]
- An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun urges more multilateral cooperation among democracies to counter China’ assertiveness and reduce dependence on China in the global supply chain: “It is essential for the United States to be an active player in world affairs, bolstering the impression the U.S.-Japan-Europe cooperative system has been revived. The biggest focus of the summit is whether the G7 can provide a concrete road map for dealing with the challenges to the international order posed by China, Russia, and other such authoritarian nations… With Australia, India, South Africa, and South Korea invited to the G7 summit, a stable framework composed of democratic nations is desired.”
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/06/13/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-2/
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/13/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique/
[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/13/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique/
[4] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50364/g7-2021-open-societies-statement-pdf-355kb-2-pages.pdf
[5] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceuk/eng/PressandMedia/Spokepersons/t1883513.htm
[6] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1884007.shtml
[7] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3137260/biden-should-follow-g7-pragmatism-approach-china
[8] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1226219.shtml
[9] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/india-natural-ally-of-g7-pm-modi-267915
[10] https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/on-the-second-day-of-g7-summit-pm-takes-part-in-two-sessions/?comment=disable
[11] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/indias-engagement-with-g7-stands-on-its-own-govt-looking-forward-to-cop26-mea-101623592786855.html
[12] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/g-7-virtual-meet-united-kingdom-india-and-the-west-relations-7348541/
[13] https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/the-g7-world.html
[14] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/12/readout-of-president-bidens-meeting-with-prime-minister-suga-yoshihide-suga-of-japan/
[15] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/06/13/national/suga-moon/
[16] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/06/15/commentary/japan-commentary/actions-words-make-break-g7/
