The G7 Communiqué is out. It covers a range of topics: trade, climate change, science and technology, artificial intelligence, anti-corruption, and so much more. This short thread 🧵 focuses mostly on the trade/tech/econ security themes. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
On artificial intelligence, the G7 recognizes the possible benefits but clear drawbacks of #generative AI. They will thus establish the *Hiroshima AI process,* a G7 working group, in cooperation with the OECD and GPAI, for discussions on generative AI later this year.
The trade section offers unequivocal support for the WTO right off the bat, celebrating positive outcomes from MC12 (ie, fisheries) and anticipates progress in other areas like the #JSI ahead of MC13. Unclear where the Biden administration views its relationship evolving re: WTO.
The trade section also deals directly with export controls, affirming the importance of cooperation on critical and emerging technologies like #chips and cyber surveillance systems (watch out, NSO).
The Statement on Econ Resilience and Econ Security offers a more detailed roadmap, including plans to launch the *Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion* to increase G7 assessment, preparedness, deterrence and responses to economic coercion. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/….
Potentially most interesting is the G7 approach to China. Replete with buzzwords like "de-risking," it outlines a concerted plan to commit to moving supply chains out of China, even if it takes additional industrial policy measures. Supporters of the friend-shoring agenda, unite!
Key takeaways:
-Clear desire to stick with #multilateralism where possible.
-More united front on China than anticipated.
-Questions about friend-shoring viability remain.
-This is a new #multipolar era.
-The G7 as an econ security force and geopolitical bloc is here to stay.
Outstanding questions:
-How to design multilateralism for a multipolar reality
-Whether the current degree of cohesion continues in future G7 iterations
-Whether the G7 expands to include other members
-If it will continue to be based on econ size since members' econs have 📉
Overall, other countries' attendance (South Korea and Australia), along with India (current G20 president) and Brazil (next G20 president) signals a concerted effort to align.
It would be a major coup for 🇮🇹 to maintain this degree of unity during its upcoming G7 presidency.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A couple of reactions to the Jake Sullivan speech in a quick thread. There is not a lot of *news* in this speech, but it nevertheless underscores a pretty profound shift in the U.S. approach towards capitalism, which it thinks should fundamentally change. brookings.edu/events/the-bid…
As Sullivan describes it, we're moving away from the clear "Parthenon" structure of the post-WWII global economy and towards something that looks very different, more in the style of Frank Gehry. (Queue the global trade architecture jokes.)
He also argued that the traditional approach to trade is based on "over-simplified assumptions." In light of digitization and climate change, that is absolutely true, and we do need urgent change. That doesn't mean, though, that we should ignore allies' desires to trade more.
Heading into the third ministerial meeting of the TTC, is the United States really leveraging trade and industrial policy to "hoover up" EU industry? A 🧵
The US passed the Inflation Reduction Act in Aug 2022, providing $368 billion in climate change funding. The size of this package, heralded as the largest single climate in spend in history, is indeed historic. But it has also invited pushback from allies (ROK, EU, others).
Spending this much on climate isn't necessarily new. In its 2014-2020 budget, the EU spent $232.8 billion on climate. Under the EU recovery fund, spending on climate change will amount to roughly $45 billion/year, resulting in calls for the fund to be institutionalized.