US President Joe Biden to attend NATO conference

The first major war in Europe in three decades, the highest inflation rate in decades, and the rapidly worsening global food crisis saw Western leaders hold two major summits.

The countries of the G-7 group met in Germany and the NATO leaders met in Madrid.

The results of both conferences point to the limits of Western-dominated global governance and deep polarization.

Stephen Wolfe of the University of Birmingham writes in

that both summits were dominated by incidents of war in Ukraine, and both promised continued support for Ukraine.

But the direct effect of such announcements is only symbolic. 

On 27 June, when G-7 leaders met at a palace in Bavaria, Russian attacks destroyed a shopping center in Kremenchuk, central Ukraine, killing several people.

And as NATO in its new strategic concept described Russia as the "greatest and direct threat to allied security and peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region", Russian forces intensified their offensive into eastern Ukraine and Expanded his campaign to destroy populated areas throughout.

It would be unrealistic to expect that the summit's announcements and pledges will lead to an immediate and lasting solution to the deepest crises in the world.

But the problem that has emerged from both the G-7 and NATO meetings is deeper. 

"One World"

The German G7 Presidency adopted 'progress towards an equal world' as its objective in January 2022.

This was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which made it impossible to make any meaningful progress towards achieving such an ambitious goal.

Even as climate change targets are cut short or even cut short, the worst of the global food crisis seems inconceivable to the leaders of the world's richest democracies. Is.

This is despite the announcement of an additional $4.5 billion in funding to ensure global food security, which has exceeded 14 billion G7 commitments so far this year.

Speaking of more immediate challenges, such as the cost of living crisis, G7 leaders have some effective responses to this.

This is not mainly, but in part, because the main driver of the global economic crisis is something beyond the control of the Western club countries.

They can't do much about Putin's war in Ukraine, his blockade of Ukrainian food exports, and reduced gas flow to the EU.

The negative effects of these non-military tools of war will only increase over time, especially as winter approaches.

facing china

China's continued absence from the G7, the world's second-largest economy, may not be surprising, given that politically, the G7 democracies and a country ruled by a Communist Party have little in common.

But there was no indication of a truly more cooperative approach with China – rather the G7 leaders' statement contained a list of criticisms and demands directed at China.

This is not a good sign for the future.

And the announcement of a US$600 billion partnership for global infrastructure and investment to compete with China's Belt and Road Initiative in developing countries smacks of desperation rather than a credible option.

The partnership is far less ambitious than its failed predecessor, the Build Back Better World Partnership, announced at last year's G7 summit.

Perhaps most telling of the G7's limitations to model global governance in its image was its failure to reach an agreement with other countries invited to the summit on the future direction of the international order.

If there was any hope that the G7 and the European Union would persuade the leaders of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa to take a clear stand against Russian and Chinese attempts to destroy the existing international order, it did not materialise.

It failed to mention the war in Ukraine even once.

divided world 

This growing divide between a small group of prosperous liberal democracies and the rest of the world was also evident at the NATO summit in Madrid, albeit in a different way.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg had already made clear in his opening statement that the summit would take "important decisions to strengthen NATO in a more dangerous and competitive world where authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China replace the rules-based international order". openly challenging.

,

These include adopting a new strategic concept, increasing the number of ready-made troops from the current 40,000 to 300,000 by next year, and inviting Finland and Sweden to join the alliance.

Stoltenberg, however, denied in a press conference that there had been any discussion of creating a NATO counterpart in the Asia-Pacific.

But the ambitions of NATO members for a more global defense and deterrence are evident from the list of invited partner countries, which includes Australia, Japan, Korea and New Zealand.

According to the Madrid summit declaration, their participation "demonstrates the value of our cooperation in addressing shared security challenges".

Overall, the G7's declining ability to address important economic issues on a global scale and the retreat of NATO members in a Cold War-like situation indicate a fundamental change in the international system.

The post-Cold War illusion of US-led unipolarity may be dispelled, but it will not be replaced by a multi-polar world.

Russia's final attempt to make a tripolar future is stalling in Ukraine's battlefields, all indications that countries around the world will have to decide whether they will be with China or the US in a new bipolar future.

The G7 and NATO summits may be the first indications that only minorities will choose the latter.