Views
10 months ago

From Hiroshima, with love?

G7 leaders listen as Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui (fifth from left) explains the history behind the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima on Friday	—Agency  Photo
G7 leaders listen as Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui (fifth from left) explains the history behind the Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima on Friday —Agency Photo

Published :

Updated :

French New Wave film exponent Alain Renais’s classic film ‘Hiroshima, My Love’ was about love and peace. Ironically, the recently concluded G- 7 summit held at Hiroshima was anything but. On the contrary, it exulted in confrontational rhetoric and sabre rattling by the seven richest developed countries in pursuit of their individual and collective superiority in the world order. That the world order is changing, tilted towards multipolarity, has been given the go  by the leaders of G- 7,still besotted by the idea of world dominance.

The agenda of the summit included almost all issues of global importance, ranging from nuclear disarmament (probably in deference to Hiroshima, the site of nuclear holocaust) to gender and digital technology. But the concrete steps taken and on the anvil made the focus on containing and degrading the economic and military power of Russia and China unmistakably identifiable. These two countries have been in the crosshair of America for a long time while the other G-7 countries maintained a neutral stance, giving their individual interests priority. America forced Russia to attack Ukraine  and the resultant  war  gave America the opportunity to mobilise  the neutral countries against Russia under its leadership on the ground of defence against aggrandisement and future threat .Since the war started in February last year, a formidable  slew of economic sanctions  has  been slapped against Russia by America and its European allies, ostensibly to weaken the military potential of Russia, but actually with a view to hastening its economic collapse. Alongside, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military aid has poured in Ukraine from western countries to enable it to defeat Russia in the battle field. For all practical purposes, Ukraine is fighting a proxy war for America and its allies. The Ukrainian President and politicians make no bones about it and remind their guardians at every opportunity that they are confronting Russia, the barbarian at the gate, to save western values  and civilisation .

The underwriting  of the war against Russia by Ukraine  and continuing the  commitment  to help it militarily by  the American  led alliance  has continued  unabated, increasing in volume and in terms of  state- of the - art military technology. The G-7 summit was preceded by UK’s announcement of supplying long range missiles and two European countries’ (Belgium and Netherlands) agreement to provide the fourth generation fighter  jets— F 16 to Ukraine. That these two weapons run the risk of escalating the raging war has been ignored or minimised on the pretext of Ukraine’s pledge not to use these in mainland Russia. The policy of not providing long range planes and weapons pursued by America has been officially shelved as President Biden declared in the last G-7 summit that America would train Ukrainian pilots in flying F- 16, the latest fighter jets. He also announced new military aid to Ukraine, amounting to $325 million at the summit, evidently to cajole the other member countries to follow suit. That defeating Russia, economically and militarily, was top in the priorities of America, was made even clearer by President Biden’s announcement of new sanctions at the summit. Following the cue from America, its allies in the G-7 rolled out new sanctions against Russia, targeting Moscow’s lucrative ( $4.5 billion annually )  diamond trade. The Summit also decided to tighten the economic screws further, strengthening existing sanctions, closing loopholes and subjecting more Russian firms to punitive sanctions. Ever the most loyal ally, the British Prime minister said gleefully, ‘As today’s sanctions announcements demonstrate, the G-7 remains unified in the face of the threat from Russia and steadfast in our support for Ukraine’. That the war in Ukraine was topmost in the minds of G-7 leaders and most important in the agenda was brought into sharp focus by the dramatic arrival of President Zelensky in Hiroshima by a plane provided by France.  The poster child of western democracy and values was predictably cosseted by the G-7 leaders and was assured once again that in his war against Russia he was not alone. All in all, the war in Ukraine and the overriding imperative  to defeat Russia, militarily and economically , dominated  the  G-7 Summit  in Hiroshima.

Of course the Ukraine war is important and deserves to be discussed with all the importance that it deserves. But giving no attention to the need for a negotiated settlement of the armed conflict, focussing only on a military solution at the battlefield shows the war- mongering attitude of America and its allies. Holding the summit in Hiroshima, under the shadow of the nuclear holocaust that devastated the city seventy five years ago, and hitting the drum beat of war was both ironical and tragic. Even the routine visit to the Peace Monument by the G-7 leaders did not detract from the scepticism in their minds about the paramount need for peace through compromise of views and co-existence of differing minds. If Japan’s Prime minister Kishida, for whom a world free of nuclear  weapons was a cherished goal,  hoped  that  being in that historic  city  the other G-7 leaders  would have a change of heart  and wave the olive leaf, he  soon came to rue. All that the summit formally said in the joint communiqué was exhorting Russia and China  to be more transparent  about their nuclear stockpile, as if they themselves are squeaky clean on this and the  disarmament issue.

It was not Russia alone that was in the crosshair of the G-7 leaders at Hiroshima. The summit lambasted China for its aggressive measures in disputed areas in South China sea and over Taiwan strait, calling for strengthening of collective security measures in the Pacific. On the economic front, G- 7 summit found China guilty of adopting ‘ coercive measures’ in its trade, aid and joint venture policies. America has been campaigning for decoupling from Chinese industries, particularly in the high-tech sector, for quite some time, restricting exports of dual-use technology to deny China access to state-of the- art innovations. In the G- 7, a consensus was reached on this, substituting decoupling with ‘de-risking’. This new- fangled idea of de- risking has been invented on the ground of both avoiding supply-chain disruptions and security risks of relying on Chinese exports. That this policy of decoupling or de-risking will result in fragmenting world trade and shrinking global growth has been completely ignored. The G-7 summit has made it clear that the American policy of isolating both Russia and China from the mainstream of global economic structure, because they are considered as threats to American supremacy, has now been accepted by the other member countries. The American strategy of resuscitating the bi- polar world order where it can lord it over with loyal allies   as in the ‘good old days’ of post- war cold war is on the verge of success unless wisdom dawns on other member countries. The benefits of a multi-polar world should become evident to  other  countries both in terms of peace  and shared prosperity. A divided world is a dangerous place to live, they should realise from experience.

Since inception, G-7 was meant to coordinate policies so that the richest developed countries did not work at cross-purposes and global economic order functioned without unnecessary hiccups. This goal was feasible when rich countries took a global view of economic matters. Because of the failure to reflect global concerns, both economic and security, G-7 was transformed into G- 20, representing more countries and more voices. Though G- 7 was not declared defunct it was made irrelevant by the emergence of the new grouping - G-20. Deliberations in G-7 and declarations on its behalf would be seen being in global interest if these do not degenerate into old cold war rhetorics and policies. The recently concluded G- 7 summit has miserably failed  to ensure this. Not only has it  revived old cold war strategies and policies, it paid mere lip service to burning global issues  like disarmament and peace, climate change, migration, inflation and cost of living,  banking crisis. food security, public health and pandemic etc. True, the agenda and the final communiqué appears comprehensive and exhaustive but the emphasis given on most of these in discussions  was perfunctory.  What is more disappointing, the summit failed to represent a truly global view of issues and crises.

In a world shaken by more than a year-long war and coping with slow economic recovery the urgent and paramount need is for establishing peace  and promoting  shared  prosperity in a multi- polar world. The Hiroshima summit of G-7 has failed   to address both. The G- 7, as a policy making body, proved its inadequacy long ago. Its last summit at Hiroshima has not restored any confidence on its ability to re-invent itself. In adopting a divisive policy and promoting war instead of peace, it has forfeited the right to speak on behalf of the world community.

[email protected]

 

Share this news