Mereja Forum

[Naga Tuma]

It has been a long time since I read about G7 news. There were times when I was a young boy and looked up to it as a union of economically advanced noble powers that my country of origin ought to work hard in order to join it in some distant future. I imagined that democracy in my country of origin would be what could deliver it.

Recently, I came across news report about the latest G7 meeting. No sooner did I start reading it than find myself dumbfounded and had to laugh at myself.

As soon as I started reading the list of countries in it, I kept looking for China in the list. After reading the last country in the list, I had to laugh at myself very hard. This is because if anyone came to me on the street and asked for a list of countries in the list, I would include China without a doubt. May be the news about its economic development in recent years has faded my young man’s memory of the list of countries in G7. My young man’s memory of G7 was the most economically advanced countries in the world and my old man’s memory is that China is economically among the top ranked countries of the world.

I got solace in logic not betraying me if my memory of this simple list did. Logic dictates that if economic advancement is an advertisement for G7 membership and if China’s economy has advanced so much, it would fit in the advertisement by default.

In addition, as a student of democracy, I compared China’s population, which is well over a billion, with the population of all the G7 countries combined, which is well below a billion.

So, democratically speaking, China should be in G7. The same would go for India in a democratic speak.

If G7 advertises itself to the world using economy or democracy, why did it fail on its own accord by not bringing China to its table? I am not advocating for China here because I understand that it is more than capable to advocate for itself and doesn’t need my tiny voice. I am simply trying to analyze logic on its own accord.

Furthermore, when I look back at ancient history, long before the Magna Carta was written on the British Island and the U.S. Constitution was written with its fabulous checks and balances, historical accounts have put China among the four major powers of the ancient world.

On that account alone China had a seat at a G4 of the ancient era in world history.

In this era, any sovereign country is entitled to associate with any other sovereign country or any number of sovereign countries. In this regard, G7 has all the rights to form a responsible association as it sees fit. However, if it advertises itself using economy, democracy, or history, logic dictates that I fail to buy it.

Donald Trump was right with regard to seeing G7 as an outdated institution. China’s rise and making G7’s advertised logic fallacious on its own accord is a testament for his correctness in this regard.

As a student of democracy, I can only say that Joseph Biden is right that democracy delivers. Whether it originated in ancient Egypt or ancient Greece and was established in the U.S. at a much later time, the fact that democracy, not the happy boys club talk in Washington, D.C., made him the latest President of the U.S. and took him to Geneva for historical meetings is a testament to the position that it delivers.

So, his latest wholehearted subscription to democracy, and I have no reason to doubt that, is a step forward, at least in my view.

At the same time, how can one fail asking what the G7 of this time has to do on account of economy, democracy, and history? That failure is going one step backwards.

Add that to his visit to NATO and advertising the U.S. as an ally to NATO. Just like with respect to economy, any sovereign country has the right to form a responsible military association with any other sovereign country or any number of sovereign countries.

However, how can one fail to ask what NATO has to do with democracy? Even more, how can one fail to ask what the five-eyed monster that Joseph Biden may be privy to as the latest President of the U.S. has to do for an alliance such as NATO. As a matter of fact, what is that monster that didn’t bring Ireland to its table for an Irish man in America? A failure to ask these questions is taking another step backwards. If my reading of it in the news serves me well, doesn’t that alone make the latest U.S. President the floating President unless democracy anchors him in place moving forward?

Did he think that when he went to G7 and NATO with that monster on his back and talked about alliances in front of many cameras on a global stage, there was virtue in it? I fail to read virtue in it with respect to history, democracy, economy, or genuine military alliance. Did he think that the G4 of ancient era traded with one another successfully by holding such monsters on their backs or sacks? If he thought so, a personal soul searching by stepping out of the happy boys club talk of Washington, D.C., may be long overdue.

One can’t be successful by taking a step forward and taking two steps backwards.