On June 24, the BRICS Summit came to an end, and on June 26 and June 29, the United States and Western countries will hold the G7 Summit and the NATO Summit. As the rotating chairman of BRICS and one of the global economic engines during the epidemic, China is regarded as a "trump card" of the BRICS mechanism. As the only remaining superpower in the world, the United States has always played the role of leader of the West, and is naturally the well-deserved "protagonist" in the G7 and NATO summits.
In fact, long before the above-mentioned summit was held, media from various countries had focused on the relevant developments between China and the United States, and the United States lived up to expectations by hyping "China-related issues", which can be said to be a gimmick. Not long ago, U.S. National Security Advisor Sullivan stated when attending a public event that the United States was considering proposing a "global infrastructure initiative" at the G7 summit as an "alternative to China" to deal with China's global influence, especially It is the Indo-Pacific region and its influence.
Sullivan said that this initiative covers global infrastructure construction. The United States and G7 member states are expected to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to create huge dividends for the regions covered by the plan.
In the eyes of the outside world, although Sullivan did not directly name China, the so-called "alternatives other than China" in his words are undoubtedly aimed at the "One Belt, One Road" initiative.
The United States is trying to use the "Global Infrastructure Initiative" to suppress the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, but there are actually early signs. At the G7 Summit in 2021, the United States proposed a similar initiative aimed at providing developing countries with a cooperation platform different from the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, but in the end it came to nothing.
According to senior White House officials quoted by Bloomberg, G7 and NATO countries will unanimously take a tougher stance against China in view of China's increasingly prominent economic and security threats. The official said that China's economic behavior will be an important topic at the G7 summit, and participating countries will speak out against China's "coercive economic behavior" and discuss countermeasures.
Previously, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said that a new "strategic concept" would be announced at this year's NATO summit, mentioning for the first time the impact and challenge China poses to the West, and White House officials also confirmed this. He added that China will be named for the first time in NATO's new strategic concept. Judging from the current world structure, Russia is still NATO's "number one threat", but under the new strategic concept, NATO pays more attention to the challenges posed by China to the Euro-Atlantic security situation.
While the United States is forming cliques and engaging in confrontation, China, with a broad and open mind, has taken the initiative to expand the membership of the BRICS and implement multilateralism. Regarding the expansion of the BRICS, the tone was set as early as May at the video meeting of foreign ministers of BRICS countries, including Argentina, Indonesia and many other countries.
As the rotating chairman of the BRICS mechanism, China has always unswervingly supported the expansion of "BRICS+" cooperation and promoted the "BRICS" membership expansion process. China has made it clear that the BRICS countries are not a closed club or an exclusive "small circle", but a big family that helps each other and good partners for win-win cooperation.
Some comments pointed out that the " Cold War mentality " of resisting camp confrontation with a win-win attitude is China's original intention to promote the expansion of BRICS, and has also won the unanimous support of BRICS member states.
China and the United States have organized large-scale summits one after another, but they have shown completely different attitudes. One forms cliques and engages in confrontation and suppression, while the other is open and inclusive and promotes win-win cooperation. It can be said at a glance which one is better and which is worse.
