The G7 largesse

The decision of G7 leaders to pool a staggering $600 billion over 5 years to compete with BRI, raises eyebrows

As the saying goes, one side is appreciable, and the other is condemnable. This confirms the politics of bickering that is going on in the West — and that too with the expressed intention to counter the surging Chinese influence in the world affairs. The resolve of the leaders of the Group of Seven countries to come up with a befitting response to the Beijing-led multi-billion dollar Belt and Road Initiative is a welcome step. However, it fails in logic as it will lead to an undesired confrontation and plunge the world into camp politics. This will come at the cost of intimidating the developing world to auto-correct their policies for the sake of appeasement. Such a policy had been in vogue during the heydays of the Cold War, and its reformatting is apparently on the cards.

Having agreed that there is no such thing as free lunch, the decision of G7 leaders to pool a staggering $600 billion over the next five years to compete with BRI raises eyebrows. While the Chinese strategy related to BRI is to come up with infrastructure, energy and industrial development projects in more than 100 countries of Asia, Africa and Europe, it remains to be seen what is the blueprint of the G7 launched Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. The project’s political cost and the criterion for funneling in funds are riddles that remain open for debate.

The West has a history of carrying out such initiatives like the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, and a host of other piecemeal gestures for the under-developed, post neo-colonial countries. Such an approach not only ensured West’s supremacy over decision-making, but also undermined the sovereignty of member states in the long run. This is the only difference between the Western aid that comes with strings, and the Chinese pattern of BRI that believes in buoying indigenous regional potential.

The proposed funds for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, to be pooled in by the private and public sectors over the next five years, will also tap commercial banks and sovereign funds. In contrast, the Chinese trust has always been pouring in its own mushroomed resources, along with funds worldwide at its disposal. The Schloss Elmau summit in southern Germany, presided over by American President Joe Biden, has simply made a political case of neo-development, and while targeting the Chinese module it has confirmed the premise of a new Cold War in the making.

President Biden’s utterance that it is an investment and not aid or charity is laudable. In fact, it is a shot in the arm in an era of recessionary trends. The funds to flow in low- and middle-income countries need a synchronised approach. It would be better if the largesse is restricted to development perspective, and does not come to breach political, ideological and geographic undercurrents of recipient states. It should be collaborative and competitive in essence while dealing with China, and not one based on acrimony and feud.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 29^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.