China, a communist country, and the Group of Seven (G7) are like water and fire, incompatible: communism vs. capitalism (although some G7 countries are leaning towards socialism), heavy mercantilism vs. free market, intellectual property theft vs. intellectual property protection.
For decades, Western countries, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as multinational investors, have been providing funding to China’s economic growth in the hope that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would improve its bellicose behavior on the world stage, reduce persecution of minority groups, decrease technology and military secrets theft, and curb the use of unfair trade practices to dominate overseas markets.
The international community hopes that China, through its entry into international financial organizations and the United Nations, would undergo some degree of internal reform and evolve into a more open, “free” society. However, the CCP has continuously exploited this expectation to serve its own purposes, turning it into a mere illusion.
News reports mention that the CCP engages in espionage activities, creates excess manufacturing capacity, continues to provide national subsidies to industries, military aggression in Taiwan’s territorial waters and airspace, and continues to implement forced labor in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
As part of its ongoing information warfare, the CCP regularly condemns G7’s common sense statements whenever such despicable communist actions are exposed.
Let’s delve into this issue.
The Group of Seven is an intergovernmental organization consisting of the world’s largest developed economies – France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
Leaders of the G7 hold regular meetings to discuss international economic and monetary issues. The G7 presidency rotates among member countries. Previous discussions among G7 leaders have covered debt crises, oil embargoes and shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the relationship between G7 and communist China.
For instance, in December of last year, following a virtual meeting, the G7 issued the following statement: “We will create a fair competitive environment for our workers and businesses. We will seek to address the challenges posed by the CCP’s distortion of the global economy through non-market policies and practices. We will combat malicious activities such as illegal technology transfers and data leaks. We will enhance resilience against economic threats.”
The statement also pays more attention to issues such as human rights, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the militarization of the South China Sea. In recent years, the G7 has, in various ways, addressed these concerning areas in its statements, prompting swift rebuttals from Chinese state media using comments from Chinese diplomats and other individuals.
For instance, an article in the Global Times in October 2023 condemned the G7’s joint statement on China’s unfair trade practices: “Chinese officials and analysts have dismissed the accusation of economic coercion by the G7, claiming that the US-led group is essentially trying to form an exclusive club of wealthy nations to defend their interests while undermining global cooperation and development.”
Given recent events, an excerpt from the December statement by the Group of Seven is particularly noteworthy: “We urge China to fulfill its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. China shall refrain from activities that undermine the security and stability of our societies, the integrity of our democratic systems, and the interference in our economic prosperity.”
On April 23, the Wall Street Journal reported news of the “Fourth Suspected Chinese Spy Arrested Within 24 Hours in Germany,” citing the German Minister of the Interior who stated, “If it turns out that Chinese intelligence is spying in the European Parliament, what is happening now is an attack on European democracy from within.” Investigations are ongoing, but this series of “Chinese spy captures” incidents seems to underscore the G7 leaders’ statements.
This is just the latest spy incident in Europe; as Politico Europe previously reported, in Brussels, Chinese espionage is rampant: “Up to one-fifth of Chinese journalists working in Brussels are suspected of being intelligence agents, according to Belgian security services. In fact, there are so many suspected Chinese spies operating in Brussels that some people treat it as a joke.”
At the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting held in Italy in April, a strong statement on China’s human rights issues was released: “We remain concerned about China’s human rights situation, including in Xinjiang and Tibet. Since the enactment of the National Security Law in 2020, the diversity and civil political rights of Hong Kong have deteriorated, and we express our concern. Recently, under Article 23 of the Basic Law, the National Security Law was passed, which will further erode Hong Kong’s autonomy, human rights, and basic freedoms, and we reaffirm these concerns.”
Three days later, the Global Times quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin as saying the G7’s statement “intentionally distorts facts and truth, openly interferes in China’s internal affairs.” Wang further distorted the criticism from the G7, claiming that under the new National Security Law, “order has been restored in Hong Kong and it will thrive, and society in Xinjiang and Tibet is harmonious, prosperous, and stable, with all ethnic groups living happily.”
The phrase “order restored with Chinese characteristics” evidently implies that the people of Hong Kong have lost their freedom and democracy, a process that has been ongoing since the law passed in 2020, while “prosperity and stability with Chinese characteristics” actually means cultural extinction for the Uyghurs and Tibetans.
The G7’s statement on China’s human rights issues is entirely valid!
The narrative promoted by Xi Jinping, the leader of the CCP, regarding peaceful coexistence and continued economic openness and cooperation is at odds with reality, indirectly exposing these reality-based truths.
Even observers with a historically favorable view towards China have taken note of the CCP’s aggressive trade behavior. Liberal Robert Kuttner wrote in Prospect magazine on April 30, “The obstacle to ‘friending’ China is the CCP’s intensified mercantilism, especially in the form of industrial overcapacity across industries.”
For example, he pointed out, “China subsidizes the ‘automobile industry’ with zero or negative interest rates, subsidizes steel and batteries for electric vehicles, and provides direct government support,” leading to Chinese-made electric cars being dumped on the global market at prices “far below production costs.”
The result? Chinese car exports have quintupled over the past three years, directly attributable to these unfair trade practices. This is what Xi Jinping refers to as “cooperation with Chinese characteristics.”
Similarly, as the CCP’s military deploys more and more ships and aircraft around Taiwan, as Chinese coast guard ships use water cannons against Filipino vessels in the West Philippine Sea, leaders of Taiwan and the Philippines are learning what “peaceful coexistence with Chinese characteristics” entails. It means abiding by the conditions set by the CCP for “peaceful coexistence,” no wonder the increasingly vehement accusations from the CCP against G7’s public statements are falling on deaf ears!
This piece of writing delves into the complexities and tensions between China and the G7, highlighting the key issues, disputes, and diplomatic statements made by both sides. It sheds light on the underlying power dynamics and conflicts present in global politics today.
Please note that the information presented in this article is for informative purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the views of any specific news outlet or organization.