 The G7, everyone's not-so-favorite group of finger-wagging bullies met in May in the city of Hiroshima, which itself was kind of ironic considering Hiroshima's history. Now the G7 has become quite a strange institution in today's age. It was formerly some of the richest countries in the world. Now it is not necessarily so. However, at the same time, they continue to sort of behave as though they are the most powerful countries in the region and try to set the line for how everyone must behave in what is often called the rule-based international order. So every G7 summit tends to get watched very closely for what the leaders of these countries are saying, what their politics is, what their perspective is. This time was no different. The G7 summit, of course, taking place during the Ukraine war, during the rising Cold War. We will be looking at all of this in our very special show in which we take a look at the global situation with the help of maps, charts, and numbers. We bring in perspectives from across the world to basically answer the question, why is the G7 still a thing? So like I said, the G7 is no longer the economic powerhouse it once was at some point. It had about 70% of the world's GDP. Now it's about 44%. And at the same time, there are powerful blocks coming up, such as the BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which constitute large segments of the world's population and almost as large segments of the world's GDP as well. So the G7 has become a bit more anachronistic and very importantly, its relevance has been even more questioned because of the recent war in Ukraine. Now we know that after the war broke out, there was an attempt by basically all the G7 countries. They were the first to impose sanctions on Russia. They thought that they would be able to bring Russia down. At the same time, that did not happen because the fact that most of the countries in the global south did not join that campaign. In fact, recent numbers show that Russian oil exports to China and India have massively increased. And European countries are actually sourcing much of this oil from India, which means that Russian oil is reaching them through other means. That's their attempt to destroy Russia has not worked out. There's been this increasing Cold War or what is being called the New Cold War towards China where there's an attempt to encircle China as well. That too is not exactly working out. So the G7 in every meeting seems to sort of be in the throes of some kind of an existential crisis. To alleviate that sometimes it does bring in new guests, guests from across the world who this, you know, to sort of give the impression that the G7 is not just seven rich countries, but a global forum. And this time is no different. We'll be going into that. But first, some important questions. Really, what is the context to the formation of this block called G7? What interests do they represent? What relevance do they have in today's world? We have with us Prabir Pulkai, of NewsClick, who will be explaining all this. And after that will come Ajit Singh of the No Cold War platform who will also address these questions, who will be talking about the statement released by this platform. Now, this is of extreme importance because one of the key statements released by the G7, the G7 communique, talked in various ways about the role of China, about how they viewed China. This was followed a few days by an incident in the South China Sea where a US spy plane and a Chinese jet had a close encounter that raised tensions. We need to remember that last year Nancy Pelosi had gone to Taiwan, which had again massively escalated tensions as well. So every time the G7 meets, there's this doubt about whether conflicts are going to be intensified. So we'll be looking at all this in this episode. But first, let's go to Prabir to understand how do we see or how do we view the G7? If we look at the G7, these countries were supposed to be economically the more powerful ones at the time they were talking as G7. And then they expanded to the G8 with Russia at one point. In the financial crisis, it became G20 when it was thought that countries like China, India and others were important for the financial crisis, which was engulfing the world. So it was meant to have an economic role. Now if we look at what is happening today, G7 is playing a far more political role. So the question comes up, who are the G7? Why are they talking about international rule-based order, which is outside the United Nations and the Security Council? And then as you are rightly posing, what do they represent? So let's first look at the geography of G7 itself before we get into what is the economic power of G7 and what is the position that these G7 countries have. We have here the United States. Now that is, let's face it, that is the key player in G7 today. In fact, it is after 1990, the fall of Soviet Union, it is supposed to have been the sole global hegemon, which of course has unraveled over the last 10, 15, 20 years. But nevertheless, it remains the center of G7. Then we have the West European countries, which are still economically powerful. It is not that they are central to the global economy today, but they are still a major player in the global economy. Particularly, European Union has a clout, which of course we can see in the different ways it exercises it. And also you have the United Kingdom, which even after breaking off from the European Union has an economic power based on its financial clout, its financial markets, which still remain important to the world economy. Then we have Japan. Now, Japan may have lost the Second World War, but it is still economically, the Yen plays still a major role. And it is a part of the global financial market. And these seven countries, calling themselves G7 at one point, they had included Russia to make it G8. And the G20, which was convened at the time of financial crisis of 2008, that has been sidelined more or less. There is still G20, but it has been sidelined in favor of G7, which is supposed to spell out the architecture of the new world. G7 defines as the rule-based international order, raising the question, who makes the rules? It is not international law. So, it is not an international law-based global order, but a rule-based order, where G7 decides what the rules of the game are. And from becoming an economic organization, where it originated from, and the United Nations was supposed to be the political arena, this has become also a political arena, where they are really laying down to the world what the rules of the game should be, and that they control these rules. So, this has been one part. The second part of G7, I think that is also important to realize, that if we look at the world before decolonization started, if we are not talking about the fall of Soviet Union and emergence of United States as the most powerful economic and political power in the world, we are really talking of decolonization, which goes back to post-Second World War phase. If you look at that, at that point of time, Africa was basically a colonized part of the world. Latin America, this was a part under Monroe Doctrine, where the United States asserted, even today it does, that that is really United States backyard. And large parts of Asia, including India, including West Asia, all of this were really colonies. So, if you take the whole world today, over the last 60 years, shall we say, after the Second World War, the period that unfolded over the last 10, 15 years, we have come a really long way from what that world was. And this world today, which is asserting itself, does not accept the rule-based order set down essentially by colonial powers and the United States, which of course, as we know, had a neocolonial rule in Latin America, and also in other parts of the world, particularly in Philippines and so on. So, this world, as people have characterized, that this is ex-colonial powers are trying to tell the rest of the world how they should behave. And this is what the G7 today represents. And therefore, when G7 lays down a set of rules, what countries should do or shouldn't do, how they should engage economically with Russia or not, how they should look at China. So, all these rules they are spelling out today essentially are unilaterally being forced, supposed to be followed by the rest of the world, which unfortunately for them isn't working out. And I think G7, this time too, has laid down essentially its two-pronged approach to the world. One is how to control Russia using economic sanctions and other is how to control China. And there the words are a little different. It is not talking about delinking economically from China, but talking about de-risking. So, the words have changed. The idea is that we will decide the terms of economic engagement with China, but China will then have to accept our terms of engagement. This is essentially what the G7 communicates if you look at it, spells out. Yeah, I think it feels not coincidental that this G7 summit was held in Hiroshima, Japan, given that in recent years the United States and its allies who composed the G7 have ramped up their new Cold War agenda against China and Russia, meaning their hybrid campaign, which features political, economic, military, diplomatic aspects to pressure and try to combat and contain what they see to be the near-peer rival threats that those countries pose to them. Particularly, its location in Japan seems to align with the strategy of the United States and Western countries to increasingly expand and make more assertive their military presence in the Asia Pacific. So in recent years we've seen this in various respects, whether it's the discourse around the so-called Indo-Pacific versus the language of the Asia Pacific arrangements such as the AUKUS nuclear deal between Australia, the UK, the United States, encouragement for the remilitarization of Japan, and most recently, the weeks leading up to this summit, NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization opened its first liaison office in the Asia Pacific. Strange for a North Atlantic organization to be opening a liaison office in the Pacific, it seems to go against its namesake and raises some questions. So in the context of these rising tensions that we're all familiar with, and of course top of which is the Taiwan issue and simmering conflict over Taiwan between the United States and China, it seems that Japan fits right in the center of this agenda. The G7 brings together leaders of what they call the advanced democracies of the world or the leading capitalist countries of the world, liberal democracies, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the United States along with representatives from the EU. And so for it to take place in Hiroshima, we think has a disturbing historical parallel and political significance. Hiroshima, of course, being the site where in August 1945, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb, killing 70,000 people instantly and roughly 140,000 people by the end of that year. For the G7 to meet 78 years later at this very site as they are ramping up international tensions and a new Cold War with China and Russia is very disturbing. As no Cold War campaign, we are advocating that instead of these sorts of older, archaic block style and divisive politics, it's urgently necessary that all countries in the world, especially leading countries in the world, take on the responsibility to promote cooperation to address the urgent issues that humanity faces, whether it's climate change, inequality, living standards, the cost of living crisis and inflation that many people are suffering from as the war in Ukraine is prolonged. They should be working to address these issues and putting aside their political or ideological differences. Instead of that, you're seeing the United States and its allies return to the politics and also the geographical locations which were very central to its first Cold War against the Soviet Union. That's a major concern for us. We see opportunities like the G7 and other forums as important opportunities for countries to work to promote peace and address these common problems that I illustrated. Instead, we see very sharp rhetoric around so-called economic coercion, which is directly and indirectly aimed towards China. In recent months earlier this year, we've heard US and UK politicians speak of the need to form a quote unquote economic NATO. And in addition, we see no real serious plan put forward to resolve the war in Ukraine and establish a lasting peace. Instead, the United States and fellow G7 countries seem focused on and committed to prolonging the war in Ukraine at any cost. Their statement, in fact, pledged to effectively support Ukraine as long as it takes. As no Cold War, we would ask at what cost for humanity. And so we are hoping that the G7 leaders and political forces within the G7 can take time to reflect upon the horrible human cost and tragedy that occurred in Hiroshima to really commit to avoiding the reoccurrence of such devastation in our time. So you heard Prabir and Ajit talk about the history of G7, what whose politics it represents, what it stands for as well as the irony of this summit being held in Hiroshima where tens of thousands of people were killed in a nuclear bomb. And then the G7 did all that talk about nuclear disarmament and stuff. But the G7 countries, the European countries in the U.S. and Canada and Japan were not the only participants at this session. They were also guest countries. Now, if you look at these guest countries, most of them represent various forums like the G20 or the African Union or ASEAN. Of course, there was Ukraine, which was kind of an outsider which didn't represent anybody at this summit. But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has become a regular participant in many of these international summits where he keeps calling for more arms, more weapons to continue the war. And for the U.S. as well, having Volodymyr Zelensky there is convenient because it enables them to say that, hey, the Ukrainian president himself is asking for arms. It gives the impression that the U.S. is not the major country which is actually funding that war. Now, of course, all these guests said various agenda at this summit. Now, for instance, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi pointing out that he was going to be a voice or a spokesperson for the Global South. But he was also there as part of the agenda of the Quad, the four countries which were supposed to sort of have an alliance in the Asia-Pacific region. There was a meeting of Quad leaders as well. Modi also going later and having discussions with leaders of the islands close to Australia and the Indo-Pacific region as well. There's a lot of politics around those islands. What really is India's position? How does India benefit from it? These are all really questions that are a bit up in the air right now. But what was the larger agenda of all these guest countries? What were the possibilities that the countries who attended as guests brought with them? Were any of these possibilities really met? Do these countries who attend as guests actually have any say in the deliberations of the G7 or are they there mainly as some kind of an attempt by G7 leaders to show that we are inclusive? And this really ties into the question of the relevance of the G7 as well. So for this question, we are going to be going back to Premiere. If we take the two major players who were invited as friends of G7, so to say, as well as other smaller players, we leave them out for the time being, you will see the two major players who were invited. One is Brazil and the other is obviously India. Now these are two major economies. Of course, India has become a rising economic power in the world. It's also possible that if we take purchasing power parity, India is a major power already. It probably is bigger than Britain. But if we leave all of that out, let's face it. After China in India, Asia is the biggest economy. Brazil is the biggest economy in Latin America. So if you take these two countries in, they have not supported outright Russia. They have relationship with Russia. They have not condemned Russia in the terms that the West wants. And most important, they have kept that economic relationship with Russia. So the question was that if there was a move towards peace, in fact, if there was an intention to move towards peace, then Russia could have been asked by India and Brazil to talk to Zelensky, talk to Russia and see whether there is a via media that can be found, a peace of some kind be at least attempted, if not to freeze the conflict, freeze the war, like it's being talked about now, whether South Korea, North Korea model of the 38th parallel could be followed here. But what we can see is that though India, Brazil were there, I'm not counting a lot of other small countries here, but even these two countries had very limited role to play. In fact, what happened was that they were around for the photo ops, but really they had no other role. Of course, there was a quad beating which India attended later. So leaving those things out, Brazil's role was even less because Zelensky did not meet Lula. In fact, it was an outright snub for Lula that Zelensky could not find time to meet him. So given all of this, it's clear that the role that these countries could have played were invited to G7 to work out that is it possible to find a road to at least a frozen conflict, temporarily a ceasefire, if not peace, whether that road could be exploited, that road could be found, that didn't happen. And what happened is, well, Mr. Modi and Mr. Lula participated in some of the photo ops, but didn't really play any role that we can see in terms of the outcome of G7. G7 made very clear that it was going to try and force Russia to concede defeat, what has not been achieved in the battlefield. And this would be done through economic action. And well threats of different kinds were held out to countries which are still maintaining relationships, economic relationship with Russia and not accepting what is called the G7 sanctions. Now G7 sanctions on Russia, not on other countries. So these questions that why should other countries accept G7 sanctions of course remain, which was pointed out a couple of days earlier by Mr. Jay Shankar, India's foreign minister as well. So all these questions did not get resolved over there. And what appears to be that the other invitees were there for foreign sake and really not much more. What didn't happen was that the Quad meeting which was supposed to be held in Australia did not happen. It took on the sidelines of the basically the G7 meeting. And therefore that Quad being highlighted as a center of resistance against China did not really come out in that form. It was a truncated small Adol meeting to Biden's visit to Tokyo. And also the Indian Ocean meeting that was supposed to compliment the Australia's meeting did also not see Biden over there. So unfortunately for the United States and for G7, the continuation which was thought of in terms of the Quad and in terms of the Indo-Pacific, particularly the Pacific Ocean Islands, that didn't really happen. So these became in some sense shorn of the crown jewel which was supposed to be President Biden. So we didn't see really a center staging of these events along with the G7, which was the original plan. If we look at the this Pacific Islands, these play a role in what would be called the Indo-Pacific arena. Now the Indo-Pacific has been looked upon by the United States really as a shorthand designation essentially for containment of China. That's their vision. It's a vision that India doesn't fully participate because though India has rivalry with China, it doesn't really want to be a part of a defense arrangement of the NATO variety by which it becomes a partner in this arena against China. Now this is the reason that Quad did not develop into a military alliance. In fact, it was very clear that India didn't want a military alliance over here and therefore the AUK-US parties came together. Essentially Australia, UK is okay. It's a fig leaf to their former colonial glory and the United States coming together. Let's not forget Australia is a part of the five countries and therefore plays a major role in the intelligence operations worldwide that the United States has and particularly signal intelligence. What is the role the Pacific Islands play specifically in this game? This is what we need to see and does India have a major stake in this? That's really the question. So let's have a quick look at what these islands are. We have this whole range of islands over here and if you see again these islands then you will see the importance of Australia over here that Australia and these islands put together could then be used to project force against China. And if you look at the other part of the Pacific Ocean, you will see Japan is here and Japan is of course a military ally part of G7 as well and we have South Korea as well. These are all American bases at the moment and Japan there is a peace movement has been arguing against it but the current Japanese government is much more belligerent in terms of denying its colonial history in terms of wanting to build military power and also talk about nuclear weapons. All of this is happening in Japan and South Korea whether we like it or not whether South Koreans like it or not is essentially still militarily controlled by the United States. The terms of agreement between South Korea and the United States is such that in a crisis they will control the South Korean military that means that it really doesn't have full independence in the way we would like to state it. If you don't control your own military obviously you are not really an independent country so it still remains not a semi-colony not a new colony but militarily under the United States control. If you take all these pictures then it also becomes clear why these countries are important in the larger strategic interests of the United States which is to control really Southeast Asia why Southeast Asia important we have discussed this earlier it's economically the fastest growing region in the world because of our SEP it's also closely integrated economically with the Chinese market and therefore though it has differences with China over South China Sea whose economic zone is where all these difficulties might be there but most of them would like the economic integration to continue and that helps their economies to grow. China is of course a major economic power as well as produces a lot of goods Southeast Asia needs and it's a huge market for Southeast Asian countries and their produce so given that Southeast Asia except with the exception of Philippines today is really not militarily inclined to go with the United States and therefore the United States is seeking partners in this region and these island states which are very small they don't have too much of a clout they are controlled partially by Australia in fact Papua New Guinea the part where this meeting of the island states were held was a colony of Australia at one point of time and Australia still has a neo-colonial presence over there if we put all of that together the idea is how to control China and if Taiwan becomes the center of the next conflict like Ukraine has become the center of the conflict between the NATO countries and Russia then can all of these be utilized in a naval shall we say a naval attack on China or using these all these island states and these countries to try and quarrel Chinese military forces naval forces much closer to China therefore control what is to call the inner island line which is those set of islands which are closest to China so I'm not going to get into the details of the geography of this part but the idea is really to control the Pacific Ocean and by controlling the Pacific Ocean to control China and that seems to be the part of the game India how much is it interested in it in it the question is India has an economic interest in these in this region but it's refused to get into our set it militarily doesn't want to get into or convert quad into a military alliance so India has limited interest here would like to be a player but in the larger geo-strategic game India has much less skin in the game that for instance Australia has Japan has or South Korea has and there you have it that's a 360 degree view of the latest g7 summit but also the g7 as a whole and it does increasingly seem like the g7 is a forum like we start like we started off by saying it's a slightly finger wagging exercise at the countries of the global south asking them to do this asking them to do that and presenting that as the way how this world should work now what we do know is that that's increasingly not turning out to work in practice we saw how many countries did not accept the sanctions regimes we saw that many countries are now increasingly interested in joining organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or BRICS and there's this whole sense of a new wave of multi-polarity being you know we talked about the new wave of multi-polarity is taking or surging across the world we also recently had a summit of Latin American presidents where there was much more talk about integration and cooperation and this integration and cooperation is minus the United States very important to note that and we'll be looking at all these trends in detail over the coming months as well these are of course very interesting processes which not end with one summit or which not begin with one summit but will continue for many years and even decades so until then keep watching other videos on people's dispatch.