Tariq Saeedi
Let’s start with an illogical statement – This is an ill-conceived Cold War.
It is illogical because it presupposes that there can be a well-conceived Cold War.
Of course, there is no such thing as a well-conceived Cold War, most certainly not this one.
The recently held G7 summit and NATO summit that were used as launch pads for this Cold War were non-events. They were non-events because the bravado generated during them pales when juxtaposed with the inglorious flight of the US forces from the Bagram base in Afghanistan.
These summits were more like comedy shows. — They were scraping the barrel of creativity when they came up some hilariously absurd terms such as B3W, rules-based world, and ethical infrastructure.
B3W
Build Back Better World or B3W is the term that expects us to believe that the world was a better place at some point in the past.
Let’s examine the claim:
- The world was a better place when Djibouti did not have Doraleh Multi-purpose Port, the Hassan Gouled Aptidon International Airport, and Ahmed Dini Admed International Airpot in Obock?
- The world was a better place when Ethiopia did not have its Eastern Industrial Zone near Addis Ababa?
- The world was a better place when Kenya did not have the Mombasa–Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway connecting Mombasa to Nairobi?
- The world was a better place when Nigeria did not have the Abuja-Kaduna railway line?
- The world was a better place when Uganda did not have the Karuma Hydropower Project and Isimba Hydroelectric Power Station?
- The world was a better place when there was no freight train service between China and Europe?
- The world was a better place when Maldives did not have the artificial island of Hulhumalé?
There are some 790 such examples that must have been coursing the brains of the G7 participants when they came up with the term B3W.
The Purpose: To counter the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) of China.
The Promise: To pump around $40 trillion to the developing countries by 2035.
If $40 trillion are actually to be provided to the developing countries by 2035, it means an average of $2.85 trillion i.e. $2857 billion every year, repeat EVERY YEAR.
Let’s do some simplistic and naïve math: 11 countries participated in the G7 summit this year. Some of them are not part of G7 but were invited specifically for the Quad-mire exercise. The European Union which comprises of 27 countries was represented by its delegation. Assuming that all of the participants including the invited guests and all of the 27 members of the EU had given prior consent for making this promise, it means that each one of these 38 countries must find at least $75 billion every year for the next 14 years to dish out to the developing countries.
$75 billion every year? By each of these 38 countries?
It is unfortunate that the GDP of some of these countries is less than $75 billion. These include Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, and Slovenia.
This reduces the probable participants of the $75 billion-a-year-scheme to 29.
Let’s do the math again.
We are now left with 29 countries that must pool their resources to come up with $2857 billion every year to make this world a better place.
It means each of them must contribute more than $98 billion a year for this noble cause.
Let’s meet here same time next year to see how much of the promise has been kept.
Rules-based world
This is an intentionally vague term and it stinks to high heavens.
As far as the world is concerned, the UN Charter is the document we all agreed to abide by.
If the G7 countries have lost their copy of the UN Charter, the good news is that it is available freely on the Internet. We will be happy to send them the download link.
In any case, here is the preamble to the UN Charter:
United Nations Charter:
Preamble
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
When trying to understand the need for the term ‘rules-based world,’ only one explanation comes to mind: The G7 are the former colonial powers.
They have declared the need for a ‘rules-based world’ but they have not spelled out those rules.
It is because they intend to invent the rules as the events unfold.
More specifically, they are pining for the simpler times when they spoke and the world listed. Unfortunately, the world has moved on.
Ethical infrastructure
Ethical infrastructure? This is a wonderful joke.
Let’s look at this ridiculous idea through a ridiculous example.
For instance, a frying pan cannot be ethical or unethical. It is the use of the frying pan that can possibly be ethical or unethical. If we fry an egg in it, it is ethical unless we stole the egg from the neighbour’s hen coop. On the other hand, if we smack someone on the head with the frying pan, it is unethical.
What is presumably implied in the term ‘ethical infrastructure’ is that it is ethical if it is built by a western company and it is unethical if it is built by a developing country through its own resources or with the help of China or Russia.
We will return to this conversation in the later parts of this series. /// nCa, 12 July 2021
To be continued . . .