Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“Leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy nations staked their claim Sunday to leading the world out of the coronavirus pandemic and crisis, pledging more than 1 billion coronavirus vaccine doses to poorer nations, vowing to help developing countries grow while fighting climate change and backing a minimum tax on multinational firms.” AP News
Read the full communique here. White House
Here’s our most recent coverage of the G7. The Flip Side
Many on both sides stress the limits of multilateralism:
“For all of Biden's attempts to put forward a show of comity, there were limits on what the leaders could agree to in the end. One of Biden's major proposals to the group -- a global infrastructure program meant to compete with China's Belt and Road initiative -- was included in the summit's final statement. But it didn't include any specific commitments from countries on how much they're willing to contribute…
“And though language on China went further in calling out Beijing's human rights and economic abuses than previous G7 statements, earlier drafts of the communiqué were sharper. Behind the scenes, European leaders appeared resistant to go as far as Biden wanted in holding China to account… Biden has framed his entire trip around the notion of defending democracy in a battle against authoritarianism. But some in Europe find the democracy versus autocracy formulation overly reductive, allowing little room for the reality that many countries will end up relying on China or Russia in some form or another.”
Kevin Liptak, CNN
“Mr. Biden often criticized Donald Trump’s China policy for not involving allies, and he had a point. China practices divide-and-conquer politics internationally, and Chinese mercantilism is best resisted by an alliance of democracies that can show Beijing it can’t play one off against another…
“But the weakness of ‘multilateralism’ is that it requires unity of purpose that can be defeated by the lowest-common-denominator participant. European leaders are reluctant to put their exports to China at risk with too forceful a stance. That’s why they’ve merely mumbled criticism of China’s decision to strangle the autonomy that Beijing promised Hong Kong in its treaty with Britain…
“On Covid-19’s origin, meanwhile, the G-7 is already demonstrating the weakness of multilateralism backed only by gauzy, hopeful rhetoric. ‘We also call for a timely, transparent, expert-led, and science-based WHO-convened Phase 2 COVID-19 Origins study including, as recommended by the experts’ report, in China,’ says Sunday’s communique. Is that it? The world’s leaders want the same WHO that failed in its first Covid-19 origin study to do another one—this time with . . . feeling?”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
Other opinions below.
“The G7 countries should launch a joint investigation into the origins of the virus… Countries such as Japan, Germany, France, and Italy with world-class intelligence services and medical-research institutions can share the benefits of their expertise and their insights on China. France’s cooperation is particularly important. After all, the French built the BSL-4 laboratory for advanced pathogenetic research on viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Undoubtedly, the French know many of the most sensitive secrets regarding this facility and the personnel inside the WIV, with whom they previously collaborated, and can do a great deal to help solve this mystery…
“A G7 investigation could illuminate not only the scientific evidence for the origins of the pandemic, but the reasons for China’s systematic cover-up of the facts surrounding both a possible lab leak and even the potential zoonotic origins of the virus. If Beijing refuses to comply in full with such an inquiry by the world’s leading powers and consumers of Chinese products, our nations could launch a coordinated campaign to impose sanctions — including against the WIV and its parent body, the Chinese Academy of Sciences — for its willful disregard of our collective security, economic stability, and public health.”
David Asher, National Review
Regarding the summit as a whole, some argue that “The point of diplomacy is rarely to shake things up. Instead, the point is to regularly meet, establish rapport (especially because leaders come and go), and discuss issues at hand, the details of which will then be left to aides to work out. Though it may feel like wasted time, when a crisis occurs it’s thanks to such previously established relations that allies and frenemies alike can cobble together some sort of coordinated response…
“The same lack of drama can be expected at Biden’s meeting with fellow NATO leaders in Brussels. It doesn’t even matter what he says (and that, as ever, will include a plea for European allies to do more for their own security). What matters is that he won’t threaten them with a US withdrawal. Some may invest more in defense, some won’t, and many Americans will continue to be annoyed…
“But here’s the great thing: These are 30 countries that have chosen to be friends, imperfect though they are. Now think of the countries on the other side. Russia and China have . . . virtually no friends. It’s with international summits as with family gatherings: They’re tedious and sometimes exasperating. But these are the people you need in a crisis.”
Elisabeth Braw, American Enterprise Institute
Others note that “One of the most dismaying phenomena of the 21st century is the rise of a ‘nationalist international’ — a loose alliance of antidemocratic, illiberal powers, among which China and Russia are foremost. Again and again, the giants hasten to offer support to like-minded dictators on every continent, confident that by doing so they diminish the potency of democracy…
“Biden’s European travels should make plain to him, if it was not already, that continental opinion is deeply divided about how to manage Russia. The Baltic States want hard security guarantees from NATO. They, like the Poles, oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as increasing Moscow’s leverage on Western Europe. The French and Italians, by contrast, seek to maximize their trade with Russia. German opinion is divided… We need some big men and women on the world stage to defend the cause of liberal democracy. In their absence, tyrants will continue to thrive.”
Max Hastings, Bloomberg
“The last four years have been a rough time for the trans-Atlantic relationship. Three years ago, at the tense G7 summit in Canada, the tone was set by an epiphanal photo showing a smug former President Donald Trump being faced down by determined German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with the other leaders watching their world implode around them. Beyond Trump's insistence on restoring Russia's Putin to membership in the group, ignoring his seizure of Crimea, his threat to cut off trade with countries that failed his test of fair treatment of America threw the entire conference in disarray as he stormed out, refusing to sign the final communiqué…
“Now, as several European diplomats have told me, it will take a lot to convince them that Biden represents a return to normalcy… Biden has still not managed to appoint and confirm ambassadors to any of the countries in the G7 or most of those who'll be at the NATO summit. The US is still represented by chargés-d'affairs in each of these capitals. One European diplomat asked me how committed Biden actually is to renewing positive relationships with long-standing friends given such looming gaps.”
David A. Andelman, CNN
Others note that “Even before Biden’s departure, polling showed the United States regaining its stature after it had so horribly diminished under the last president. A Pew Research survey found: ‘In each of the 16 publics surveyed, more than six-in-ten say they have confidence in Biden to do the right thing in world affairs. Looking at 12 nations surveyed both this year and in 2020, a median of 75% express confidence in Biden, compared with 17% for [former president Donald Trump] last year.’…
“His administration’s decision to rejoin the World Health Organization drew huge approval (a median of 89 percent), as did its move to rejoin the Paris climate agreement (85 percent), to organize a summit of democracies (85 percent) and to increase the number of refugee admissions in the United States (76 percent). Many pundits and foreign policy officials feared Biden’s predecessor did lasting and permanent damage to U.S. influence, prestige and power around the world. So far, Biden is showing that fear to be overblown.”
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
Critics argue that “Biden and leaders of some of the world’s richest countries disappointed environmentalists Sunday at the G7 annual summit by failing to agree on a deadline to end their use of coal for electricity. Burning coal is one of the biggest drivers of global warming, and curtailing its use is a priority for Biden, who has described climate change as the greatest threat to US national security…
“At the summit, the United Kingdom had encouraged the other G7 nations to agree to phase it out in the 2030s, in order to meet their goals of limiting global temperature rise. But when G7 leaders sat down Sunday to talk about climate change, they did not land on a specific time frame to ban coal, and instead only vaguely agreed to ‘accelerate’ efforts to turn away from it…
“The group’s failure to ban coal by a certain date worries energy experts, in part because it makes it harder to pressure China to curb its own carbon emissions. ‘It’s very disappointing,’ Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, told the New York Times. ‘This was a moment when the G7 could have shown historic leadership, and instead they left a massive void.’”
Samantha Michaels, Mother Jones
