live from washington, this is bbc news. at the g7 meeting injapan, the us backs plans to provide advanced fighter jets to ukraine. ukraine's volodymyr zelensky accuses some arab leaders of "turning a blind eye" to russia's invasion during the arab league summit. and former us president barack obama is one of over 500,000 us citizens now banned from russia, in response to new anti—russia sanctions. hello. i'm sumi somaskanda. great to have you with us. we start with two big meetings today. they were on either side of the globe, with two very different sets of world

leaders, but each hold huge potential to shape the trajectory of the war in ukraine. at the g7 summit, in the japanese city of hiroshima, presidentjoe biden told leaders the us was prepared to give the go—ahead to train ukrainian pilots on f16 fighter jets. some details remain unclear, like who would supply the jets, and how many pilots would be trained. britain, the netherlands, belgium and denmark have expressed support for the plans. president zelensky welcomed the move, and said it would greatly enhance the ukrainian army in the sky. "i count on discussing the practical implementation of the decision at the g7 summit in hiroshima". that is what he tweeted. president zelensky is due tojoin the g7 group in hiroshima in the coming days, where its expected he'll address leaders, and hold a meeting with us president, joe biden. but on friday, he was in saudia arabia for an arab league summit. of those present, only syria has openly supported the russian invasion. others have sought to maintain good relations with moscow. while there, saudi crown prince

mohammad bin salman renewed an offer to mediate between ukraine and russia, to end fighting. in a speech, president zelensky spoke of ukraine defending itself from "colonisers and imperialists", and accused some leaders of "turning a blind eye" to the invasion. i'm sure that we can all be united in saving people from the cages of russian prisons. unfortunately, there are some in the world, and here among you, who turn a blind eye to those cages and illegal annexations, and i'm here so that everyone can take an honest look, no matter how hard the russians try to influence. there must still be independence. live now to nick marsh in hiroshima, where the g7 summit is taking place. it is great to see you. the

announcements of this jets coalition was a announcements of thisjets coalition was a big announcement. tell us about some of the other takeaways. yes, welcome to day two of this g7 summit in hiroshima. yesterday the leaders spent the day together. they had dinner, they reaffirmed their commitment to ukraine and then doubled down on sanctions on russia. today, the focus is expected to be china dominated, but there is plenty more on the agenda beside that. so look, why don't we discussed this a little bit further, two heads are better than one after all, schama hillel, bbc�*s tokyo correspondent, thanks again for joining me. we will talk about today, but there was one big relevant involving f—16 fighter jets. flo relevant involving f-16 fighter “ets. fl . relevant involving f-16 fighter 'ets. fl . ~ , jets. flo and i think it is the bi est jets. flo and i think it is the biggest translation - jets. flo and i think it is the biggest translation of - jets. flo and i think it is the biggest translation of the i jets. flo and i think it is the| biggest translation of the g7 and the _

biggest translation of the g7 and the us's support. ukraine has been _ and the us's support. ukraine has been asking forjet fighters for months now and world — fighters for months now and world powers have always been wary _ world powers have always been wary of — world powers have always been wary of making that direct commitment but now we have the support— commitment but now we have the support from the united states to train— support from the united states to train ukrainian pilots, to provide _ to train ukrainian pilots, to provide jet fighters, including f465. — provide jet fighters, including f—igs, presidents and ski has welcomed this, called it an historic_ welcomed this, called it an historic decision because he knows — historic decision because he knows how effective it will make _ knows how effective it will make his forces in the sky. remember, ukraine does not own any westernjets and remember, ukraine does not own any western jets and that has really — any western jets and that has really affected their performance in the sky because they are — performance in the sky because they are still reliant on as president zelenskyy described it, president zelenskyy described it. the — president zelenskyy described it, the soviet era machines. so make _ it, the soviet era machines. so make a — it, the soviet era machines. so make a big _ it, the soviet era machines. so make a big difference. the caveat _ make a big difference. the caveat here is that this training, which will happen in europe, — training, which will happen in europe, is_ training, which will happen in europe, is going to take a lot of time _ europe, is going to take a lot of time. then the decision is going — of time. then the decision is going to _ of time. then the decision is going to be made about how many 'ets going to be made about how many jets they— going to be made about how many jets they provide, when, and how— jets they provide, when, and how they— jets they provide, when, and how they are going to be delivered, but right now we have — delivered, but right now we have this _ delivered, but right now we have this coalition agreement from — have this coalition agreement from the _ have this coalition agreement from the united states, because they have — from the united states, because

they have to approve any resale of their— they have to approve any resale of theirjets to any other countrx _ of theirjets to any other country. we've got that now out in the — country. we've got that now out in the open — country. we've got that now out in the open in that decision. it in the open in that decision. it is — in the open in that decision. it is a — in the open in that decision. it is a big _ in the open in that decision. it is a big change in washington's stance and a big endorsement to keep really. with— endorsement to keep really. with the _ endorsement to keep really. with the fact that we take so long, this training period, you can read it as a long—term commitment as well. so can read it as a long-term commitment as well. so that is ukraine. the _ commitment as well. so that is ukraine. the other _ commitment as well. so that is ukraine. the other big - commitment as well. so that is ukraine. the other big focus i commitment as well. so that is ukraine. the other big focus is| ukraine. the other big focus is china. g7 powers worried about china's influence, especially economically, right?- economically, right? that's ri . ht, economically, right? that's right. and _ economically, right? that's right, and we _ economically, right? that's right, and we have - economically, right? that's right, and we have been i economically, right? that's - right, and we have been saying that for— right, and we have been saying that for the majority of the time — that for the majority of the time leading up and i think we will keep— time leading up and i think we will keep saying that. the two bil will keep saying that. the two big powers or the two big countries that have not been invited — countries that have not been invited are the top of the agenda, china and russia. today will be _ agenda, china and russia. today will be china focused. you will hear _ will be china focused. you will hear a — will be china focused. you will hear a lot _ will be china focused. you will hear a lot about economic coercion. _ hear a lot about economic coercion, you will hear a lot about — coercion, you will hear a lot about the _ coercion, you will hear a lot about the risking, that new term, — about the risking, that new term, that jargon —— about de—risking. term, that 'argon -- about

ate-risking.— term, that 'argon -- about de-risking. we keep hearing about that. _ de-risking. we keep hearing about that, right? _ de-risking. we keep hearing about that, right? our- about that, right? our colleague _ about that, right? our colleague tessa - about that, right? our colleague tessa wong j about that, right? our colleague tessa wong has explained, it is less stark thah _ explained, it is less stark than decoupling, as we here in china, — than decoupling, as we here in china, where europe will protect— china, where europe will protect its trade technology, and i— protect its trade technology, and i think in other words to tell our— and i think in other words to tell our viewers, and i think in other words to tell ourviewers, it and i think in other words to tell our viewers, it is in a way— tell our viewers, it is in a way tilting themselves away from — way tilting themselves away from china, which is going to be a — from china, which is going to be a very— from china, which is going to be a very difficult task, because how many european economies are dependent on that? — economies are dependent on that? but also talk very tough diplomacy, like they're going to do— diplomacy, like they're going to do today. diplomacy, like they're going to do today-— to do today. that is a good definition _ to do today. that is a good definition from _ to do today. that is a good definition from tessa, - to do today. that is a good - definition from tessa, because the idea of breaking off ties completely... the idea of breaking off ties completely. . ._ the idea of breaking off ties - completely. . ._ with completely... impossible. with china, it is _ completely... impossible. with china, it is impossible, - completely... impossible. with china, it is impossible, soon i china, it is impossible, soon to be the world's largest economy, so de—risking, linguistically, it is a nice way of compromising, not being so dependent on china but, i would like to talk to you about plenty more things but we are all busy. we will have to hand

back to you. we now will be looking to see what leaders are saying about china but there is also lots of meetings with representatives from other countries, india, brazil, africa and the pacific islands as well full stop it hasn't even started today and there's still plenty more to come. thank you both so much for that coverage from hiroshima. we will be talking to you through the course of the evening, great to see you. something else that came out of thatis something else that came out of that is fresh sanctions for russia. moscow has responded to those sanctions announced at the g7. russia says it's banning more than 500 us citizens from entering its territory, among them, former us president barack obama, and governor of arkansas, sarah huckabee sanders. also included on that list was kay bailey hutchison, united states ambassador to nato, underformer president, donald trump. my colleague carl nasman spoke with her earlier. well, madam ambassador, thank you so much for taking

the time to speak with us now. i want to start, because we just learned that you personally have been sanctioned by russia. you've been included on a list of some 500 americans. among them, barack obama, a comedian, seth meyers, arkansas governor sarah sanders, some other people on that list as well. lots of high profile names. what does this latest development mean for you and what is your response? well, i'm not surprised at all. although you did give me the news. but i have been very critical of what russia is doing in ukraine. and really, all the time i was at nato, i called russia out for what they did in uk with skripal, and so i'm not surprised, and whatever it is, it is, and i'm proud to be with another group of patriots who are calling russia out. well, why do you think

you were included on this particular list? well, i've been critical, of course, of russia for the devastating attack on the free country of ukraine and the obliterating of their infrastructure, killing people, torturing prisoners of war. it goes on and on. and when they attempted to murder mr skripal, who lived in the uk, and was a former soviet spy, that was just outrageous too. it was novichok, the poison that was put on the door knob of the home where he was living. so russia has been very... ijust want to hop in and ask you just quickly, because it's an interesting list as well. there are politicians, there are former officials, there are late night comedians. there are journalists. what do you make of this particular mix of people that have been sanctioned by russia? i'm sure that it has something to do with being

critical of russia. and they have tried to put things over on other countries. all of the cyberattacks that we saw when we were at nato, against some of our nato allies or an ally that was on the cusp of becoming an ally in nato, and the cyberattacks on that. so, i am certainly very clear in calling out for what it is, the russian disinformation, the torture, the war crimes that they are producing right now in ukraine. and if that puts me on a sanctions list, i'm fine. speaking of sanctions, at the g7 meetings, at that summit, some new sanctions announced against russia, many of them aimed at military technology. in your mind, do these sanctions go far enough? what would you like to see? well, i would like to see full sanctions of any kind of trade or any kind of monetary enterprise with russia right fiow.

the russian people, unfortunately, it's not their fault. it is all on vladimir putin. but nevertheless, if they are not feeling the pain of the sanctions, then vladimir putin is going to continue to have just mayhem on ukraine and what they have done to the infrastructure of ukraine, as well as killing innocent people and children. even a maternity hospital was targeted by russia. so, i think that they deserve to have sanctions when they are acting in this way. and that's the only thing that we can do, other than help ukraine, which we are doing. the us also announcing that it will support assistance in terms of training with these f—i6 jets, but we don't know yet when any

jets might arrive in ukraine. do you think that the us is moving fast enough for these militaryjets, which of course the ukrainian president has been requesting for many months now? i think we should have done it sooner, and i think we ought to do it right away. i think we should do the training. and i do want to give credit, great credit to prime minister sunak of the uk. he was very up front, early, in saying that he would do the things that could really help ukraine. and, of course, borisjohnson was the first european prime minister to visit ukraine even when it was considered very dangerous. so, i think uk has played a great part here. i support that, and i think the united states has also given the lion's share of the equipment and the operative things, the missiles and the operative, bradley fighting vehicles,

those sorts of things. but obviously, we need to do it quick. we need to help them win. a stalemate is not in the interest of ukraine. winning is necessary, and we should help them win. i do want to be sure to ask you, as the former us ambassador to nato, should nato be acting faster to bring on new members and should ukraine be one of those new members? well, i think that we take every country that asks to be a member, and we consider if they have the qualifications to be a member. and that includes a resilient democracy, anti—corruption laws, rule of law, treatment of human rights. in your mind, does ukraine meet those qualifications? not now, they do not, and that's why they

were not in the cusp, and they knew that. they knew, because their own people had an anti—corruption campaign going. that's what president zelensky ran for and won. but they had not yet been able to achieve what needed to be done before this invasion. so, they were not, but i think that they will. i truly believe they will eventually become a member of nato, an ally. but i don't think that they're even asking. they weren't even asking when russia made the claim that they were trying to get into nato, they weren't. they knew that they were on a list that we would hope someday to be able to give their request a yes, but they were not there yet, and they were trying, but they were not. ambassador kay bailey hutchison, thank you so much for your time. thank you very much, carl. president zelensky�*s expected trip to the g7 summit in hiroshima caps off a busy week for the ukrainian leader. on saturday, he was in rome,

to meet with italian prime minister, giorgia meloni, who reiterated italy's support for ukraine. he also met with pope francis at the vatican, to discuss the humanitarian and political situation. next, it was on to berlin, for talks with 0laf scholz. the german chancellor pledged more than 2 billion euros in weapons, and vowed to back ukraine for "as long as necessa ry". shortly after, he was welcomed to paris by the french president. there, emmanuel macron promised more light tanks and armoured vehicles. supplies were on the table, too, when the ukrainian leader next met with uk prime minister, rishi sunak. the uk will send hundreds of air defence missiles and armed drones to ukraine, on top of the storm shadow cruise missiles announced last week, which brings us to friday, and his attendance at the arab leage summit in saudi arabia. we spoke earlier to richard haass, the president of the council of foreign relations.

about zelensky�*s travels, and the broader war. thank you forjoining us on the programme. president zelensky spoke at the arab league summit and is expected to head to the g7 in person, wrapping up a flurry of visits to europe as well. what was he looking to achieve and was he able to achieve and was he able to achieve it? he achieve and was he able to achieve it?— achieve and was he able to achieve it? ., , ., ., ~ ., achieve it? he was looking for several things, _ achieve it? he was looking for several things, one _ achieve it? he was looking for several things, one was - several things, one was economic and military and diplomatic support, wherever he can get it from, he is also looking for the opposite, looking for the opposite, looking for the opposite, looking for support for sanctions against russia, a lot of the world has essentially sat on the sidelines or actively traded with russia and he clearly would like to see less of that, but he has tried to make a connection with them, and i did not see his speech today but i would have said 30 years ago, it was saddam hussein who invaded and took over all of kuwait, and we it as a threat, you joined in the coalition against this kind of aggression, this is no different, this is what i am asking you to do today. he

certainly — asking you to do today. he certainly has more support from g7, we saw a fighterjet coalition at their summit, does that signal a change in strategy from the west? blot that signal a change in strategy from the west? not so much a change _ strategy from the west? not so much a change in _ strategy from the west? not so much a change in strategy, - strategy from the west? not so much a change in strategy, but| much a change in strategy, but throughout the last 16 months or so, the west has almost been debating with itself, should we give ukraine this or that ever more capable piece of equipment? might it be a bit too much reputed in the to swallow? what might the russians do in retaliation or escalation? whether it is tanks or aeroplanes now, we're giving ukraine the capability it wants and needs, and i can't sit here and needs, and i can't sit here and predict whether this will be militarily militarily decisive, it's quite possible it will help ukraine and it's also possible that even after another six months of fighting, that the battlefield will look an awful lot like it looks now, in which case the conversation about what next and particularly what about diplomacy, welcome to the four. you wrote about this

specifically in your piece on foreign affairs where you wrote the most likely outcome of the conflict is not a complete ukrainian victory but a bloodied stalemate. why do you think is? ., , ., ., think is? right now you have ukrainian — think is? right now you have ukrainian control— think is? right now you have ukrainian control over - think is? right now you have ukrainian control overjust i think is? right now you have i ukrainian control overjust 8096 ukrainian control over just 80% of ukrainian control overjust 80% of its territory, russia is dug and in crimea and parts of the east, it's very difficult to dislodge forces that are dug in and deep defensive positions, russia has numbers on its side, it has been poorly equipped and lead, but still has capability, so sitting here it's hard to imagine that ukraine can rout russian forces and essentially liberate all of its territory. can they bring back or take back some territory? i would think that is likely, but come six months from now, at the end of this fighting season, more likely than not russia is sitting on much of what it is currently occupying.- sitting on much of what it is currently occupying. what does that mean _

currently occupying. what does that mean for— currently occupying. what does that mean for ukraine's - that mean for ukraine's partners, what is a mean between the balance between arming and helping ukraine and trying to make that path to bring them to the negotiating table? i bring them to the negotiating table? ., �* ~' 3 table? i don't think it's partners _ table? i don't think it's partners can _ table? i don't think it's partners can stop - table? i don't think it's l partners can stop arming table? i don't think it's - partners can stop arming and economically arming ukraine because russia will continue to arm unless it agrees to a ceasefire and will continue to threaten ukraine. i don't think any of that should be taken away but what we should start doing is examining the strategy, and with two fighting seasons, why do we think that three or four seasons, why do we think that three orfour or seasons, why do we think that three or four or five would be enough, and in the meantime, there are parts of it being pulverised, millions of people have been made homeless, the economy is in shambles to the question is why we are continuing to helping ukraine, can we introduce a diplomatic measure, and are not talking about peace, i'm not talking about peace, i'm not talking about letting bygones be bygones but a lease perhaps bringing about something of a ceasefire, china might be our

potential participant, the united states and europe obviously, but under the right circumstances the ukrainian leadership would support it, they would never be asked and should never be asked to give up should never be asked to give up their goals of liberating their territory, and to me the question is whether it is realistic to think that there territory could be regained soon through military means rather than overtime through diplomacy and probably through a change of leadership moscow which might be five, ten, 15 years off. which might be five, ten, 15 years off-— which might be five, ten, 15 earsoff.�* , . years off. and your piece you ointed years off. and your piece you pointed to — years off. and your piece you pointed to examples - years off. and your piece you pointed to examples in - years off. and your piece you l pointed to examples in cyprus, where there is stability without a formal police stop anything that could be a success for ukraine? it anything that could be a success for ukraine? it will not be success for ukraine? it will rrot be a — success for ukraine? it will not be a total— success for ukraine? it will not be a total success, - success for ukraine? it will not be a total success, it i success for ukraine? it will i not be a total success, it will not be a total success, it will not be a total success, it will not be peace, but it would be income probably better than what we have now. these kinds of non— belligerency arrangements, long—standing ceasefires, they don't solve the underlying diplomatic

territorial problems or causes of the conflict but they allow life to go on, literally and figuratively, south korea has thrived, south of the 38th parallel, one of the world's12 largest economies, thriving democracy, that's pretty good despite the fact that we never had peace on the peninsular. if had peace on the peninsular. if we look at what things could look like for ukraine after the war, after some sort of settlement, the economist spoke with a former us secretary of state henry kissinger and he used to be against ukraine joining nato but has changed his 2 cents and said this to them, we have now aren't ukraine to a point where it is the best arm, most modern country and with the least strategically experienced leadership in europe, so for the safety of europe, it is better to have ukraine in nato, so he more or less thinks that he has tojoin nato now. what do you think? but he has to join nato now. what do you think?— do you think? an interesting argument. _ do you think? an interesting argument. is _ do you think? an interesting argument, is almost - do you think? an interesting argument, is almost trying l do you think? an interesting | argument, is almost trying to speak to the russians to say it

is in your interest that ukraine is in nato because nato would be in a position to restrain ukraine. the other more basic issue is to give ukraine reassurance and to basically signal to russians that no matter what you do against ukraine you cannot succeed, you will not gain more territory, you will not eliminate ukraine as an independent sovereign entity and the complicating question is if you put ukraine in nato, what you mean by ukraine? under what you mean by ukraine? under what borders? what kind of territory would nato be committed to defending, what would nato be on the hook to actually do it for example the russian christmas landed in care of? as an interim measure, nato ought to be given various security assurances under article four rather than article four rather than article five, on a more consultative security arrangement. all of nato want to do that until we reach a time where there is some consensus about the borders. final question. what conditions you think russia wants to see

to have some sort of negotiated and to this conflict? that to have some sort of negotiated and to this conflict?— and to this conflict? that the big question. _ and to this conflict? that the big question, none _ and to this conflict? that the big question, none of - and to this conflict? that the big question, none of us - and to this conflict? that the big question, none of us has| and to this conflict? that the | big question, none of us has a clear answer to. clearly they are lost in their goal to eliminate ukraine, they were not to get the territory they want, i don't think the russian dolls are primarily territorial anymore. we may have reached a point where russia is most interested in the condition, security of russian ethnics living in ukraine, living in crimea, living in the east, but that would interest the russians, there would obviously be interested in reintegrating themselves with europe and the world, i think a lot of that may have to remain on vladimir putin but in the short run, the biggest russian interest might be a face—saving end to this war, a ceasefire that putin can use to claim you gain protection rather than as an expert could not get all of what he wanted because he was

fighting notjust ukraine but all of nato including the united states.— united states. really interesting _ united states. really interesting insights, | united states. really - interesting insights, thank you very much forjoining us. as a corresponding mention, that ukraine has been lobbying for morejets amounts and ukraine has been lobbying for more jets amounts and at the start of the full—scale invasion ukraine was believed to have around 120 combat capable aircraft mainly consisting of ageing soviet—era technology. but officials say they need up to 200 jets to match moscow's air—power, which is thought to be five or six times greater than kyiv�*s. mr zelensky has primarily been asking its allies for f—16s. first built in the 1970s, the jet can travel at twice the speed of sound and can engage targets in the air or on the ground. evelyn farkas is the executive director of the mccain institute, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for russia, ukraine and eurasia. my colleague carl nasman spoke to her a little earlier. thank you so much for taking

the time to speak with us. i just want to start with this announcement from the us today that it will support training ukrainians to fly these f—16fighterjets. how significant is this new development? it's hugely significant, carl. this is something that, of course, president zelensky has been calling for, many outside experts such as myself and retired general david deptula, in an op ed in the wall street journal in february. and earlier than that, other experts have been calling for this. why is it important? because it will allow ukraine to bring the offensive to the russians, provide some some combat support from the airfor the troops on the ground. also the range. these planes can get far behind the russian enemy lines and they can go in and take out artillery, which is threatening ukrainian troops and civilians. is this something that could potentially tip the balance in this conflict? i don't think that this one aircraft, this one capability will tip the balance necessarily.

but the combination of everything that we are now giving the ukrainians, very capable air defence, as we just saw this past week, with the patriots taking down hypersonic missiles, very capable artillery. we are going to break into that interview because there is a press conference starting in hiroshima with the white house press secretary. find hiroshima with the white house press secretary.— press secretary. and the national _ press secretary. and the national security - press secretary. and the | national security adviser. let's listen in.— national security adviser. let's listen in. thank you all forjoining — let's listen in. thank you all forjoining us. _ let's listen in. thank you all forjoining us. on _ let's listen in. thank you all forjoining us. on the - let's listen in. thank you all forjoining us. on the flight| forjoining us. on the flight over here to hiroshima from dc i said this summit would be a high water mark for the g7 and it would demonstrate real unity among the key democracies of the world on a range of critical issues, and i think over the course of the day, and particularly with the release of the joint statement of the leaders you will see that in spades, across the board, whether we're talking about our support for ukraine and holding much accountable, our approach to prc, ourfocus on economic

security, our commitment to the energy transition, on a range of significant issues you will see close alignment among the key countries of the g7 and a common approach to tackling the significant challenges of our days. on ukraine we have now announced... inaudible vessels and aircraft and we are particularly focused on circumvention innovation targets, we are focused on financial facilitators, targets, we are focused on financialfacilitators, and targets, we are focused on financial facilitators, and we have also made sure to continue to crack on future energy and extractive capabilities as well as other steps and sanctions intended to tighten the screws intended to tighten the screws in terms of economic pressure against critical elements of the russian defence industrial base and its ability to advance its economic and energy goals. we are expanding our sanctions authorities to additional

sectors of the russian economy that are key to its military—industrial complex, we are imposing new bands to prevent a rush benefiting from our services and our actions are more tightly co—ordinated with the ones imposed with the eu in the uk to ensure that what they are doing, what we are all doing, and we have the kind of full alignment that has been the hallmark of our approach to economic pressures is the start of this conflict. just yesterday, president biden informed his g7 counterparts of the united states will support a joint effort to train ukrainian pilots on fourth generatorfighter ukrainian pilots on fourth generator fighter aircraft including f—16s, and over the past few months we and our allies and partners have focused on providing ukraine with the systems and weapons in training and it needs to be able to conduct offensive operations this spring and summer, we have delivered what we have honest, given ukraine what it needs based on close consultations between our

military and as, and turned to discussions about improving ukrainian air force as part of our long—term modelo commitment to ukrainian defence, so we will work with our allies to determine when planes will be delivered, who will be delivering them and how many. turning to today, a big focus of the day will be on economic security, the g7 leaders will outline a common set of tools based on what our country space based on what our country space based on what our country space based on economic coercion and and from efforts at the intersection of technology to undermine collective influence to make interest in security. these tools, economic security jewels will include steps to build resilience in our supply chains, and steps to improve controls and outbound measures.

relatedly, these two g7 leaders will come out today with a statement on our shared approach, ouraligned statement on our shared approach, our aligned approach when it comes to the people's republic of china. at the first g7, president biden's time in office in cornwall two years ago china was for the first time discussed in the communique and last year, leaders build on that. this year, what the communique will reflect is a statement of key elements, on which all g7 countries are aligned, when it comes to dealing with the prc. the communique will note that each country has its own independent relationship and approach, but we are united and aligned around a set of common elements, and it will walk through those elements, and it will indicate that we do seek to cooperate with china on matters of mutual interest, and