A club, not a decision-making organisation
At the moment of its creation in 1976 by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, the G-6 was a group for informal discussion. The French President and the German Chancellor wanted to exchange with their counterparts in order to understand their thoughts in the context of the dollar crisis which occurred at the end of the Vietnam war. It was not intended for making decisions, but thinking about the future of the Western economy. The guests were the same as those who had been invited by the US Treasury a little earlier, for the same reason. However, on this occasion, the meeting did not unite the Ministries of Finance, but the heads of State or government, to which Italy was added. The following year, Canada was also invited.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the division of the world into two camps, the G-7 began to look at political questions, then associated Russia with these informal discussions. But when Moscow rose again and opposed NATO in Syria, and refused the coup d’etat in Ukraine, trust was broken, and the Western powers decided to meet together as before. This episode shut down any desire to admit the participation of China.
The most recent G-7 meetings have produced a quantity of Declarations and Communiqués. This literature has formalised no decision, but has elaborated a common vocabulary which was all the more verbose since US internal policy was dominated by the « politically correct ». As always when one is unsure of having any counter-powers, the separation between reality and this discourse has grown increasingly.
A deviation occurred in 2005 in the United Kingdom, when Prime Minister Tony Blair attracted everyone’s attention by assuring that the G8 which he was presiding intended to cancel the debt of the 18 poorest countries in Africa. In reality, this was an empty promise – the G8 never actualised this decision. Thereafter, 14 countries accepted Great Britain’s selfish conditions, and rapidly regretted it. Four other countries avoided the trap. This theatrical presentation left the false impression that the G7/8 was a sort of world government.
It is essential that the G7 makes no decision – that would amount to the creation of a cartel within the UNO General Assembly, and violate the principle of equality of all states, irrespective of their power. There already exists a privilege, recognised by the main victors of the Second World War, of occupying permanent seats in the Security Council and holding the right to a veto. It is a privilege which is a result of realism – no majority of states can impose its will on such great powers.
The 2019 summit
In any case, the importance of this informal meeting can be measured by the cumulative power of the guests. First of all, let’s note the fact that the G-7 unites 9 personalities – the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council were also invited. It happens that for reasons of health, Jean-Claude Junker was unable to attend. Let’s then note that since 2015, the revolving president of the G7 has invited foreign guests. Emmanuel Macron chose eight, of which three were already present last year – two from the BRICS (India and South Africa), Australia (which had been invited, like Canada, as a British dominion, and should, within a few years, become members of NATO, thus constituting an anti-Chinese force with Japan), and certain « clients » (Egypt, Burkina-Faso, Chile, Rwanda and Senegal). These states will participate in certain meetings, but not all.
President Macron noted the possibility of reintroducing Russia into this closed circle in 2020 (mentioned by President Trump, who will then be presiding the club). This would first suppose that Syria will be liberated, and that the adhesion of Crimea to the Russian Federation be recognised. Besides this, for the participation of Moscow to have any meaning, Russia will have start talking the same language as the Western powers. Sergueï Lavrov has already politely replied that he will examine this ludicrous proposition once it has been formalised.
After the fiasco of the G-7 in 2018, where it proved impossible to elaborate a common language, Emmanuel Macron has chosen to seek a wider and more general discourse, a strategy which always pays off and threatens no-one – a societal and above all, not a social subject – the « fight against inequality between women and men ». Cautiously, he warned that this year there will be no final text.
On the economics level, the consequences of the customs war that is being waged by the USA against China are the main source of preoccupation for the members of the G7. Having no intention of being set up as the accused, as he was last year, President Trump has chosen to attack by denouncing French taxes on Google/Apple/Facebook/Amazon. This is indeed his partner’s weak point. France has chosen to attack the GAFA on the fiscal level, but has not reacted to two more important questions – their monopolistic position and their violations of individual freedoms. These should be resolved on the margins of the meeting in Biarritz by the French and US Ministers of Finance.
A theatrical production by Emmanuel Macron
Emmanuel Macron and his ex-theatre teacher, now his wife Brigitte Trogneux-Macron, had planned a particular production for this summit. No-one can deny its scenic quality and its unexpected developments.
The President began the summit with a short televised address during which he announced several spectacular initiatives and promised to present the results on the evening of 26 August.
On the day preceding the summit, the European medias had massively relayed a propaganda campaign according to which the whole of the Amazon forest was burning. Its destruction would deprive the Earth of oxygen and accelerate global warming. However, it is not the forest that is burning, but deforested areas which are submitted to a technique of clearing by fire – and the Amazon region only furnishes a very small percentage of the oxygen in our atmosphere. In reality, certain members of the G7 are hoping to avoid the ACTO (Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organisation) in order to be able to exploit the fantastic mineral, pharmaceutical and timber resources of the region. Emmanuel Macron has already authorised the exploitation by a Franco-Canadian consortium of several gold mines in French Guyana, with no care at all for the forest and its inhabitants. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was right to denounce the colonial character of the G7 enterprise. Emmanuel Macron’s lies will be heavy with consequence.
Another subject, and not the least – the President himself claimed to have received a « mandate » from the G7 to negotiate with Iran. This is evidently impossible, not only because the G7 does not hand out mandates, but also because the USA never delegates this power to other countries. After the world Press had relayed this stupidity with eyes wide shut, and President Trump had waxed apoplectic, Emmanuel Macron recognised his error. He immediately invited the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who arrived instantly in Biarritz, and then met with him. It is impossible to be more spectacular than that, but the buzz was bought at the cost of a public insult to his guest, Donald Trump, and discomfort for his other guests.
The advisors for the Elysée claim that the US President had given his accord, but to what? Mohammad Javad Zarif was not allowed to enter the Hôtel du Palais, where the summit was being held. He was accompanied for three hours by his counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian and the Minister of Finance, Bruno Lemaire, at the Town Hall of Biarritz. Emmanuel Macron abandoned his G7 guests to join his two companions for half an hour. Their meeting took place in the presence of British and German advisors. This impromptu visit will not help the Irano-US conflict, but will set the United States against both Iran and France. This scenario is the first serious international error by a President whose sociopathic leanings have been well known since long before his election. By sociopathy we mean a general tendency towards indifference for social norms and rights, magnified by impulsive behaviour.
President Donald Trump considers « politically correct discourse » as the symptom of the hold of the globalist oligarchy on his country. According to the Washington Post, he would have preferred to avoid wasting his time in Biarritz. Clearly, the arrival in town of a guest he did not want to see transformed his boredom into anger. The Elysée advisors assure that Trump’s face to face meetings with his French counterpart went wonderfully well, but according to Trump’s advisors, they were dreadful – starting with breakfast. According to his advisor, Kelly Ann Shaw, the President would prefer that in the next meeting, in 2020 in the United States, new objectives will be implemented.
The final Declaration from the summit in Biarritz is no more than a brief catalogue of the points on which the participants agree. Everyone may note that, despite President Macron’s self-satisfaction, and the veneration with which a certain Press writes about him, it could have been written well in advance – none of the subjects have evolved.
Source: Voltaire Network