They want to move: The G7 invite partners to their meeting, put Selenskyj in the conference room and stand up to Putin. However, despite good spirits, their resolutions remain vague and weak on a number of points.
After two days of summits against the backdrop of the Alps, the G7, the leading western industrialized countries, have some results to show: new sanctions against Russia, a financially well-funded infrastructure program for emerging countries and the global south, along with the clear commitment to continue Ukraine in the fight against the aggressor Russia support, militarily, humanitarianly and with diplomacy – not only as well as possible, but also “for as long as necessary”.
And it also became concrete on Monday: Another state-of-the-art air defense system is to come from the USA and – together with the already promised Iris-T SLM and the Gepard anti-aircraft tank from Germany – help Ukraine to not only hit Russian fighter jets in the attack on the front , but also behind enemy lines.
There is no question that in the past few months the western states have also decided on their national arms deliveries without conferring with each other in the panorama conference room of a five-star hotel. And the US decision to step up military aid will have been made days ago. But anyone who thinks that, in view of the enormous effort that was once again made for a G7 summit – the talk is of 180 million euros alone – that’s not enough, underestimates the power that comes from personal encounters and talks on an equal footing .
Chancellor Olaf Scholz priced in this opportunity and therefore invited five partner countries to Schloss Elmau that do not belong to the G7: India, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and Senegal also took part in the meeting, only in special rounds, but by no means as extras. That would also be an attitude that the major Western powers cannot afford, and in fact never have been able to afford. But how dependent the G7 are on partners outside their circle is becoming particularly clear in these times of crisis.
If Russian President Vladimir Putin can count on record income for his budget despite Western sanctions on an unprecedented scale, this is also due to the fact that countries like India are currently stocking up on comparatively cheap oil from him. Just a month ago, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa brushed Scholz off when he tried to persuade him to take a tougher stance on Moscow during a visit to Pretoria. The South African continues to focus on dialogue and cooperation, including with Russia. He has only just returned from last week’s BRICS summit with China, Brazil, India and Russia.
And it is not only in the attempt to put a stop to the conqueror fantasies of Vladimir Putin that the G7 are significantly weaker without cooperation beyond their team of the powerful. Even climate change will not be stopped if countries that are still developing their economies do not get involved with renewable energies at an early stage instead of – as the G7 did for decades – start by earning money on the basis of fossil fuels.
South Africa is more cooperative on this issue than on the sanctions issue and has already agreed to a “partnership for a just energy transition”. Northern states are supporting the country financially, but also technically and scientifically to move away from coal as the main energy source. In the Bavarian mountains, India and Indonesia were open to this model of cooperation. Success here would be an important step towards the goal of climate neutrality. If only because both countries together make up a fifth of the world’s population.
However, it is difficult to convince others of the right path for the climate if there is not even internal agreement on this. Japan is now pursuing the idea of ??replacing its coal-fired power plants with nuclear power, which had almost been abandoned. The US is by no means done with nuclear energy either, and President Joe Biden is downright proud that a US company will build a modern mini-reactor in Romania.
So the fact that the German chancellor was finally able to send the headline “G7 countries support Scholz’ climate club idea” out into the world is good news, but not pointing the way. Founding a pragmatic “coalition of the willing” has already proven to be worthwhile in other contexts in order to move from the mode of deliberation to the mode of action. An “open” club – as Scholz emphasizes – that does not demand any concessions necessary for climate protection, but also quickly runs the risk of becoming arbitrary in its claims.
“We all agree where the future lies, namely not with gas,” said Olaf Scholz at the press conference at the end of the summit and was only able to half conceal the fact that the G7 did not agree on which energy source to use in the future want to go. Turning your back on the gas is an important decision, but it is not enough. Especially not if you want to set a climate-friendly example for the many developing countries.
In general, the missing view of the dramatic threat to so many lives in poor countries is a major weakness of this summit. 4.5 billion euros against the hunger crisis only sounds like a lot of money until you compare it with the 500 million euros that would currently be needed in South Sudan alone to ensure the survival of more than seven million starving people.
The G7 only choose those countries as partner countries from which they also expect concrete benefits for their own interests. The “global alliance for food security” that was “forged” together in the mountains sounds good. But it doesn’t even come close to doing justice to the economic powers’ responsibility for poverty in other countries.
