From May 19 to 21, seven of the world’s most powerful democracies (Canada, Italy, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and the United States) held the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan. Coincidentally, China, the world’s largest dictatorship, also held a summit meeting around the same time (May 18 to 19) with five Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), which I will refer to as C6. This meeting of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seemed to have the intention to compete with the G7 summit. The choice of Xi’an, the ancient capital of China during the Tang dynasty, as the venue further emphasizes this intent.

Comparing these two summits is eye-opening, as the English proverb goes: “A picture is worth a thousand words.” A glimpse at the G7 and C6 summits reveals the essence of two competing models for the world.

The G7 summit took place in a simple and modest meeting room, resembling a typical setting in most companies. The heads of state gathered closely around the table.

In contrast, the C6 summit was held in a grand and massive hall that would surpass any palace. The opulent hall was adorned with expensive fixtures and had an extraordinarily high ceiling with several giant chandeliers. The meeting table was so enormous that a racetrack could be built on it. The participating leaders were seated far apart, making it difficult for them to see each other clearly. Behind each leader, at a significant distance, their entourage awaited the master’s call.

One might assume that the first summit represents a group of poor countries, while the second represents wealthy nations. However, the reality is the opposite. The seven countries in the G7 have the world’s wealthiest economies, with a per capita income of about $48,000, while China and the five Central Asian countries have only a quarter of that figure, with a per capita income of $12,000.

Let’s examine the agendas of the two summits. The G7 summit focused on two main objectives: uniting forces to support Ukraine against Russian aggression and defending against economic coercion and blackmail by the Chinese Communist Party. These themes were driven not by economic calculations but by universal values, the preservation of humanity, freedom, and the rule of law. In other words, the G7 summit was grounded in values, and the participating countries were willing to make economic and even personal sacrifices to uphold these values.

On the other hand, the China–Central Asia Summit had little to offer in terms of values. Its main focus seemed to be the financial benefits that the participating Central Asian countries sought from China. These countries appeared to show little concern for values, even as their neighbor Ukraine was being bombed and attacked by Russia. The CCP capitalized on this indifference and promptly handed out 26 billion yuan ($3.7 billion) to the Central Asian countries using hard-earned tax money from its own people.

Since the C6 summit lacked any substantial contribution in terms of values, and the Central Asian countries held minimal influence in the world, the CCP chose to showcase grandeur and extravagance. From the CCP’s perspective, this demonstration aimed to position China as the emperor of the Heavenly Kingdom, with the other five Central Asian countries becoming subsidiary states.

The fact that the seven countries with the highest average income in the world opted for a simple and modest meeting of heads of state demonstrates that in a democracy, there are limits to how much the government can spend taxpayer money without consequences. The essence of this meeting was not to flaunt wealth and grandeur globally but to address pressing world issues such as Russian aggression and Chinese bullying.

Only in a dictatorship like China, where taxpayers have no say, could such lavish spending of taxpayers’ money occur while more than half of the country’s population earns less than 1,000 yuan ($143) per month. The CCP may take pride in its extravagance, but it is truly reprehensible.

Based on the stark contrast between these two summits, the conclusion is evident: The G7 summit is guided by principles and has garnered many followers, including invited countries like Australia, Brazil, the Comoros, the Cook Islands, India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Vietnam. Notably, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was a prominent attendee, making it a significant gathering.

Conversely, the C6 summit lacks any respectable theme. China is simply offering money, and the other five countries are eagerly seeking financial gain. The CCP entertained the heads of the Central Asian countries with ceremonies reminiscent of the prosperous Tang dynasty, employing waitresses dressed as palace maids and treating guests to expensive food and performances. Chinese supporters of the CCP, known as “little pinks,” were thrilled by this display, likening the G7 summit to something “cheap.” However, the Chinese people, who refer to themselves as “leeks” because they are being exploited by the CCP, were furious. Here are some comments from Chinese citizens:

• “How many takeouts do I have to deliver to contribute to 26 billion yuan? ????“
• “Tighten your belt and get ready for the summit.”
• “Taxpayers’ money should not be spent so recklessly!”
• “The CCP’s teaching of diligence and frugality only applies to us at the bottom.”
• “This extravagance is incongruous with China’s ‘developing country’ identity.”
• “[The CCP has] no standards other than high standards of hospitality.”

Many in China admire the frugality of the G7 summits:

• “They achieve big things with a small budget, without showing off. Kudos!”
• “Simple and pragmatic efficiency.”
• “Can you take me to capitalism?”
• “The other group [G7] doesn’t want to squander taxpayer money.”
• “This boils down to the question of who decides how the citizens’ money should be spent.”
• “The values of China and the democracies are increasingly diverging.”

In summary, the Chinese Communist Party’s vision of building a “community of common destiny for mankind” can be reduced to a single word: money. Those who seek China’s free money will not last long. Although the CCP can exploit its citizens, there are limits. Therefore, once the money dries up, these “friends of China” will vanish at best and become China’s enemies at worst.

Observing the disparity between these two summits leads us to an obvious conclusion: The CCP’s model for the world is futile.

Shaomin Li is a professor of International Business at Old Dominion University.