In an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Siamak Bagheri, referred to the events happened on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Indonesia and the doubts of some countries over achieving significant results before its start, and clarified: Numerous international crises and deep gaps and intensifying competitions among countries showed its effects in that meeting and its margins made that round of the summit different from the previous ones.

Saying that what happened in the G20 summit was predictable he continued: It was said that the meeting could not take a step forward to solve the crises and convergence would not emerge from within it; because the world is undergoing a serious transformation and according to the forced orientation it has found, it is moving towards the transition. In this transition stage, the past structures will spontaneously disintegrate, will lose their role playing or cannot play the role as it should be like in the past.

Referring to the historical absence of Putin in the G20 summit and the video conference speech of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the professor of international relations said: We see these challenges in the structure of the G20 or the G8. These structures arose from the Cold War period and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and now we do not see convergence and a single voice among countries. As such gaps showed themselves in issuing the final statement and finally this phrase was included in the statement that “most members strongly condemn the war in Ukraine”.

Bagheri added: Considering the procedures and measures of the United States and pursuant to them, Europe, there is no clear perspective in the future either. The Chinese have maintained their position and although the West thought that it could show consensus at the G20 summit and convince the Chinese against Russia or a single statement be issued against the Russians, they did not gain such an achievement and in fact, this trend was a big failure for the G20.

Referring to the consequences of deep differences, lack of common positions between the West and Russia and the South countries regarding Ukraine, as well as issues such as the climate, energy and food crises, and expectation of large companies to solve some commercial issues, he explained the warnings about the economic recession in the years to come and continued: There is a fragile agreement on some global issues, but it seems that the shadow of security differences in international relations will cover other fields and will harm them. The future is ambiguous in this regard and it is not clear that to which direction the macro issues and human life in the world which will affect everyone, will move. This is a worrying trend.

Referring to the first meeting between the presidents of China and the United States, which took place on the sidelines of the G20 summit, and the emphasis of both sides on decisive positions and the necessity of cooperation to solve some issues and avoid political deadlock, the professor of international relations said: The United States by no means want that tensions in its relations with China turn to crisis. They seek to manage the situation while maintaining their primary goal of containing China. In the current situation, in the international atmosphere we are witnessing many unresolved cases that dragged the talks between presidents of China and the United States for three hours.

Referring to some media analysis of the tone and words of Biden’s concern before the meeting with Xi Jinping, he clarified: China and some allies and international players critical of the US, who are generally located in geopolitical areas, are seriously a source of concern for the White House. The US strategy is to deal soft blows to China and distancing it from Russia and convincing it with regard to Iran. Such issues have heavily involved the United States.

Referring to the published images of the Chinese President’s complaining conversation with the Canadian Prime Minister, which showed the cold relations and differences between the two countries in the past months, he said: The history of Canada’s foreign policy shows that its pillars are defined as heavily been influenced by macro policies of the United States and so far Canadians have not taken any action against American policies. Ottawa defines itself as Washington’s partner in international organizations, and in areas where the US has conflicts and competition. Due to the fact that the US defines China as its primary threat, Canada is also placed in the circle of barrier of influence against China.

The university professor explained the theory of “barrier of influence” between the US and its allies during the Cold War period and the rings and alliances formed against the Soviet Union and continued: In that period we are also witnessing such alliances and rings, an issue that the US research institutes and experts have dealt with it together with China containment. In fact, the United States is choosing partners against China in accordance with the capacity of the countries.

Bagheri pointed out the importance of the AUKUS agreement for the West against China and added: China has well recognized in the ground of which player Canada is playing its role and the tone of Xi Jinping’s words and at the same time his smiling face show Beijing’s efforts to manage the tensions. In addition, the Canadian prime minister’s acknowledgment that ‘we cannot reach agreement on some issues’ indicates the seriousness of those gaps.