China News Service, May 7 (Wen Tianxia) "Goodbye, G7! ... You can only blame yourself for your failure!"

　　The words of Martin Jacques, a well-known British scholar and senior researcher at the University of Cambridge, hit the nail on the head on social media and represented an international voice.

Experts from many countries believe that as a product of the old era, G7 has long been outdated.

　　On May 5, London, England, the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting completed the first offline meeting in two years.

Although there were no Chinese representatives at the meeting, the plans for how to deal with Chinese voices came and went one after another, as if China was the "shadow protagonist" of this meeting.

　　The message released by this meeting is very clear: The G7 led by the United States has formed gangs and instigated confrontation with China.

Excluding Russia, the G7 is essentially just a product of the old era. It can't contain China's development at all. It can only bluff people through political shows.

Data map: On May 5th, local time, London, England, the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held at Lancaster Palace, and the "breast-fighting ceremony" was strictly enforced on site.

[Forming gangs, just to deal with China?

】

　　Where did the Group of Seven come from?

　　Seven countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, are the constituents of this "small circle".

This meeting is the first offline meeting held by the G7 in two years. The rotating presidency of the United Kingdom has also attracted "newcomers" such as Australia, India, South Africa and South Korea.

　　With such a great momentum, it should have focused on topics such as the new crown epidemic and economic recovery, which are recognized by the people on the earth as the most urgent. Unexpectedly, China became the "shadow protagonist" of the conference.

　　Before the start of the formal meeting, US Secretary of State Blincol made frequent essays on the topic of "China".

After arriving in London on May 3, Brinken held bilateral talks with British Foreign Minister Raab.

Raab said frankly that this meeting is to deal with the "challenges" of China and Russia.

　　On the same day, Brinken also held separate talks with the foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea, and emphasized the need to "strengthen cooperation" in dealing with issues related to China.

　　"G7 seeks a common front against China." Foreign media reported.

The first meeting of the G7 formal talks was to discuss China.

　　A senior official of the US State Department said that the meeting took about 90 minutes to discuss China's "Belt and Road" initiative and advocate China's "economic threat."

　　From China's practices in trade, investment and development financing, to Hong Kong's election system, the surrounding situation in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and the Xinjiang issue, the G7's discussions and attacks on China-related issues can be described as full firepower, and none of them are left behind.

Data map: US Secretary of State Blincoln.

[International rule order, G7 has the final say?

】

　　Since you are so concerned about China, why not invite Chinese representatives to attend the conference?

　　Facing the questions raised by the American media "New York Times" reporter, Raab responded that he believes that it is necessary to have an organization that links "countries with the same ideas" together to discuss "how to deal with challenges."

　　Blinken added that this is not "want to contain China" but only to "maintain an international rule-based order."

　　It's okay if you don't say this, it's quite "covering one's ears".

A diplomat said that the United States hopes to establish a consultation mechanism involving the G7 and other stakeholders so that all parties can make a coordinated response to China and Russia's actions.

　　To translate it simply, we are going to engage in a "small group" to discuss how to deal with you (Chinese and Russian), how can we let you participate?

As for the "same thinking", I am afraid it is "containing China and Russia."

　　The so-called "rule-based order" is also very ridiculous.

If the "rules" are based on global consensus, then past history has proved many times that the United States is not only the guardian of a series of international rules, but the destroyer of rules.

Whether it is ignoring the wishes of the United Nations, launching a war alone, or ignoring World Trade Organization rulings; whether it is withdrawing from international treaties and agreements concluded at will, or "long-arm jurisdiction" interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, it all shows that the United States has a rule of thumb. The term "double standard" and narrow definition.

　　During the China-US Alaska talks in March 2021, Chinese representative Yang Jiechi had already refuted the argument of "rules-based order."

Yang Jiechi said, "China follows the international system with the United Nations at its core, and an international order based on international law, rather than a rule-based international order advocated by a small number of countries."

　　Is it true that the G7 has the final say in the international order?

["G7, you can only blame yourself for your failure"]

　　Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin stated at a regular press conference held on May 6 that the accusations made by the "G7" foreign ministers against China have no factual basis. This is a flagrant intervention in China's internal affairs and a group that reverses history. Politics is a gross interference in China's sovereignty and wanton destruction of the norms of international relations. It goes against the trend of the times of peaceful development and win-win cooperation.

　　In fact, experts in many countries believe that as a product of the old era, G7 has long been out of date.

Screenshot of Martin Jacques' social account

　　Martin Jacques, a well-known British scholar and senior researcher at the University of Cambridge, posted on his personal social media: "Goodbye, G7. You used to dominate the world, but now you are only a smaller and smaller part of the world. You can't bear the decline of your own status. , So you blame China. But you can only blame yourself for your failure."

　　The Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council Medvedev once said that in the context of the G20 and other international cooperation models, the value of the G7 is "doubtful."

　　Even the egoist of the United States has admitted to the limitations of G7.

Former US President Tron once criticized the G7 as "a group of outdated countries" and "cannot objectively reflect the current world pattern."

However, the reason why Trump did not implement his usual "retirement" move is undoubtedly because he still wants to use this group to expand the interests of the United States.

　　Nowadays, no matter how the G7 holds high the banner of "responding to China" and holds a group to "conquer" China, this unpopular "political show" is destined to be a one-man show with no applause.

(Finish)