Joint communique shows extent G7 being ‘Natolized’ by Washington

The logo for the G7 is visible at the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting at The Prince Karuizawa hotel in Karuizawa, Japan, April 17, 2023. (PHOTO / AP)

With the majority of it dedicated to coordinating their actions to help the United States safeguard its hegemony, the joint communique issued on Tuesday upon the conclusion of the three-day G7 foreign ministers' meeting in Karuizawa, Japan, points to the fact that the club of the richest economies is allowing itself to be "Natolized" by Washington as a geopolitical tool of the US.

Despite the great lengths they have gone to hide the sword sheathed in a scabbard decorated with partner-competitor-rival motifs, that China was listed as one of the 11"pressing global challenges", along with the Ukraine crisis and nuclear issues of Iran and the Korean Peninsula, clearly demonstrates the US-led club's true intent.

That many China-related issues are included in the joint statement — including the Taiwan question, the maritime disputes in South China Sea, alleged "human rights issues" in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, cyberspace governance and trade frictions — only serves to give the impression that the document was drafted by Washington and Tokyo together before it was toned down by the rest.

While claiming it is their "intention to promote human security and continue building a global community that leaves no one behind", what the document reinforces is that it is the actions of the US and its allies that are the true challenges to peace and stability.

In reminding China of the need to "uphold the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and abstain from threats, coercion, intimidation, or the use of force", they are turning the world upside down. It is they that are resorting to such strong-arm actions, which are undermining peace and stability in the region and elsewhere.

If China's military development to protect the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity can be called "militarization" of the region, then what should we call Washington's deployments of large numbers of troops and huge amounts of weapons thousands of miles from US shores on the doorsteps of China? A friendly calling card?

If Beijing's actions to prevent the Taiwan island from being separated from its motherland by its secessionist-minded authorities backed by the US, and to maintain stability in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong which separatist forces supported by the US are trying to destabilize, can be defined as "unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion", "human rights violations and abuses" and "continued erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy rights and freedoms", the G7 countries should consider their own responses to internal threats.

The unbinding "award" rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on July 12, 2016, over "complaints" on Manila's maritime disputes with Beijing submitted by the then US-backed Benigno Aquino III administration, into which the US has once again tried to breathe life, was nothing but a manifestation of the US weaponizing international organs and bending international laws for its own narrow ends.

At the same time, the US is leaving no stone unturned to obstruct China's negotiations with regional countries over the maritime disputes in the South China Sea, which, to Washington's embarrassment, have made remarkable progress, among which is the agreement that no external forces should be allowed to interfere in the disputing parties' efforts to settle regional affairs.

If there is truly no change in their basic positions on the Taiwan question, including their upholding of the one-China principle, they would not have aired their support for the Chinese island to participate in some world bodies, which has been vetoed year after year by the international community. They know that the renewed support will embolden the diehard secessionists on the island to stick to their cause, as elbowing the island into the door of some international organizations as a parallel with sovereign states is something they have sought to do for years.

All this being said, and given the growing aggressiveness of the increasingly "Natolized" G7, it begs the question, which countries are the ones not acting in accordance with their obligations under international laws.