G7 Summit 2024: Balancing Principles and Geopolitics
The G7’s 50th Session in Apulia
The leaders of G7, a grouping of seven highly industrialised countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and US), met in Apulia, Italy, on June 13-15, 2024. It was the 50th session of the group, which has been meeting regularly since 1975, essentially to preserve the existing world order predicated on multilateralism, universal human rights, liberal democracy, and free trade.
Key Decisions and Discussions
At Apulia, the G7 leaders called for strengthening the rules-based international order. They also decided to provide $50 billion to Ukraine, support the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, and bolster ties with nations in Africa and the Indo-Pacific. The summit also discussed food security, climate resilience, irregular migration, financial stability, and AI’s benefits and risks.
The Changing Global Order
The G7’s emphasis on maintaining the rules-based world order seems to be a desperate attempt to preserve the West’s dominance. However, realities are changing. The existing world order is in disarray. New power centres have emerged, including several major economies in Asia, which would have to be accommodated in the evolving multipolar world order. A rising China, resurgent Russia, and groupings like BRICS and SCO have changed the complexion of the West-dominated international order.
Unilateralism and Global Challenges
Several other challenges are also impacting our world. Firstly, a growing trend towards unilateralism has replaced the spirit of globalism and multilateralism in addressing issues of global concern. Ironically, it was US military action in Iraq in 2003, in disregard of the UN Security Council, that initiated the weakening of the rules-based international order. This was followed by Russia’s unilateral invasion of Crimea and India’s unprovoked strike on Balakot. Secondly, the UN has been sidelined in major international conflicts. Thirdly, universal human rights have been politicized, and double standards are in full display.
China’s Exclusion and the Geopolitical Tensions
China, the world’s second-largest economy, was not invited to the summit even though it has been at the forefront of defending the rules-based international order. The geopolitics of major power competition trumps the spirit of working together even as China repeatedly calls for reviving the spirit of globalism to address conflict and underdevelopment.
Criticisms and Alternatives to the G7
The G7 has often been criticised for trying to impose its will on the rest of the world. This concern was partly addressed by the formation of G20, a group of 19 leading economies, as well as the EU and African Union. However, the two groups have not only further marginalised the UN-led universally accepted multilateralism but also given rise to the trend towards multi-alignment.
Financial Support for Ukraine
The Apulia summit announced $50 billion for Ukraine by leveraging immobilised Russian sovereign assets. This was G7’s response to President Vladimir Putin, who had recently set terms for starting peace talks: Ukraine to withdraw from the regions partially occupied by Russia (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia) and give up its efforts to join Nato. Putin denounced the G7 decision to use Russian assets to finance the Ukraine war, remarking that “…theft is still theft and will not go unpunished.”
Divergent Views on Ukraine Peace
In the Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland that followed the G7 meeting, several important countries including India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, and the UAE chose not to sign the joint communique. Most of them felt that peace in Ukraine required the presence of all stakeholders, especially Russia, for meaningful negotiations. South Africa noted with surprise that Israel, which has just been accused of war crimes by a UN-backed commission, had been invited to the summit. China did not attend, nor did Pakistan.
The Ukraine Crisis: Legal and Political Perspectives
Meanwhile, the crisis in Ukraine remains stalemated. Legally, Ukraine is right because its territorial integrity has been violated. Politically, Russia has a point that it was provoked by Nato’s constant expansion eastwards, despite the assurances given to it earlier. What argument is more relevant for Pakistan and what consideration should guide its policy on Ukraine?
Pakistan’s Dilemma
Indeed, Ukraine is a victim of foreign aggression and, therefore, deserves Pakistan’s support. Pakistan should never accept such aggression, having itself faced it when India intervened militarily in East Pakistan. It must uphold the principle of territorial integrity for Ukraine. However, global geopolitics has pushed Russia towards China, Pakistan’s close friend. This places Pakistan in an awkward position: legally it must support Ukraine, whose territorial integrity was violated. Politically, it should stay neutral given that Russia was provoked by Nato, and is now leaning towards China, which itself is fighting strategic coercion by the US-led West.
Principles vs. Geopolitics
As ever, it is principles versus geopolitics. Balancing these considerations will require careful navigation of international relations to uphold legal principles while acknowledging the geopolitical realities that shape Pakistan’s foreign policy decisions.