A Tale of Two Summits

June 15, 2023

About the author:

Mushahid Hussain, Former Pakistan Senator, Political Journalist

The contrasting visions and policy priorities between the Global South and the Global North are most exemplified in the context, venue, and outcomes of the recent G7 Summit in Hiroshima and China-Central Asia Summit in Xi’an. The G7 Summit, a yearly gathering of the Western super-rich alongside Japan, took place on May 19-21. In contrast, the China-Central Asia Summit occurred between May 18-19, marking the inaugural meeting of its kind since the five Central Asian Republics achieved independence.

The two summits occurred amidst a context of global transformation and turbulence, as the balance of economic and political power shifts slowly, but inexorably, from a declining West to a resurgent East, with the 21^st Century being heralded as the “Asian Century.” China’s peaceful rise is a pillar of this resurgent East.

The G7 is essentially a “White Man’s Club,” with Japan being granted the status of “honorary White” even during the days of racist apartheid South Africa. It is seen as a remnant of the bygone era when Western hegemony was predominant. To compensate for their economic decline, the G7 countries are increasingly resorting to a Cold War-style outlook that resembles the rhetoric and worldview of a time when the United States was confronting the Soviet Union.

The China-Central Asia Summit was forward-looking, while the G7 Summit was backward-looking, still nostalgic about a non-existent past and seeking relevance in a changing world by resorting to the old Cold War playbook.

The symbolism of the two summit venues is also significant. While the China-Central Asia Summit was convened in historic Xi’an, the Chinese city that gave birth to the Silk Road two thousand years ago, symbolizing the creation of commercial and cultural connectivity in what was actually the first practical example of globalization. Conversely, the G7 Summit took place in Hiroshima, a city whose name is synonymous with the destruction of the first atomic bomb used by the U.S. during World War II. Thus, the two summit venues evoke a contrasting symbolism: creation versus destruction, reflecting the differences in policy priorities between the Global South and Global North.

The underlying purposes of the two summits could not be more dissimilar. The China-Central Asia Summit was about promoting connectivity among Asian neighbors with cooperation on economy and energy, roads, railways, and pipelines, buttressed by an already robust US$70 billion trade deal between the Central Asian Republics and China.

On the other hand, the G7 Summit, which is fast becoming the diplomatic wing of NATO and an extension of American foreign policy, was more about promoting confrontation against China and Russia, with belligerent rhetoric, coinciding with the opening of the first-ever NATO office in Asia. The office to be situated in Tokyo, the capital of Japan, is an alarming expansion of NATO beyond the shores of the Atlantic.

Given these contexts, it is not surprising that the respective outcomes and results of the two summits have vastly different consequences. The Xi’an Summit was about building bridges, while the Hiroshima gathering was more about building barriers. The growing divisions between the Global North and Global South are rooted in ideological differences, such as the dichotomy between democracy and autocracy, as well as protectionist measures and penalties including trade restrictions and sanctions targeting China and Russia. These divisions contribute to the development of a new Cold War infrastructure, exemplified by initiatives like AUKUS, QUAD, and the concept of the “Asian NATO,” alongside the pursuit of military bases in parts of Asia and stoking tensions over Taiwan. Moreover, these developments produce double standards, such as sanctioning the Defense Minister of China while seeking a dialogue with him or expanding NATO to Ukraine on Russia’s borders while accusing Moscow of ill-intentions toward Ukraine.

Ironically, while deriding China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global North is simultaneously seeking to push poorly-planned copycat programs like President Biden’s B3W (Build Back Better World), which is now renamed as the Program for Growth in Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), or the European Union’s “Global Gateway,” though neither has yielded any concrete projects.

The contrasts in worldviews and values are clear and present: China has an economic-driven vision of geoeconomics while the U.S.-led G7 remains security-centric and military driven. More than four decades after the G7 was launched in mid-1970s and 10 years after BRI was launched in 2013, their respective worldviews, policies, and approaches are rooted in “Strategic Cultures,” based on differing historical evolution. Thus, analysis is necessary to understand these strategic divergences.

Key components of China’s Strategic Culture include: the Silk Road, connectivity and cooperation amongst countries, cultures, and civilizations; the Great Wall, which manifests China’s defensive and protective approach against outside intruders and aggressors; the Long March, an epic of the Chinese Revolution which was a long and costly struggle for survival which demonstrates patience, perseverance, and persistence, and a “Never Give Up” Spirit; the “Century of Humiliation” from 1840-1949, a determination of “never again” for violations of China’s unity, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and dignity…

Hence, it is no accident that China is the only global power in history to rise peacefully without any invasion, conquest, colonization, or aggression.

Conversely, the American Strategic Culture has key ingredients that are reflected in the US approach and worldview of the present-day: an obsession with Pax Americana since the Monroe Doctrine, a desire for an unending quest for hegemony; a glorified self-image of “American Exceptionalism”; a “we-are-unique” expression of moral superiority over others; a modern day post-colonial version of the “White Man’s Burden”; an international do-gooder that invades and occupies countries or brings “regime change” for “the greater good” of countries at the receiving end; a trigger-happy “might is right” “shock & awe” approach in foreign affairs which can rightly be termed as “John Wayne style” of diplomacy which shoots first, asks questions later; and a powerful Military-Industrial-Complex that is a permanent war machine which requires constant refueling via bulging military budgets and a quest for an “Enemy.” The enemy in the 20^th Century was the Soviet Union, followed by the fomented fear of “Islamic radicalism,” now it’s the “China Threat” being conjured up by the same country that in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, a truly racist law.

In May 2019, Kiron Skinner, former Director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State and a key policymaker of the US Administration, openly described the conflict with China as a “fight with a different civilization,” even providing a racial context to the emerging U.S.-China competition saying “it’s the first time we will have a great power competitor that is NOT Caucasian.” Such racism is reinforced by outright bullying or even threats to dismember China. I still recall when the Soviet Union was disintegrating and the U.S. had spawned what they grandiosely proclaimed as the “New World Order,” an Op-ed appeared in The New York Times by the influential columnist, Leslie Gelb, who had also served in the State Department. On November 13, 1991, Gelb authored a piece, which matter-of-factly discussed the United States resorting to the “ultimate sanction - a threat to the territorial integrity of the Middle Kingdom - if Beijing leaders continue to defy new standards of world behavior.” Gelb’s column, which was audaciously titled “Breaking China Apart,” went on to threaten China by saying that “Americans may take extraordinary measures, including kindling separatism”!

At the China-Central Asia Summit, China gave a new blueprint for broad based development of economic and cultural ties, with President Xi Jinping saying “We will jointly foster a new paradigm of deeply complementary and high-level win-win cooperation.” At the G7 Summit, President Biden used this Western platform to play up the bogey of the “China threat,” using the occasion for negativism against China and Russia without any positive or substantive vision for the future.

No wonder even CNN commented that “China is nothing short of a foreign policy fixation in Washington.” The prominent American commentator, Fareed Zakaria, was even more candid: “The rest of the world doesn’t see China the same way we do.” Moreover, former American administration official Fiona Hill’s cryptic comment was a clincher as to what all is wrong with the US China policy: “The Global South sees the U.S. as full of hubris and hypocrisy” when it comes to the conduct of Washington’s foreign policy.

Ultimately, the G7 Summit showed a mindset that is disconnected from prevailing trends and persists in pursuing an outdated and ineffective approach, reflecting the inability to resolve pressing global issues such as climate change, food security, and poverty alleviation. Even the COVID-19 pandemic was distorted into an obsession with Vaccine Nationalism. The aging aristocrats of the West may try to act like Good Samaritans, but in today’s world they are part of the problem, exposing a stark chasm between their proclamations and their actions. .

China, on the other hand, is a proactive leader in global diplomacy, actively engaging with nations from the Solomon Islands to Saudi Arabia. China is the top trade partner for 130 out of the 193 countries in the United Nations. China is also a bridge-builder brokering peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, further solidifying its diplomatic influence. Building on the success of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), President Xi Jinping has launched far-reaching, multifaceted initiatives including the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative.

Western policymakers need to learn from their own history. They must recalibrate their policies, abandoning the zero-sum-game mindset, shedding pieces of the Cold War mentality, and refraining from pursuing outdated strategies that have proven to be ineffective. By aligning themselves with the progressive course of history, they can then pave the way for positive change.

Western policymakers must acknowledge and adapt to the emerging realities. As recently written by Olaf Scholz, Chancellor of Germany, “there’s an epochal tectonic change” taking place in the world today. Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron aptly remarked at a gathering of France’s diplomats in Paris in September 2022: “We should learn to accept the fact that 300 years of Western hegemony is coming to an end.”

Please note: The above contents only represent the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of Taihe Institute.

This article is from the June issue of TI Observer (TIO), which is a monthly publication devoted to bringing China and the rest of the world closer together by facilitating mutual understanding and promoting exchanges of views. If you are interested in knowing more about the October issue, please click here:

http://www.taiheinstitute.org/Content/2023/06-30/2334020338.html

——————————————

ON TIMES WE FOCUS.

Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org