“China poses the greatest challenge of our age”, paradoxically parroted at G7 Hiroshima the UK Premier Sunak who is an Indian immigrant against immigration

Hiroshima, the historical place that the US utterly destroyed with atomic bombs some 80 years ago, is the same place whereby last weekend the 6 members of G7, including the once bombarded Japan, gathered to parrot loudly US messages on the world. Ironic? Realistic, it is how the way history works in circles, always amusing its artful observers.

And of course, as it is the case in recent global summits, G7 was seized as a brand new opportunity to badmouth China, again. As far as Europe is concerned, Von der Leyen, EU’s unelected top civil servant, who represents half a billion people everywhere she goes, continued her anti-China stance. In her published remarks during the G7 summit, she kept the anti-China flag high. She maintained the coinage of her associates, namely “de-risking” as the pinnacle of coining, as opposed to the abrupt “de-coupling” that harsh Joe Biden had used. She discussed how China has “changed” suddenly, as if it is ever possible for 1.5 billion people nations like China to change overnight. She also referred to the good relations between China and Russia achieved on the eve of the war in Ukraine, as if those two countries haven’t been historic allies.

Von der Leyen “innovated” by saying that the collaboration should focus on climate change, pandemic preparedness, financial stability and nuclear proliferation and “de-risk” economic collaboration. After decades of profit from trade with China, now the EU is told that it should “de-risk” for the US economy to make a buck. She added: “We have to work with like-minded partners to build up capacities and reduce our dependencies on China for things like rare earths, batteries, or pharmaceutical ingredients.”. Like-minded partners, meaning the US, not really because they are like-minded but because they “own” Europe’s leadership. And anybody who is a competitor to the world’s first economy (aka the second one/China), should be a competitor of the EU too in areas that are currently of much interest to the US i.e. rare earths, batteries, pharmaceutical ingredients. But if the EU blocks China, which is a huge player in those industries then doesn’t it become pray to the US economy? Or this is fine because the hunter that will eat you alive is “like-minded”?

She then said/read: “we want to rebalance our trade relationship. China is a vital trading partner for us and most of that trade is beneficial to both sides. But it’s also true that the trade deficit between the EU and China tripled in 10 years to 400 billion. This imbalance is partly due to non-market practices such as hidden subsidies, discrimination in public tenders and other distortions created by China’s state capitalist system. We need to address these distortions.” So, all the prosperity that the EU has been usurping from the trade with China is still welcome, but it will be contained from now on, firmly trusting that this will be in the EU’s/US’s interest.

And she then touched security: “The third strand is about protecting our security interests. So we have to discuss controls of exports or outbound investment with a focus on sensitive high-tech areas.” This was too vague to understand or the US didn’t debrief that well . So, the EU will abruptly stop China’s investment in technology? So, the EU will say goodbye to investors like Huawei? That would harm the economy to begin with but also the European citizens who cannot afford an i-Phone and they are so many of them.

She rambled on: “The fourth strand is about standing together as partners on core foreign policy and security challenges. We will keep calling on China to refrain from supporting Russia’s war. And we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. We are collectively opposing any unilateral change to the status quo, particularly by force.” Fair enough, but China has aired communications against the war in Ukraine. And against rumours, there is not evidence of sending troops to help Russia. Also, recently Taiwan’s President claimed that they do not seek to have a war with China but work out on their relations but G7 likes to talk about wars.

At the end, Von der Leyen added: “we should intensify our work with others to create an alternative to Belt-and-Road which is our Partnership on global Infrastructure and Investment.” So, this can refer to the “Global Gateway” or whatever new coinage to call an investment that will fund projects in the world. This is always good, to care for global prosperity but already the EU had been investing in projects globally so much, without the need to make up a new name i.e. “Global Gateway” or “Build Back Better World” or global runway or whatever, just to try to compete the famous Chinese theme of Belt and Road. It would be more inspiring to say though that she will strive for all Global Runways and funds of the developed world to be aggregated into one to make the most impact in the underdeveloped world fighting finally poverty and making infrastructure which is so poor in 2023.

Point taken, Ursula will tend to read out American notes during meetings like G7 or G20 etc.. But what came out of the blue was the phrase of the new UK Premier Sunak that went as blunt as follows: “China poses the greatest challenge of our age to global security and prosperity”. Does this Indian immigrant/prime minister of the Albion who is sadistically enough against immigration have a clue about the UK-China ties and economic partnership historically and what his statement means for our Brexited nation, which had it all in the EU in the best terms and came out of it just to nurture the British exceptionalism of the elderly in Manchester? Or as in the photo of the article he tends to gullibly look at where one points at him?

Apparently, the 2023 G7 was overtly themed as an attack against China and its “economic coercion”. Another coinage after the success of “de-coupling” and “de-risking”. But don’t the US already exert utmost coercive influence on the other 6 members? So, the point is to decide between good/US coercion against bad/China coercion? And who decides good and bad? Is it based on the colour of the one who authors the coinage? Is it based on the hemisphere that one is located? Or it is based on the fact that the US as the master of coercion globally, fears competition from the East and wants to coerce more the world in order to usurp more bucks? And why don’t the G6 or G19 have their own view and they parrot the US, except the obvious reason that it is easier to parrot and catch the flight back?

If someone ever thought that 2023 or 2024/2025… would be peaceful years of global prosperity, the omens are clearly not proving her right. Instead, either the G7 or G20 or G120 admits it or not, we sadly live in a new Cold War again with the “like-minded” US on the one hand and everyone “unlike-minded” that is big enough to do huge trade e.g. China, Russia etc. on the other. Meanwhile, the leaders of the world try to convince us with state of the art coinages of “De-frisking”, “Build Back Yard” and so on.

What is desperately needed instead is a global parsimonious stance for the biggest economies to “coerce themselves” and come peacefully together to face the huge problems of this disrupted world one by one e.g. poverty, climate change, wars, pandemics. But sadly our good leaders these days prefer to “de-frisk” et alia.