What world leaders agreed – and didn’t – at the G7 summit

Published

3 years ago

June 13, 2021

admin

Three days of discussions – as well as a beach barbecue – in Cornwall are over for G7 leaders. So what did their summit amount to?

COVID-19

What was agreed: G7 leaders committed to providing one billion doses of COVID vaccines to poorer countries over the next year. They also agreed to initiatives on future pandemic preparedness such as improving virus surveillance systems and a mission to reduce the time taken to develop new vaccines and treatments from 300 to 100 days.

What wasn’t agreed: Charities accused G7 leaders of “cooking the books” on their vaccine pledge, with their one billion doses promise made up of only 870 million doses directly donated. The rest will be made up through funding to an international vaccine-sharing scheme. Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation has said 11 billion doses are needed to help end the global pandemic. And G7 countries are still split on whether intellectual property rights should be waived on COVID vaccines, despite the WHO saying it is an “essential” step to inoculating the world.

Climate change

What was agreed: G7 countries committed to net zero carbon emissions no later than 2050 and to halve their collective emissions by 2030. There was also a commitment to conserve or protect at least 30% of land and oceans by 2030. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the summit’s host, said G7 nations were “clear” that “action has to start with us”.

What wasn’t agreed: Campaigners criticised a lack of action on climate finance to help vulnerable communities and countries. It has been claimed that, without such cash, developing nations will be less inclined to cooperate at the COP-26 climate change summit in Glasgow later this year.

China

What was agreed: The G7 agreed to set up what is being viewed as an alternative to China’s belt and road initiative – an infrastructure strategy increasing Beijing’s economic and political influence across the world. The G7 plan aims to provide high quality financing for infrastructure such as railways in Africa and wind farms in Asia in order to propel global green economic growth.

What wasn’t agreed: Human rights issues in Hong Kong and Xinjiang were highlighted in the summit’s communique. But it was noted a section on forced labour made no specific mention of China, which has been accused of the use of forced labour in Xinjiang.

Brexit

What was agreed: The prime minister and EU leaders agreed to continue talking amid the ongoing dispute over post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland. US President Joe Biden also steered away from the row, despite reports the UK had recently received a “demarche” – a formal diplomatic protest – from the US over the dispute about the Northern Ireland Protocol.

What wasn’t agreed: Number 10 was keen to stress Mr Johnson did not see this weekend’s summit as the forum to agree solutions to the Brexit dispute. Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron denied he had questioned the “territorial integrity” of the UK in bilateral talks with the prime minister. This came after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab claimed EU leaders had been “offensive” by suggesting Northern Ireland was a different country to the UK.

Politics

Keir Starmer talks up US-UK relationship – but questions remain over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles

Published

1 hour ago

September 14, 2024

admin

Keir Starmer talks up US-UK relationship - but questions remain over Ukraine's use of long-range missiles

Sir Keir Starmer has talked up the US-UK relationship after a White House meeting with Joe Biden, but questions remain over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles.

The prime minister travelled to Washington this week to meet with President Biden to discuss the wars in Ukraine and Gaza – among other issues.

Speaking before the “long and productive” meeting held in the White House on Friday, Sir Keir said the two countries were “strategically aligned” in their attempts to resolve the war.

Afterwards, he skirted around questions regarding Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, saying: “We’ve had a long and productive discussion on a number of problems, including Ukraine, as you’d expect, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, talking strategically about tactical decisions.

“This isn’t about a particular decision but we’ll obviously pick up again in UNGA (UN General Assembly) in just a few days’ time with a wider group of individuals, but this was a really important invitation from the president to have this level of discussion about those critical issues.”

Ukraine war latest: Putin threatens NATO with ‘war’

Decisions loom for Ukraine’s key Western allies as Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently increased pressure on them to permit his forces to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory.

However, despite repeated calls for a decision, the West has so far resisted green-lighting the use of the missiles.

Two US officials familiar with the discussions said they believed that Sir Keir was seeking US approval to let Ukraine use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes into Russia, according to Reuters news agency.

They added that they believed Mr Biden would be amenable.

The president’s approval would be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the US.

But when speaking to journalists after the meeting, Sir Keir was repeatedly pressed on the long-range missile question but evaded giving a firm decision.

“This wasn’t a meeting about a particular capability. That wasn’t why we got our heads down today,” he said.

The US has been concerned that any step could lead to an escalation in the conflict and has moved cautiously so far, however, there have been reports in recent days that Mr Biden might shift his administration’s policy.

It wasn’t much, but it’s a start

There wasn’t much to say at the end, but it’s a start.

Both sides in these discussions had spent some time playing down expectations and the Americans were insistent their stance wasn’t changing on Ukraine and long-range missiles.

“Nothing to see here” seemed to be the message.

Only, there clearly was – a glance at the headlines gave that the lie.

It’s not every day a Russian president threatens war with the West.

The UK and US were discussing a change in strategy because they must – anything less would be a dereliction of duty for two leaders pledging a commitment to Ukraine’s fight.

Just ask Kyiv’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Following the meeting, Sir Keir Starmer said they’d talked tactics and strategy.

It will have had missiles, range, and Russian territory at the heart of it.

That is the material change in strategy demanded by Ukraine and supported widely among its backers.

A plan discussed by both sides of the special relationship will now be floated to other, allied nations in an effort to build a coordinated coalition behind a change in strategy.

And they’ll do it against the clock.

There is the unpredictability of the war itself in Ukraine and no less certainty surrounding the political battle at home.

A Trump victory in November’s US election would change the picture – here and there.

Vladimir Putin previously threatened the West, warning that allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory would put Moscow “at war” with NATO.

Speaking to Russian state television, he insisted the decision would “significantly change” the nature of the war.

He added: “This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.

“This will mean that NATO countries, US, European countries are at war with Russia.

“If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”

When asked about the threats, Mr Biden brushed them aside, saying: “I don’t think much about Vladimir Putin.”

There remains some scepticism within the US over the impact that allowing Kyiv to unleash long-range missiles would have.

US officials, according to Reuters, have pointed out that Ukraine already has the capability to strike into Russia using drones, and while US missiles would enhance that they are too costly and limited in number to change the overall picture.