 Welcome to Newsclick and you're watching Mapping Fault Lines, a show where we talk about major geopolitical issues across the world. Our key geopolitical front was there were major developments yesterday when the G7 countries met the foreign ministers met. And of course India was also there as a guest in this meeting and the G7 foreign ministers released a massive statement and in predictable lines they targeted Russia China accused them of a wide variety of international misdeeds including bullying, human rights violations. What has kind of come to be a boilerplate of these meetings. But these are also, this meeting is also happening at very, at a very tumultuous time. We know the COVID-19 pandemic and we also know over the past many years increasing economic, social relations between many of these countries. So to look into this complicated picture we have with us Praveen Pulkasa. Praveen, thank you so much for joining us. So first question, it's basically about the statement itself. I mean this was it's a massive statement as you were just saying a few minutes ago and how do you see the statement at this point of time? It's a 12,400 word statement. It's the global view they pretend to take about everything from geostrategic issues, climate change, pandemic and so on. So the whole purpose of this G7 meeting seems to be that we will now give you the wisdom about everything under the sun because we are the G7 and we therefore speak in the voice of truth. Whatever it might be. In fact, when you look at this kind of statement, we must also see what G7 is pretending it is. And I think that's the most important part. It is pretending it represents what it calls a rule-based order of the world. It's aggregated to itself the right to speak for the rule-based world, rule-based order of the world. And this is not a right that anybody has given them. This is self-appointed right they have taken on themselves that they will now define the rules of the world. It's not the United Nations, either the General Assembly or the Security Council, which are the only two organs which have the legitimacy to speak about international issues because they represent countries. And as you know, the United Nations Security Council has certain powers given to it by the Assembly by the body that it can also intervene on matters which deal with two or more states. And the whole issue of what is a rule-based order. This is being sought to be created out of smoke and glasses, so to say, that you are suddenly now talking about the rule-based order, which is not the international law-based order, which is really represented by the United Nations and the various systems that have been built under it. So this is the basic issue here that they're asserting this speak for the world and they have this right to do it because they now define what the rules are. And if I go beyond the issue of what they are saying and look at who they are, then it becomes even more stark because they are essentially ex-colonial and settler colonial powers who have come together to talk about hegemony really. They're talking about the hegemony of the world of quote-unquote the civilizing nations. They're giving us a civilizational view of the world where they represent civilization and nobody else really does. So that is the real sense of what this statement is all about. So what they represent is the trying to bring back white power, white countries representing settler colonial or colonial states. They're reasserting their right to really rule the world again through this rule-based order and therefore the attempt to put down the what they see is the interlopers of the Russians and the Chinese in this. This is the world that thought they had established post-1990 when Soviet Union disintegrated and Russia under Yeltsin really became a completely a puppet in the hands of the United States, letting the West, particularly the US, loot Russia on a massive scale. I think this is the attempt to put back the time, the wheel to that time and see whether they can again re-establish that kind of hegemony. European in this context also wanted to look at the specific allegations against Russia and China in the context of these relations. We know that over the past many years China has grown its economic power. It has in fact established quite good relationships with a number of European countries economically. And even Russia for that matter, they have been say interactions, they have been agreements with Germany. There are discussions to build a pipeline. So amidst all this nonetheless, despite the fact that there are these relationships coming into place, we have this very aggressive statement which talks about Ukraine, which talks about Hong Kong, which talks about the Uyghurs and almost in some senses pulls the process back by many years to a very confrontational point. So how do we see this kind of an aggressive approach amidst the kind of relationships that have been built? You know, this is a reassertion of the US hegemony of the G7, which was damaged by Trump's you were America first stance. And if you saw at that time, the US was insisting that the European countries as well as Japan and South Korea would have to give it billions of dollars because it had positioned its truth there. So US was really asking for protection money and say we are protecting you, give us money to justify that. So essentially the America first policy where it declared that I don't give a damn about you, European countries, you have to accept what I say or you know, I would just bully you. And then this G7 therefore lost its reason for existence because if US is going to take all the decisions, there is no G7, there's only one G1. So this was the problem that the US has created for itself. And that's why for some years, the G7 really did not have a long role, it met and so on. But most of the meetings led to confrontation between Angela Merkel and Trump and that was the nature of what was happening. So US was trying to reshape the world into a scenario where what it would say would hold and the other countries in even the G7, other G7 countries would have really no independent role, at least an international issue. So that was the Trumpian model. And it is said that we have come back to the international platforms, and we are going to sit at the head of the table. So what does sitting at the head of the table means that okay, we'll take you along, but you still have to listen to us. The real issue that is now sprung up is how do you look at the economic links the European Union has with Russia and China, and what does European Union do. And I'm not really talking of the, you know, the Baltic States or Poland or Hungary, none of these countries because in the ultimate analysis they don't have a seat at the G7 either. But really about the old colonial past Britain, the United Kingdom, you have France and you have Germany. These are the three countries one cannot take Italy and Canada very seriously in G7. They don't really have either the economic or the political club today. But these three countries do have an economic and political cloud, and particularly for France and Germany. They have a stake in European Union, they have a stake in Europe, and therefore they also have a stake in Eurasia. If you see the continent of Eurasia, you will see that there is a huge economic links that China and Russia has with Europe, Western Europe in this particular case, and so has the United States, both have links economic links with European Union. Can the European Union decide to break its European is economic links with China and Russia, and go only with the European with the United States. That is a challenge European Union faces. Unfortunately, the European Union doesn't seem to have a backbone. So when push comes to shove the seem to bow down before the United States and accept its dictator, as long as it is not delivered with the bullying demeanour. So if you're nice to it and ask it politely, then they sort of tend to bend. And this is what we see in the statement that the statement seems to sound the battle cry against China and against Russia. And the US in the case of Russia particularly is trying to use financial sanctions that seems to be its instrument. So Navalny, any of these other issues, which in any other country is something that other countries should have really no role. It's for the people of Russia to decide what is what they, the government does with Navalny or does not. We may have opinions, we may give our opinions, we may support Navalny for those who feel like supporting him, though as we know, he has got white ethnic supremacy connections as well. But if European countries want to support them, they're welcome. The question is, does it mean it should intervene in state to state relations in terms of sanctions. And that brings us to the question of Ukraine and creamy Crimea as well. As you see Zelensky was threatening to take back militarily Crimea. And this is what the European Union and NATO was endorsing. So the fact that this are these are the issues, which are sort of covered up by talking about Navalny talking about human rights talking about what is happening in Russia, have bringing its troops and to the borders of Ukraine. And this hide the fact that it is NATO which is aggressively had various steps that they have taken. They have built batteries, missile batteries in the borders of Russia. They have set up in violation of the undertaking that given that they will not move eastward they have moved to the borders of Russia, Baltic States, Poland, Romania. All of these countries now host also military exercises on the borders of Russia, or in its very close to its sea ocean coastlines. And all of this, they think is okay. But if Russia has military exercises, then near its borders, then this is something which is very aggressive. So all of this is really cover for putting pressure on Russia. And the fact that the European Union countries are going with it may mean at some point that the rupture also the economic links, and particularly with the kind of sanctions that putting on Russian state Russian personnel Russian businessman Russian officials. And when Russia retaliates they have said, you can't do this. This is not done, we can sanction you but you can't sanction us. You know, one sided belief in supremacy is also the part of as I said, the X colonial, and you know, what shall I say the X colonial legacy that they can dictate rest of the world what civilization is, because all others are really not fully civilized. I think that's the kind of relationship they want to have with Russia. Unfortunately for them. I don't think they realize that Russia has over the period of years now, build a relatively more self reliant economy, and split up close economically with China. Therefore, that is not going to cripple them as much as they think that it will. And the European Union probably stands to lose more United States won't lose much because it really doesn't have that kind of economic relationship with Russia. So I think that's the mistake that the European Union is making that it doesn't see itself having much of strategic autonomy in this which it really does. So the final question quickly about India's role here of course India being one of the guests to this meeting along with South Korea South Africa and the chair of Asia, and of course all the news was about the Indian delegation possibly contracting COVID-19 but how do we see India is being invited to this to this G7 organization in the in light of say the correlation right at the core in light of the kind of say for instance South South Africa and South Korea is also one of the key member Japan is a key member of this arrangement so how do we see this being invited to the Indian invitation and its participation must be seen in the light of the second axis the US is open, which is against China. And when they talk about United States talks about in the Pacific. Now, you know, India, the UK, as well as European Union countries have started talking of the Indo Pacific. Now, Indo Pacific is basically essentially oceans. This is where marine power maritime power is important military power is important. This is the equivalent of Obama's, you know, shift to Asia, the, they had talked about how to now move from the European arena to the Asian one. So this part of it, which was the Obama strategy which identified of course it got bogged down into various other things after that, but this strategy is what is being fulfilled talking about the Indo Pacific. So project maritime power against China, which is still in terms of as a maritime power is still weaker than the United States. So that is really where India seems to fall in that we will talk about in the Pacific, not about Eurasia. So the China, if it is a target, and which of course it is, the target is the is also apart from the phonops as it is called the right to go anywhere with warships, and this is what the United States did a few weeks back in luxury. So against India. And so this is the same thing India has also been endorsing on US moves in the South China Sea, what they get this freedom of navigation operations the phonops. So here this segue into in the Pacific which India has done seems to it seems to be quite not in India's interest at all, because we have an interest in Southeast Asia. We have an interest in East Asia. We have an economic interest in China, there's still a very large trading partner for us. There's still a large market, even if they sell much more than we do, but they still do considering that a very big economy. There's still buy a lot from India. So the question is for Indian economy, China is still important and so is ASEAN for the future the Southeast Asian area arena is important. The fact that we don't look at the people there that you're talking of something like 2.6 to 2.7 billion people in this region. If you take ASEAN East Asia China all put together, and you talk of Indo Pacific, which are really a set of islands and warships. It should make any strategic sense for me. It I don't think it should make any strategic sense for India as well. And the here that the American, the United States that attempted to isolate China by talking of the Indo Pacific, and then of course with technical institutions as you know, using chips as the key technological instrument against China and hoping that therefore they can set back China's economic rise. China is supposed to overtake them in 2028, which is a lot earlier than it was projected earlier, partly because it was the COVID-19 pandemic, much better than the United States or European Union. So that's given them a leg up so to say. And therefore, if that they're hoping to set back within the Pacific trying to get all countries against China, trying to see if they can isolate China and Russia from rest of the world. And of course, you know, giving a seat at the anti chamber, not at the high table, we're still not at the high table, we have been invited to the anti chamber of the meeting, where we have a smaller country that will keep company with South Africa, with Australia, and with South Korea. Now, South Korea's position is rather ambiguous. They, they actually militarily are controlled by the United States even today. The Korean War has not officially stopped, there is no, it's only a stop, armistice, it's only a ceasefire, it's not even an agreement for stopping the war. And you have, on the other hand, South Africa, which is really not a part of the Indo-Pacific debate at all. So it seems to be that India has really given up the concept of strategic autonomy. They decided to be a subordinate ally of the United States officially to be willing to come into the and wait outside the G7 meeting chamber as, you know, as a vassal state, so to say, I think this is a very unfortunate development. So let's not talk about the unfortunate scenario in which the Indian delegation has landed itself, not carrying COVID-19 patients with it, or COVID-19 infected people in its flight, they seem to have been checked days before the flight took off. This is rather unfortunate, it doesn't show such a good light of the delegation or India, but then we have a pandemic that we are having at the moment. The extent of it has taken the sheen of India in any case, and at the moment India is not coming off well, either internally or internationally, because of its own flight. And the fact that whatever vaccines it was giving, it now has reserved it for itself. And therefore, all the major grand grand eloquent gestures Modi was talking about making about how it will help the send vaccines all over the world, how India will save the world, all that has fallen flat. So I think in this particular case, we have lost badly by whatever we have done internally on the pandemic, and externally by willing to become a subordinate ally officially. And I can understand South Korea and Australia doing that. South Africa doing that, well, even that's a little difficult to understand, but India doing it, not at all. And only because we have a border clash or clashes with China, and some real differences on the border with China, for that to give up the larger strategic picture, I think that's a real tragedy for India. Thank you so much for being talking to us. We keep coming back to this issue. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching.