The lesson of Russia’s war in Ukraine has forced the Group of Seven (G-7) countries to confront Beijing head-on this year, and the unified statement from the Hiroshima summit represents a big step that, according to some experts, was “unthinkable” two years ago.
The big question, though, is whether the G-7 countries can stay united and strong when confronting China, as they’ve pledged—or will they continue to put commercial interests ahead of “the rule-based international order” or their core values, such as human rights and democracy?
The 49th annual summit of the world’s most advanced economies—the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Canada—was held from May 19 to 21 in Hiroshima, Japan.
While these summits rarely make headlines, this year’s communiqué, more sanctions against Russia, and a separate statement on China demonstrated that, at least in terms of messaging, the leaders of the world’s richest democracies are more united than ever.
China’s harmful tactics that undermine international rules and norms were a primary focus of this year’s summit, as articulated in a new special statement on economic security.
The G-7 leaders have stated publicly that they see China as an economic bully and that the international community will not put up with Beijing’s “economic coercion.” They warned for the first time that there will be “consequences.”
“We will work together to ensure that attempts to weaponize economic dependencies by forcing G7 members and our partners, including small economies, to comply and conform will fail and face consequences,” the statement reads.
The G-7 statement on China, according to Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, was “quite robust.”
While the special statement made no mention of China, it was made clear during the summit that it was all about China. In the summit’s communiqué, the G-7 leaders made their positions clear, condemning Beijing’s military activity in the East and South China seas and human rights violations in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida made countering China’s economic coercion a top goal, and during the summit, the leaders announced the launch of a new “Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion.”
This new platform is particularly noteworthy, because it “shows that G-7 countries are willing to coordinate to collectively come to one another’s defense in the face of Chinese economic coercion,” Stephen Ezell, vice president of global innovation policy at the Washington-based think tank Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), told The Epoch Times.
China’s efforts to use its growing economic might to influence governments throughout the world have increased in recent years.
For instance, after Australia called for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 in April 2020, the Chinese communist regime imposed sanctions on roughly a dozen Australian goods, including wine, for which China was the major market.
Beijing also used coercion against other countries, most notably South Korea in 2017 after it installed a U.S. missile defense system, and Lithuania in 2022 in response to that country’s efforts to increase diplomatic ties with Taiwan.
While G-7 leaders seemed more united this year, they still demonstrated some weakness by not putting their foot down and imposing sanctions on Beijing, according to Antonio Graceffo, a China economic analyst and author of “Beyond the Belt and Road: China’s Global Economic Expansion.”
“They even recognize that China is supporting the war in Ukraine but fail to bring meaningful sanctions, such as a trade ban, against China,” said Graceffo, who is also an Epoch Times contributor.
‘De-risking’
Another key outcome of the summit was the leaders’ use of the phrase “de-risking,” rather than “de-coupling” from China, which has become a new official G-7 term.“We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying,” the leaders stated in the communiqué. “We will take steps, individually and collectively, to invest in our own economic vibrancy. We will reduce excessive dependencies in our critical supply chains.”
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who was also present at the summit, favored de-risking as a strategy.
“It is past [the] time to decouple,” Graceffo said, noting that the G-7 leaders are finally recognizing this.
“This de-risking involves diversification,” he explained. “New investment is not flowing into China as it did before. Decoupling would mean pulling existing companies out of China. De-risking involves making new investments in India or Vietnam instead. And that is what is happening.”
As part of this strategy, the leaders agreed to implement export control and outbound investment measures to safeguard sensitive technologies and build resilient supply chains.
This de-risking strategy conforms to “the October Controls,” a set of restrictions enacted by the U.S. Department of Commerce that prevents big manufacturers from shipping high-end chips and inputs to China to protect critical technologies.
“The devil is in the definitions and the details,” Glaser told The Epoch Times. “In my view, decoupling was never on the agenda—the U.S. was not going to stop trading with China,” she said.
“The question remains: how big are the ‘small yards’ and how high are the fences?”
Ezell agreed, adding that the G-7 leaders’ “actions matter more than words.”
“It’s certainly sensible to recognize that G-7 nations aren’t going to fully decouple from China’s economy. The integrated nature of global supply chains and markets make that infeasible and undesirable,” he explained.
Mixed Messaging
Some criticized the summit’s communiqué for sending conflicting messages by including references to constructive engagement with Beijing, which didn’t exist a year ago.The leaders stated their willingness to establish “constructive and stable relations with China.”
They also emphasized that “our policy approaches are not designed to harm China, nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development.”
According to Steve Yates, a China expert and former White House national security official, the summit sent out a lot of mixed messages.
Yates said that the Chinese regime deals “in actions and power” and doesn’t “respect the word games,” adding that there was no substantial progress at this year’s summit because of mixed messaging.
‘Anti-China Workshop’
On May 22, China’s foreign ministry slammed the G-7 communiqué and summoned the Japanese ambassador in protest to the summit’s host. The state-backed Global Times ran an editorial, calling the G-7 summit an “anti-China workshop.”According to the editorial, the G-7 communiqué demonstrated that Washington “is pushing hard to weave an anti-China net in the Western world.”
In retaliation, Beijing also announced sanctions against U.S.-based chip maker Micron, claiming that its products pose significant security risks.
The regime’s response came after President Joe Biden predicted a “thaw” in relations with China soon during a press conference at the close of the summit on May 21.
Biden blamed the recent deterioration in relations with China on a “silly balloon” that flew over the breadth of the United States with spy equipment before finally being shot down by a U.S. fighter jet over the Atlantic Ocean.
“Everything changed in terms of talking to one another. I think you’re going to see that begin to thaw very shortly,” Biden told reporters.
‘Strategic Clarity’
When questioned about Taiwan during the news conference, the president grabbed the microphone and began speaking while strolling on the podium.Biden emphasized that Washington has been committed to the “one China” policy, which recognizes the communist regime as the government of China, and wouldn’t expect Taiwan to declare independence on its own.
“But in the meantime,” he said, “we’re going to continue to put Taiwan in a position that they can defend themselves. And there is clear understanding among most of our allies that, in fact, if China were to act unilaterally, there would be a response.”
The Chinese regime, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory, has intensified military harassment and threats against the island in recent years, alarming Western nations. Washington, under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, is obliged to provide the self-ruled island with the means to defend itself from attack.
Many China hawks in Washington welcomed Biden’s comment because it provided much-needed strategic clarity on the Taiwan issue. Some, though, questioned his statement, wondering whether he was really referring to a military response and whether he truly meant what he said.
Biden has previously on several occasions said that the U.S. military would support Taiwan if the Chinese were to launch an invasion of the democratically ruled island, departing from the long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity,” which is to be deliberately vague on what the United States would do in the event of an attack. On each occasion, his officials have walked back on his comments, saying Washington’s approach hasn’t changed.
But experts believe that Biden deliberately chose his words while speaking about allies, and that most G-7 nations had at least agreed not to sit back and watch if China invaded Taiwan.
Biden’s statement indicates that “there is an agreement on the lowest common denominator, but no agreement on what those responses would be,” Glaser said.
As Taiwan is a critical hub in the global semiconductor supply chain, G-7 governments acknowledge that a Chinese military takeover would cause severe supply disruptions in many industries that rely heavily on Taiwanese chips.
Rupert Hammond-Chambers, a Taiwan expert and president of the U.S.–Taiwan Business Council, believes Biden’s message is important because it clarifies his stance on the issue once again.
“It’s the fourth time he’s done it, which is so interesting,” he told The Epoch Times. “He continues to bring strategic clarity to this issue, when even hawkish presidents before him had been reluctant to be so clear about the American intent.”
Hammond-Chambers believes the United States should abandon its “strategic ambiguity” stance and send China a clear message.
“I think it’s exactly where American policy should be.”
In the G-7 communiqué this year, the leaders reiterated the importance of “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait” and urged a peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. They also expressed serious concern about the situation in the East and South China Seas and underlined their strong opposition to “any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion.”
The leaders of the Quad Group—Australia, India, Japan, and the United States—which met on the margins of the summit, also gave a similar message to Beijing.
“We strongly oppose destabilizing or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo by force or coercion,” the group stated.
On the Taiwan issue, U.S. allies have gradually begun to adopt the same language that Washington has used for many years, Hammond-Chambers said.
“If, God forbid, China attacked Taiwan,” he continued, “I believe Japan would fight alongside the United States, and very probably the Australians and British as well.
“As it stands right now, that coalition is growing.”
