What role does the G7 have in today's international political order?

The G7, an intergovernmental forum consisting of the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and Canada, recently met in four ministerial meetings at different locations in Japan. These G7 ministerial meetings come ahead of the main 2023 G7 summit, scheduled to be held in May in the city of Hiroshima.

Starting on the 15th and 16th of April, G7 ministers for climate, energy, and environment met in Sapporo, Japan. Shortly afterwards, G7 foreign ministers met in Karuizawa, Nagano. These discussions were followed by a further two meetings, first amongst agricultural ministers, and then amongst Labour and employment ministers, the former in Miyazaki and the latter in Okayama. A whole host of other ministerial meetings are scheduled amongst the G7 throughout the rest of the year.

Whilst the range of issues discussed by G7 nations is broad, as the war continues in Europe and inflation burdens economies in Western nations, according to Dr Tristen Naylor, an expert in international summits and diplomacy at the University of Cambridge, the upcoming G7 summit in Hiroshima is one set to be "very much principally about Russia's invasion of Ukraine." This follows on from the focus of last year's summit in Germany.

Following the first of G7 ministerial meetings this year on climate, energy, and environment, the first lines of the Ministers' Communiqué condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, the Foreign Ministers' Communiqué first addresses the Ukraine war after a brief introduction highlighting the "strong sense of unity" amongst G7 nations in the face of the "grave threats" that now characterise the global international system. Indeed, it is arguably the common values of G7 members as open, democratic and outward-looking societies, that have bound the club together since its origins in 1970s diplomacy.

According to Dr Naylor, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has "given the G7 a new raison d'être." Not only are they an organisation committed to "democratic liberal freedoms domestically," they are also an organisation "committed to a rules-based international order." In recent years doubts have surrounded the role of the G7, particularly since the creation and rise of the G20, and also given the impact of Donald Trump on the unity of the association.

Dr Naylor explained how during the presidency of Donald Trump, the US did not support the Paris Agreement on climate change or the objective of "the reduction of trade and tariff barriers internationally." Moreover, the G7 was divided on what had previously been common values amongst the organisation.

The G7's opposition to the use of war and military force is not limited to Russia in Ukraine. Referring to China and the geopolitical situation in the South China Sea, the recent Foreign Ministers' Communique clearly articulates strong opposition to "any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion". The document highlights the G7's serious concerns over the current circumstances in the East and South China Sea. Moreover, the G7 opposes "China's expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea" and subsequent "militarization activities" conducted by China in the region.

As the war in Ukraine rages on, uncertainty continues over whether China will take Taiwan by force, and if so, the question is now when. China recently simulated a military strike on Taiwan in response to increasingly hostile tensions with the US. Earlier this year, the President of Taiwan Tsai Ing-wen visited the US. This followed an earlier visit to Taipei by Nancy Pelosi last year. Moreover, given China's territorial claims to the island, Taiwan's close ties with the US have created tension between the US and China that presents a risk to the stability of international order.

A 'historic turning point'?

Framing the upcoming G7 Hiroshima summit in May, The Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida, has said that "the international community is now at a historic turning point," referring to the "shock" impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the foundations of international order.

I asked Dr Naylor his view. In an analytically cautious response, he proposed that it is "quite difficult to tell" at the moment, with historic turning points in the evolution of international order only being obvious after they have occurred.

He explained that Prime Minister Kishida's comments are "the kind of rhetoric you expect to see in the lead-up to the summit by the summit host." According to Dr Naylor, comments of the sought are a way to communicate the importance of an upcoming summit to both domestic and International audiences, and in this case, the "important and pivotal" nature of Japanese leadership.

However, whilst it may be too premature to conclude whether we are at a historic turning point, Dr Naylor also acknowledged that "we are certainly at a political moment internationally where things are as tense and contentious as they have been in a very very long time."

The historical significance of Hiroshima

Also of significance at the upcoming G7 summit is the location, the city of Hiroshima. On the 6th of August 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb on the city, resulting in Japan's surrender to the Allies. Alongside the bombing of Nagasaki, the detonation of an atomic bomb over Hiroshima remain the only two example of nuclear weapons deployed in active warfare.

According to Dr Naylor, whilst the likes of Russia and China are likely disinterested in the location of G7 summit meetings, the staging of the summit in Hiroshima "could have a galvanising effect in bringing the club together, in opposition, not just to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but the potential use of, and certainly the threat of the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of war."

Indeed, in the recent Foreign Ministers' Communique, the G7 claim that the use of any "chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" by Russia "would be met with severe consequences." The Communique praises Japan's "Hiroshima Action Plan", which presents five actions aimed at reducing the risk presented by nuclear weapons. The fifth of these is encouraging international leaders to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki to promote an understanding of the consequences of using nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, in a statement made to the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) back in 2022, Prime Minister Kishida refers to the upcoming G7 Hiroshima summit, stating that the "catastrophe of the atomic bombings" should never be repeated.

Is the G7 historically relevant today?

The question of historic turning points in international order begs the question of the G7's significance today. Moreover, is it possible that the G7 can play a significant role in shaping future international order?

Arguably, the G7 will is an outdated institution, which lacks the power on the world stage that it once had. Originally, when the G7 was first born in the 1970s (then the G5), its first members constituted the bulk of global international trade. The original G5 were the US, UK, West Germany, France, and Japan. The G5 grew into the G7 with the later inclusion of Italy and Canada.

However, since then, the global economic order has shifted, with newly industrialised economies challenging the traditional Western powers. Moreover, the G7 no longer possesses the economic clout it used to. In 1995, the top six countries by GDP were in the G7, with Canada ranking 10th behind Brazil, China, and Spain. However, by 2020, China had risen to the second position on that list, with India in sixth position. Crucially, both of these nations are not in the G7.

From the year 2000 to 2023, the G7's total share of global GDP declined from over 40 per cent to approximately 30 per cent, according to an analysis by Statista. However, whilst its membership may no longer represent all the dominant players in the international economy, its economic size is not to be understated. From 2012 to 2022, the total proportion of global GDP accounted for by the G7 nations was 27 per cent, with the club also accounting for 14 per cent of global GDP growth in the same period.

Adding doubt to the continued significance of the G7, the G20 (group of twenty), was founded in 1999. Amongst other non-western nations, members include the "BRICS". They are Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The combined G20 membership constitutes approximately 85 per cent of global GDP and is responsible for more than 75 per cent of global trade. They also constitute two-thirds of the world's population. The G20 was elevated to include heads of state and government at summits following the 2007 global financial crisis. In 2009, the organisation was declared the "premier forum for international economic cooperation".

The BRICS have also held annual summits since 2009, with South Africa joining in 2010. In 2021, with a combined population of 3.22 billion, the BRICS accounted for an estimated 40 per cent of the world's population. The BRICS now account for 31.5 per cent of global GDP, compared to the G7's 30.7 per cent.

The G7 as an organisation is bound by common values

Whilst the G7 may account for a similar proportion of global GDP as the BRICS if it cannot claim to be as representative of the major powers as the G20, what purpose does it serve? Dr Naylor explained that "at least since the elevation of the G20 to the leaders level in the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008," the purpose of the G7 has been an "open question."

Crucially, in his view, the G7 has a role to play as the "bulwark" of the liberal international and the liberal domestic order. Given recent events in the last year and a half, he explained that "it is quite clear what role and purpose the G7 could play, and that is as the big club of leading industrialised democracies." He explained that today, "the unique purpose and added global governance value of the G7, it seems to me, is that they are the close nit club of like-minded democracies."

Crucially, the role of common values in the G7 is significant. What makes the forum potentially effective compared to any prospective alliance between rising non-western powers, is that they have been and remain allies since its creation because of their common outlook on the world.

Why does this matter?

Dr Naylor explained that successful international negotiation requires common values. In the absence of "agreement on fundamental values, let alone shared objectives, you simply can't get done big things." According to Dr Naylor, that is a problem for the BRICS, who lack the unity that the G7 possess in their international and domestic outlook.

He gave the example of the ongoing border dispute between China and India and the economic competition between these two rising powers as one reason why an attempt to mimic the G7 amongst the major non-western powers would struggle to find common ground.