The communist Chinese pour cold water on the actions and pronouncements of any international body that excludes China from participation.
This is particularly true of intergovernmental organizations that can greatly affect the world economy, as the so-called Group of Seven is meant to do under the leadership of the United States. Since Xi Jinping openly aspires to world leadership, Beijing is highly critical of such groups unless China directly participates—and influences—the outcomes of the various meetings.
Since China is not a G-7 member, Chinese diplomats and state-run media openly convey their disdain for the recently completed G-7 meeting in Hiroshima, Japan. And Beijing is apoplectic about Japan’s references to the “China threat” during the conference, as well as the crescendo of Japan’s actions lately to respond to that threat.
The G-7
Initially formed in the 1970s, the G-7 is an “intergovernmental organization made up of the world’s largest developed economies: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada,” as discussed by Investopedia. According to the World Population Review, a “developed economy” is defined as “a sovereign state that possesses a mature economy and a technologically advanced infrastructure.” According to the United Nation’s Human Development Index—which measures a variety of factors such as GDP per capita to literacy rate, life expectancy, political stability, and access to electricity—any country scoring 0.8 or better (with 1.0 being a “perfect” score) is considered a developed economy.Seven of the top 10 ranked developed countries are in Europe. The G-7 nations are ranked as follows: France (28), Germany (9), Italy (30), Japan (19), the UK (18), Canada (15), and the United States (21). China is ranked No. 79.
The G-7 meets periodically to discuss international economic and monetary issues, with the group’s presidency rotating among the members. Previously, the G-7 has addressed critical issues such as debt crises, oil embargoes and shortages, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The G-7 Leaders’ Communiqué on China
The communiqué contains the standard globalist-oriented goals and objectives that have been pursued by the G-7 since its inception: a world without nuclear weapons, nonproliferation and disarmament, “resilient global food security” for all nations, transition to clean energy economies, and a pledge of $600 billion for “quality infrastructure financing” through the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment.- A hat-tip to the size of the Chinese economy and the need for “constructive and stable relations” (implied: not based on Chinese economic and military coercion).
- A call for China to engage G-7 members on “addressing vulnerable countries’ debt sustainability and financing needs, global health and macroeconomic stability” (implied: the Belt and Road debt traps have not gone unnoticed).
- A mixed message denying “decoupling” but emphasizing a move toward “economic resilience [through] de-risking and diversifying” (isn’t this essentially decoupling from China?).
- A statement about “a level playing field for our [G-7] workers” while addressing “China’s non-market policies and practices, which distort the global economy” (with a direct accusation about “illegitimate technology transfer or data disclosure” referring to ongoing Chinese theft of intellectual property).
- Opposition to China’s use of force in the East and China seas intended to “[unilaterally] … change the status quo.”
- A strong statement that “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait [is] indispensable to security and prosperity in the international community” (a veiled threat of joint action against the People’s Liberation Army’s invasion of Taiwan).
- Calling out a “major concern” of Chinese forced labor practices in Tibet and Xinjiang (East Turkmenistan).
- Calling on China to adhere to its obligations under international treaties “not to conduct interference activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities” (a veiled threat to curtail Chinese police actions in other countries under the national security law).
- A firm statement that “there is no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea” or Chinese militarization activities in the area (another shot across the bow).
Beijing Reacts
The CCP’s response to the communiqué was focused almost exclusively on the section summarized above. It should be remembered that commentary from Xi through the Chinese diplomatic corps and echoed by Chinese state-run media is in lockstep on all narratives. Anyone who deviates from the approved narrative risks being reassigned (with associated loss of face) or even “disappeared.” Thus, anything in the likes of China Daily or Xinhua about the communiqué reflects official Chinese policy.Here are a few emotional responses by Chinese state-run media to the communiqué:
People’s Daily singled out Japan: “Making use of the G7 Hiroshima summit, the Japanese side has repeatedly fanned up the so-called ‘China threat’ to demonstrate its ‘leadership’ and the ‘solidarity’ of the G7.”
China Daily attacked the United States as the prime motivator behind the communiqué: “A series of topics attacking China at the summit, grossly interfering in its internal affairs, and blatantly challenging the post war international order fully demonstrate that the G7 has become a tool of the United States’ hegemony. ... The joint statement issued at the Hiroshima Summit shows how the United States is garnering consensus in the G7 for its anti-China plot.”
