Two summits: rhetorics and reality

It is unprecedented to have two summits of the world's most industrialised countries' leaders back to back. But that is what happened in the last week of June when the G-7 summit in the Alpine resort town of Schloss Elmauin in Bavaria, Germany was immediately followed by the summit of NATO in Madrid. Equally extraordinary was the common core agenda in the two summits that figured prominently in discussions of the heads of states and governments viz. further military assistance to Ukraine to counter the Russian army's advance in eastern Donbas region and assurance of continued support in this regard for 'as long as it takes'.

Normally, a G- 7 summit deals with major economic problems that hobble regional or global economic growth. This leads to coordinated policy actions by major economies, setting directions for the rest of the world. Not only was the military assistance to Ukraine the centre piece in the agenda of G- 7, proposals for new sanctions were also mooted there with equal gusto. This shift in policy, away from the conventional, is a new use of the forum for geo- political interests of the West. To water down this abrupt shift and make it appear as of global importance, a few non-member countries like India and Indonesia were invited as guest participants. It is not likely that beside behaving as polite gusts the non-member observers lent their support to the uncoventional agenda. The European Union (EU), however, has already become embroiled in the proxy war in Ukraine, orchestrated by America, abandoning its traditional policy in international policy of assisting other countries with 'everything except arms'. The attempt by America to polarise the world, as during the cold war era, has never been more palpable than now, three decades after the end of that period. Jeffrey Saachs, the American economist and environment specialist, acknowledged this role of America in a recent interview given to CNN when he said, 'We have divided the world'. Spotlighting the confrontational and warmongering role of his country he pointed out that it was at the instigation of America that Ukraine pulled out of the negotiation for peace initiated by Turkey in Ankara, leaving the only option open to the two adversaries viz. continuing war to bleed each other white in the broadest possible sense.

NATO, however, is a different kettle of fish, explicitly being a military alliance of America and its allies in north America (Canada) and in western Europe. The enlargement of NATO, accepting east European countries belonging to erstwhile Warsaw Pact, has been the main cause behind Russia's bellicosity and its annexation of Crimea and the current devastating war in Ukraine unleashed by it almost in desperation. No attempt was made by America as a superpower nor by NATO to help diffuse the tension between Russia and Ukraine through a negotiated settlement. Institutionally, NATO is incapable of having this mettle for making peace overtures but America should not have mobilised its allies behind its policy of goading Ukraine to adopt an uncompromising posture in respect of NATO membership, even at the risk of a war.

The rhetoric of NATO members, many of whom are member countries of the EU, has been one of bellicosity even before the Russian invasion. This has been matched, more or less, by giving military assistance after the war started, augmenting the assistance from NATO, particularly America and Britain. America, of course, has been providing weapons and training to Ukraine since long, beginning from 2014 when Crimea was annexed by Russia, ostensibly exasperated at the obduracy of Ukraine in its decision to be a part of the western alliance, endangering Russia' s security.

The credit for mobilising support of EU members as well as lining up Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand behind NATO' s policy of confronting Russia through a proxy war in Ukraine goes to America which was alarmed at the co- operative and friendly overtures by west European countries like Germany (Nordstream 2 oil pipeline from Russia) and Italy and Spain (participating in the Belt and Road Initiative of China). Ever keen to rule over a divided world, America sought to array the west European countries against its erstwhile ideological foes, Russia and China after the end of the cold war but to little effect as the west Europeans did not share America's view of existential threat coming from these two countries. They were inclined to the promotion of a globalised world of peace and stability to pursue their aspirational goal of sustained and inclusive economic growth and believed that the end of cold war provided the opportunity to follow their dream of a new world order. Co-operation and not conflict was the overarching mantra that infused their policy in international relations. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion on 24 February this year gave America the opportunity to mobilise west European support behind its adversarial role vis a vis Russia. With Russia in the cross hair, it did not take much effort and time to change the west European attitude to China. It was in a triumphant mood that President Biden said at the conclusion of the two historic summits, 'The most important conclusion that Vladimir Putin needs to draw from what has happened in the last few days here in NATO and previously in G- 7 meeting in Germany is that we are totally united. 'Earlier he had said: He (Putin) thought he could break the transatlantic alliance. He tried to weaken us.'

The cold war rhetorics of a common enemy(ies) in Russia ( and now China) and the need to be prepared to do everything that needs to be done to protect the security of the West against aggrandisement of Russia( also China) has been resurrected with a vengeance by America in the wake of the war in Ukraine. Hot on the heels has followed with concerted action by the western alliance in terms of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine and slapping a slew of economic sanctions on Russia to cripple its economy and degrade the military strength. The correspondence of rhetoric with reality on the ground in this context has been has been further evinced by the decision of all NATO countries to allocate 2.0 per cent of their GDP to defence sector, something the west Europeans were chary about after the end of the cold war. Another ' glaring' success of the anti- Russian rhetoric is the eager application by Sweden and Norway for NATO membership. The long cherished American policy of confrontation and conflict by proxy against Russia (with China added) can be said to have reached the apogee of success after the Russian invasion of Ukraine with none of American allies asking the question why Russia took the plunge in a war for which it knew a heavy price would have to be paid.

Apart from the previous announcements and subsequent follow up by EU countries to send military assistance to Ukraine after the invasion by Russia, in the just concluded G- 7 and NATO summits the EU member countries made further commitments about continuance and upgradation of weapons supply with advanced and state- of the- art types. Furthermore, the EU, in concert with America, upped the ante on sanctions slapped on Russia to cripple its economy and degrade military capability. All these decisions and actions indicate the convergence of rhetoric of the proxy war in Ukraine with the delivery on the ground. But even with this demonstration of unity crucial fissures have appeared in fulfilling the commitments made. The divergence of views between America and its western allies on oil and gas embargos is because of the overwhelming dependence of west European countries on these two items ( above 40 per cent) on which depend their industries, business and households. Reports have emerged about behind the scenes wrangling among American and EU officials over having a common strategy and policy in respect of energy sanctions. America has been privately urging the EU countries since last spring to consider ways of imposing a ceiling on the Russian oil price as an alternative to partial embargo that EU decided upon at the end of May in its sixth sanction package. In the lead up to the G- 7 summit, the US worked with EU and Britain on a new version of a price cap via an incentive structure in which access to western financial institutions by western importers would be conditional on a price ceiling being observed on Russian oil shipments. In the event, however, G-7 leaders agreed in the summit only to explore the proposal. Germany in particular, is notably cautious about the idea of price ceiling or cap on Russian oil. Given that EU's last sanction package (the sixth) took weeks of wrangling and compromises before decisions were made, a seventh sanction package appears very unlikely in the near term. The rhetoric of unity made by G-7 leaders publicly is, therefore, a lot of hot air and window dressing, according to many observers who have pointed out too many divisions among countries of EU and different directions in which they are heading, keeping their national interests. The longer the war continues greater is the possibility of the divergences among countries growing wider.

To sum up the issue of the relation between the rhetoric of the proxy war in Ukraine and the actual and potential achievements it can be concluded that while there is little divergence in respect of weapons delivery because of a united stance and unanimous decision, the same cannot be said about economic sanctions across the board, either in terms of items or for countries of the western alliance. It has become apparent by now that however much America goads its allies in Europe to wean themselves away from Russian oil and gas, their national interests are holding them back or prompting them to soft pedal on the issue. This invisible gap between rhetorics made in summits about sanctions against Russia and the results in reality, being leaked out by bits and pieces, is likely to become public before long.

The rhetorics of the proxy war in Ukraine need to be compared in relation to a bigger reality, other than that related to the war. When this bigger reality, comprising the present and the future, is taken into account it becomes amply clear that there is a complete disconnect between it and the rhetorics made in the two summits. To be fair, only the G-7 summit should be judged on the basis of this 'bigger reality' as the issues related to it are not germane to NATO whose specific remit of security and defence does not cover these. The first of these issues embodied in the bigger realty is the state of the economy of member countries of EU (including the former member, the UK) and north America ( America, Canada) and the rest of the world as part of the global economy. All these countries, battered by the covid-19 pandemic, just began the process of economic recovery when the war in Ukraine broke out. The disruptions in supply chains caused by the pandemic and incipient inflation have been compounded manifold by the war because it has affected the availability of two crucial items, food and energy( oil and gas).Food supply and production have been greatly constrained because the two adversaries in the ongoing war in Europe, Russia and Ukraine, account for 14 per cent of global corn exports,22 per cent of rape seed / canola,27 per cent of wheat exports,30 per cent of barley and 30 per cent of sunflower exports. Russia is also the top exporter of fertilizer in the world on which depends food production in many countries. The disruptions in supply of these items caused by the war and sanctions imposed on Russia have threatened importing countries with food shortages and reduced food production. According to FAO, in the area stretching from Kenya to Somalia and large parts of Ethiopia up to 20 million people could go hungry in 2022 if there is no import of food grains from Russia and Ukraine. For the perennially poor Sahel region in sub Sahara and west Africa the figure is estimated to be over 40 million, up from 10 million just a year ago.

The economic crisis caused by Ukraine war has already been intensified by reduced supply of oil and steep rise in the prices of oil and gas. These have compounded the disruptions in supply chains continuing since the Covid -19 pandemic. The upshot of food and energy shortages has been sharp increase in price levels across the board, sending inflation northward all over the world. The inflation level in America is now 8.6 per cent, a 40 year high and in Britain inflation at 8.1 per cent has recorded an all time high. In the EU, the inflation is rate at 7.8 per cent, the lowest among the three, but it is rising faster than the other two following the war in Ukraine and threatens to send cost of living skyrocketing. In the rest of the world higher cost of living as a consequence of price inflation has led to civil unrests and demonstrations against governments. In the backdrop of this dire situation there is every possibility of global recession and stagflation( slow growth with rising inflation and unemployment) in America, economists have warned. The World Bank's Global Economic Prospects (GEP) report for 2022 has estimated that over the 2020s as a whole global economic growth is estimated to slow down by 0.6 per cent below the 2010s average. The Fitch Rating Agency has estimated that global growth will crawl at 2.9 per cent, a decrease from 3.5 per cent that was estimated in March last.

It cannot be that the economic consequences of covid-19 pandemic and those of the unfolding war in Ukraine for the global economy were not known to the G-7 leaders when they met in the picture perfect Bavarian mountain retreat for the summit in the last week of June .It is therefore incomprehensible that the impending meltdown of the global economy that threatens to result in a long recession did not merit any discussion and agreement on policy decisions in the G-7 summit when issues of lesser gravity had priority in the agenda. The cynical indifference to the threat to lives and welfare of billions of world population evokes doubt about the sanity of the world leaders who are deciding the future of the world community.

Unlike the economic crisis, the crisis of climate change is not looming any longer, it is knocking at the door. Despite dire warnings by climate scientists in the Sixth Assessment Report released after COP26 regarding the urgent need to keep carbon emissions at 1.5 degree Celsius below the pre- industrial level and various measures required for mitigation and adaptation only a perfunctory discussion took place on this critical issue. On the other hand, countries like Germany, Austria and Netherlands have decided to enhance the production of coal- fired power plants, the major polluter of carbon, to the extent of 60 per cent of their capacity under the pretext of energy crisis caused by the war. In America, the Supreme Court has restrained the department concerned with controlling carbon emission from interfering with coal- based power plants. The manner and the seriousness with which the climate issue was discussed in G-7 summit left no doubt about the low priority assigned to it by the leaders of the world's most powerful countries.

The third issue of global importance that was expected to be in the agenda of the G-7 summit is the ways and means of preventing and addressing a future outbreak of another pandemic. Even though a new virus has been diagnosed as causing what has been called 'monkey- pox' that has already infected 5000 individuals in 51 countries, including 31 in Europe with 90 per cent of total infection, this health issue was not discussed at the G-7 summit at all. It seems consideration of real politic has pushed to the background the traditional concerns of G-7 summits that have bearing on economic growth and human welfare. Is the goal of degrading Russia militarily and impoverishing it economically so overriding that the traditional agenda of taking policy decisions on the social and economic issues should be left by the wayside?

It is in relation to the bigger reality affecting the lives and welfare of billions of people in the world at present and in the near term that the rhetorics blithely used in the two recent summits, particularly the one in Germany ( G-7), not only fall far short of the desired, but its total disconnect with the bigger reality becomes glaring It is shocking to see leaders of the west intensifying polarisation in a divided world through a proxy war when the urgent need is for peace and unity among countries to address resolutely the crises that threaten the welfare and existence of mankind on this planet.

What the world badly needs now is not rhetorics of war but that of peace and stability ensuring happiness of living in harmony with others and unity to take on common foes.

[email protected]