One might find it tempting to disregard the G-7. This assembly of prosperous democratic nations, established in 1975 to synchronize trade and global financial approaches, now seems antiquated. In the wake of a global economic stir caused by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and proclamations hinting at turning Canada, the host nation, into America’s ’51st state’, the importance of the G-7 becomes even more critical.
Born out of a need for economic colossus to coordinate, its relevance seems to wane as newer global powers like China and India are conspicuously missing from its member nations list. The G-7 needs to acknowledge the ongoing demographic swing of economic and political stewardship from the Northern and Western regions to the Eastern and Southern parts of the world. Nevertheless, the forthcoming G-7 meeting retains promise as a key instrument in diplomatic orchestration.
The G-7 continues to be a crucial platform for leading democracies across the globe. The survival of the liberal international order upheld by principles and laws requires these developed democracies to take center stage. Donald Trump’s efforts may seem to undermine this order, but the G-7 offers an opportunity for other nations to mitigate potential fallouts or even persuade the US to reconsider.
The G-7 acts as an arena fostering continuous discourse and consensus building, owing to its size and casual nature. Its dealings may remind us of the Concert of Europe from the 19th century, which comprised major powers that collaborated informally to maintain peace amongst themselves. As divisions in geopolitics constrain large, official entities like the U.N. and WTO, more compact and unofficial gatherings are emerging as preferred avenues of diplomacy.
The G-7 invites other countries – like Brazil, India, and Ukraine – as guests, cultivating an environment ripe for productive discussions. A smaller group promotes effective execution of tasks and decisions. However, the wealthy democratic nations are not alone in using such ‘à-la-carte’ groupings for diplomatic purposes.
Global powers such as China and Russia have also initiated steering groups like the BRICS as a counterbalance to G-7 and other Western-influenced entities. The BRICS is home to not only autocracies like China and Russia, but also voicing developing democracies such as Brazil, India, and South Africa. Such polarisation, which puts the powerhouses of diplomacy against each other, can pose significant challenges in a world grappling with common crises.
These include climate change, nuclear weapons spread, pandemics, and threats emerging from unmonitored AI developments. The G-20, a heterogeneous mix of democracies, autocracies, developed and growing economies worldwide, exemplifies the diversity required but is excessively large for effective action, and its decisions often end up being agreeable but lacking substance.
What’s the path ahead? The solution may lie in more tailor-made assemblies like the G-7 that hone in on certain challenges. Such groups could focus on diverse concerns, like resolving the Ukraine war, addressing ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, tackling climate change, and countering the threats posed by unchecked AI.
These specially tailored groups would include a mix of democracies and non-democracies, attempts to bridge ideological and geopolitical gaps instead of magnifying them. They should exist in cohesion with international bodies such as the U.N., providing an outlet for consistent dialogue that large bureaucratic organizations often lack.
They could also prepare ground for decisions to be carried out in more official arenas. This is precisely the mission that the G-7 summit should strive for. Matters related to Ukraine and trade are likely to dominate discussions.
If Trump aims to resolve the Ukraine crisis, he would need to come down harder on Vladimir Putin with economic sanctions and reinforce Ukraine’s arsenal. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky is hopeful for a discussion with Trump in Kananaskis, which can pave the way for a subsequent successful NATO summit in The Hague where defense spending is the main topic.
In terms of trade, precarious times lie ahead, with Trump’s 90-day tariff hiatus set to end on July 8 and ongoing trade negotiations reported with around 17 countries. This provides an opportune moment for G-7 members, who still control over half of the global GDP, to influence Trump’s stance on trade.
It seems now, more than ever, the demand for global governance is outpacing its supply. The U.N and similar institutions are necessary but insufficient, requiring supplementing systems to facilitate compromise, cooperation, and collective action. The G7 may act as one such supplementary system, and hopefully, it heralds the way for more.