We followed closely the G7 meeting at Elmau Castle a few days ago. Leaders from Germany, Canada, the United States, France, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom discussed today’s key international issues at a high level. On the agenda are the food, energy and climate crises, as well as the war in Ukraine and the resulting strategic and security issues.
In addition to the need to encompass the more immediate effects of global instability and the Western bloc’s repeated support for Kiev, what drew the most attention during the event was the obvious concern of G7 members about counter-establishment movements by countries that were not there. .
Russia and China were specifically treated as destabilizing agents in the system. In the first case, the focus was on discussing energy dependence and new sanctions against Moscow, such as those related to gold imports. In the latter case, the emphasis revolved around uneasiness with the Sino-Russian alliance, human rights issues, and unfair and opaque practices about what the allies thought in terms of international trade.
The virtual meeting of the BRICS the previous week pointed to the tendency of developing countries to adopt pragmatic harmony with each other, trying to move away from sensitive issues and mutual differences in the name of space and heroism in the international arena. The G7 incident revealed the concern of the established powers to protect the country. status quo and the values that govern the liberal order, which they see themselves as their obvious representatives.
While the tension between these two worlds is not exactly novelty, it is no exaggeration to say that the moment marked the intensification of conversations and actions. Russia and China are not only slowly assuming that they are uncomfortable with existing structures, but are making more clear what some would consider a “revolutionary character”. Meanwhile, on the G7 side, the US and Europe are trying to share the burden of keeping the system afloat and reforming it before it collapses. Alongside internal mobilization, the powers are unsurprisingly looking to countries in the global South that are strategic and whose ties they want to strengthen. This is the case of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, which were invited to attend the G7 meeting.
However, uncertainty about the future lies in the direction, intensity, and cost of an eventual change. According to several leading intellectuals in the field of International Relations, such as Charles Kindleberger, Stephan Krasner, Robert Gilpin, and Robert Keohane, structural stability usually occurs when a hegemonic power assumes the responsibility of acting as the sponsor of the existing system.
“The End of the American Empire?” Jan Pieterse elaborates on this idea by stating that stability depends on actors willing to manage financial liquidity in times of crisis, acting as a source of capital for development, serving as the final market, offering general incentives, allowing all system participants to live freely. trade as well as maintaining the peace and security of the system.
In the 21st century, neither the United States nor European countries seem to be able to do this alone. At the same time, Russia and China are struggling to build their own legitimacy as global leaders.
source: Noticias
[author_name]
