When Washington talks about fancy “values” like “freedom” and “human rights,”, Global Times editorial reads, all it peddles is self-interests. ‘The US has always had the bad habits to whitewash its hegemonism with high-sounding rhetoric.’
‘Today, the core of the so-called coordinated China policy with its allies which is wrapped in ideology and values is to fully reclaim the powers of discourse and final say in terms of interactions with China.’
“Both the G7 and NATO had been lost in confusion in history like headless flies. The G7, which was born in the 1970s, was originally established to deal with the global economic crisis, but it demonstrated its inability in the face of the 2008 international financial crisis. The G20 emerged in response. Not to mention NATO, a Western military alliance created during the Cold War era, which is obviously incompatible with the current times. At present, the US-led West has begun to put more weight on the G7, marginalize the G20, and strengthen the NATO. It must be underlined that looking in the wrong direction is far more dangerous than making no headway,” GT said.
GT, which is affiliated to Chinese government is read at its policy statements. In yet another editorial, it attacked US, over G7 summit kicked off in Bavaria, Germany on Sunday, which will be followed by the NATO summit in Madrid, Spain from Tuesday to Thursday.
Some US media said the US is arriving in Europe “with the toughest playbook on how to tackle China.”
The specific content of this playbook has become the biggest focus of international public opinion on the two summits, GT edit said, adding that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg revealed earlier that the bloc will issue a new Strategic Concept during the NATO summit, which will mention the “challenge” from China for the first time.
GT warned that it would like to advise ‘some countries which had once tripped up due to the drastic changes’ in the world situation not to think that they would be “lucky” this time. They would often consider themselves as “chess players” who could manipulate geopolitics, but eventually, it turns out they are merely a major power’s “pawns” on the chessboard.
