The US imperialist machine calls for a G-7 expansion to tackle China's 5G penetration in its Western sphere of influence

globinfo freexchange

The US imperialist machine openly calls Western allies (and particularly the UK), to sabotage China's economic and technological penetration in its Western sphere of influence, through a Foreign Policy article.

Although the article adopts Trump-style anti-Chinese propaganda, it is clear that the US imperialists have difficulties to accept Trump's inconvenient proposal regarding the expansion of G-7, because it includes "hostile" Russia.

Instead, they think that London's proposal regarding the expansion of G-7 (into D-10), is the most appropriate.

Although according to the article, "The D-10 is not an anti-China alliance.", its hawkish style is more than evident, as can be depicted with that "United Kingdom's D-10 is the right size and shape ... covering only the Cold War West.", for a start.

Furthermore, according to the article, the UK appears to be the most suitable, among the US allies, to lead the race against China's 5G infrastructure deals with Western countries. In essence, it calls the UK to play a leading role in sabotaging China's and Huawei's deals with the UK itself and other Western countries.

It's obvious that the US high-tech supergiants are heavily influencing US foreign policy, especially regarding China's technological expansion in areas which they consider as their corporate "feuds".

However, the D-10 project also includes India. And this shows that the US imperialists seek a broader counter-attack against China and Russia, through undermining important formations like BRICS. With Jair Bolsonaro now in power, perhaps it's the most suitable time for that.

Most important parts:

Trump seemed to recognize this dated 1970s format was insufficient when he proposed inviting India, South Korea, Australia, and Russia to join a rescheduled summit in September. However, including a hostile actor like Vladimir Putin’s Russia in this group of leading democracies was obviously a nonstarter—especially since the G-20 already exists as a separate, broader grouping that includes both Russia and China.  But creative thinking across the Atlantic at No. 10 Downing St. is heading in the right direction. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been actively considering the right idea: consolidating a new D-10 group of 10 leading democracies (the current G-7 members, plus South Korea, India, and Australia) for addressing both 5G mobile communications and vulnerable supply chains. As Beijing attempts to deflect away from its own mishandling of the virus’s initial outbreak in Wuhan and its lack of transparency, it is also engaging in “wolf warrior” diplomacy, propaganda and online disinformation campaigns against the United States and its allies and partners. Stories of faulty Chinese-made masks and other vital medical equipment have also circulated widely around the world. That has drawn new attention to the risks associated with relying on Chinese-made 5G infrastructure and critical supply chains. Countries from Canada to Britain to Germany are already rethinking whether to allow Huawei to build out their next-generation 5G networks. Meanwhile, the United States, the European Union, and Japan are all currently considering options for reducing dependence on China for the supply of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, and possibly other critical sectors as well. The United Kingdom’s D-10 is the right size and shape: neither too big, which reduces coherence; nor too small, covering only the Cold War West. The D-10 is not an anti-China alliance.   Britain is well suited to play a key role in such an effort. After flip-flopping on its decision from January to allow Huawei a limited role in building out Britain’s next 5G wireless network, Downing Street is now signaling resolve to reverse prior over-reliance on China. British foreign policy is regaining confidence over Hong Kong: a case in point being London’s offer to provide open-ended residency and thus pathway to citizenship to over 2.5 million Hong Kong citizens, should Beijing impose the regressive national security law it passed on the city. The British government is also planning a tightening of its foreign investment screening legislation. To further advance the D-10, the U.K. should seek to convene its first summit in London by early next year. In an effort to put differences over Brexit aside, London should reach out to Paris and Berlin to explore if there is interest in jointly proposing the D-10, with the EU and other European powers ... The focus of these discussions should be, firstly, on developing cost-effective and technologically sophisticated 5G alternatives to Huawei by enhancing government and industry collaboration within the group of like-minded countries. But they can also tackle how to promote more diverse global supply chains in critical areas while also building new capacities for sourcing components and shifting certain production to outside of China in a coordinated fashion that avoids becoming a slippery slope toward protectionism or U.S.-style “decoupling”. London is still needed. Despite Brexit, Britain’s role as a bridge between the democracies is far from over ...

Perhaps it should not be considered accidental the fact that this call comes after the recent statements by Josep Borrell, which must have strongly shaken the US establishment hard core. As The Guardian reported:

                         The Asian century may have arrived marking the end of a US-led global system, the EU’s foreign affairs chief has said amid a growing discussion in Europe on how to weave a path between China and the US. “Analysts have long talked about the end of an American-led system and the arrival of an Asian century. This is now happening in front of our eyes,” Josep Borrell told a group of German diplomats on Monday, adding that the coronavirus pandemic could be seen as a turning point and that the “pressure to choose sides is growing”.

Perhaps the most important is that the US imperialists are seeing things through the lens of a "constant rivalry" which usually ends with a devastating war, somewhere. They can't understand that this way of thinking is obsolete and ineffective in the 21st century multi-polar, and more complex that ever, world.