In recent decades, despite numerous political and economic challenges and crises in the international arena, the G7 industrialized group has continued to strive to control key areas of politics and the global economy. In fact, these countries, with their basic economic necessities, such as capital, technology and large markets, as well as their purposeful use, are making great efforts to play a leading role among the countries of the world in the form of a homogeneous coalition. In the meantime, the United States has defined the most prominent role for itself and is trying to maintain the G7 based on the interests of the “First America” and by directing its decisions on the other members of the G7 to a direction that is more in the interests of the United States than any other member.
In addition to its economic and military capabilities, the United States has a special territorial and political geography that forces other members to cooperate with it. Thus, the countries of this group are trying to work closely with each other under the control of the United States and in line with the global domination of the G7 by creating various mechanisms; and to strengthen their global position, they invite other powerful allies or countries, such as India, Brazil and South Africa, for some coordination.
Over the past few decades, the G7 has made every effort to establish an international network to transform the G7 into a strong international body under the authority of a small US-led United Nations, close to some countries with parallel interests. But international developments and crises, especially the Chinese uprising, Russia’s military showdown, and the election, as well as the damage that Trump has done to international institutions and treaties, have done the most damage to the G7 slowly and its member states to the United States and even made each other more.
Therefore, the challenges facing the future goals of the G7 cannot be ignored. One of the most important challenges is the lack of unity among the members themselves, which can occur periodically by changing the ruling parties and leaders of a member state and prevent a consensus between them. A clear example of this can be seen in the US election and Trump’s rise to power, which, with its special spirit and behavior, created many problems for the G7. He even went so far as to invite the Russian president, who had previously been expelled from the group following Crimea’s accession, to attend the group’s meeting, which was met with a backlash from other members.
Undoubtedly, at the next G7 summit to be held in London on June 11, the United States is in its weakest position, and it is not easy for it to adjust the G7 agenda based on its specific and desired results. It is clear that the decisions and independent positions of the United States in this meeting will meet with the reaction of the member states and will challenge the process of US leadership at the global level and the G7.
In general, the G7 summit is facing many problems and challenges in the current situation. Most importantly, in Biden’s lack of supremacy, the difference in perception of the threat between the United States and other members of the G7, especially in relation to Russia and China, can be examined by ignoring other emerging powers. Finally, the G7 faces new challenges that require a different approach than traditional methods of warfare and sanctions to resolve crises.
Another problem with the G7 is that it can no longer exercise its leadership with obvious means, through formal assemblies, or through the promotion and universalization of the values it has defined for itself, such as the Cold War and the era of economic supremacy. In other words, attractive and well-liked values such as freedom, democracy, property rights and transparency, with all their inherent importance, become tools with which the goals of wealthy industrialized countries have been realized and imposed war and destruction on other countries, especially in the Middle East.
Other challenges facing the G7 include the mismatch between ideals and reality, meaning that the G7 sometimes fundamentally condemns the country’s approach in areas such as human rights, but in the real world it cannot. Ignore the political and economic connection. A clear example of this is the group’s dual approach to condemning human rights abuses in China and its members’ close economic cooperation with that country. In fact, a country like China with its economic tools has the ability to create divisions among the members of the group and prevent the formation of consensus and fundamental action against itself.
Also, another country and issue that challenges the basis of the G7 will be Russia, and especially the issue of Crimea. In fact, the G7 leaders have not yet realized that without re-inviting Russia to the group and accepting its supremacy in the region outside it, as well as resolving the threat that Russia feels from the West, any decision and action in this regard and other global crises will not be very effective.
Given the dangers of the Corona crisis, if the G7 countries cannot find a solution to their internal problems and global crises through direct negotiations with rivals, mere desire for global leadership and disregard for the facts ahead will not lead to the desired outcome. For G7. Eventually, they will again be forced to exacerbate problems and make the world more insecure through sanctions or bullying based on punitive tools such as sanctions and declining relationships that are not the solution.
The most important challenge of this round of the G7 summit is the US view of international relations and the perception of the US threat to China and Russia, which is felt by other members of the group, especially its European members, from these two great powers. They do, it’s fundamentally different. In other words, in addition to economic competition with China, the United States sees its growing country as a threat to its hegemony and superpower status, and in this regard, it carries out destructive and punitive measures against Beijing, while Europe pursues its interests in broader economic cooperation with China and has no desire to challenge Beijing.
Europe’s main concerns about Russia are security and geopolitics, which, due to its proximity to the territory, are in constant fear of the growth of Russian militarism. Although the United States has deep differences with Russia, its perception of the threat is by no means equal to that of Russia, and in relation to Russia, the only hegemonic and superpower superiority for the United States is that it must work with European allies to create tension with Russia. To be preserved. Accordingly, the United States has used its position in the Group of Seven to try to unify the threats to Europe.
It seems that the G7 with its current structure, and especially given the economic growth of competitors and emerging powers, will lose its position as an effective actor in less than ten years, and in order to survive and make a significant impact, reforms are needed. Create a basic structure to both broader economic inclusion and allow more countries to participate. With the G7 losing 50 percent of global GDP at the time of its formation and falling to 30 percent now, the Group of Seven is forced to restructure itself and invite emerging economies and regional powers. Under the current circumstances, if the G7 is not changed and its traditionally conservative performance, which is very outdated, continues, the US Cold War view of developments will continue to maintain US influence over the overall structure and other members of the group and Europe for decades. The future will be forced to continue without political independence and acting despite the decline of the United States.
BY: Pooya Mirzaei
