By: Callie Plapinger
Since its inception in 1997, the G7 has provided a platform for leaders of the developed world to engage in informal conversation. While it certainly sets the stage for important political interaction, many, especially in the developing world, have questioned its efficacy and ability to enact lasting change. During its most recent summit, the G7 countries discussed a range of issues, including poverty and climate change, but the projected outcomes of these talks are unclear, given the lack of benchmarks and regulatory mechanisms. Despite how the G7 facilitates discussion amongst important world leaders and has sizable political symbolism, its tangible effects don’t extend far beyond that.
During the most recent summit, protesters and political actors alike were quick to point out the vague and non-binding agreements that emerged from last weekend’s talks. Further, with the vast and rapid ascension of countries such as Brazil and China, the G7 system may be in need of an upgrade. According to Mr. Michael Kofman, a Kennan Institute Public Policy Scholar at the Wilson Center, the G7 currently operates as an “elite private club” that puts forth a “forcing mechanism for cooperation,” but does not work collectively to bring about lasting global change or to draw a variety of outside actors in these critical conversations.
Though many economic powerhouses are left out of the summits and tangible outcomes are limited, the significance of the G7 as a “forum for discussion and collaboration” cannot be disregarded, as Professor Jeff Anderson of Georgetown University astutely points out. In a uniquely informal setting, the members of the G7 summit are able to “transcend the national or regional” as well as highlight “issues that might not normally gain such attention,” as stated by Dr. Michael Geary, a Global Fellow at the Wilson Center and an Assistant Professor at Maastricht University.
Dr. Josef Janning, a Senior Policy Fellow at the Berlin Office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, argues that the significance of the G7 lies largely in the “massive public attention to its messages,” as well as its ability to “influence the wider perception of relevance and options regarding these issues.” Thus, though the G7 Summit is a Western-centered and elite entity, its ability to bring underrepresented issues into the spotlight as well as facilitate interactions between countries in a collaborative arena render the summit effective in that sense.
Further, as Dr. Jones of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies states, the G7 is lacking in its "implementation capacity." This absence of enforcement allows for the routine use of “non-binding commitments” at the G7 summits. During the June 7 Summit, leaders agreed to renew their commitment to end fossil fuel usage by 2100, as well as continue to develop low-carbon strategies. However, according to Dr. Janning, the progress reached as a product of these communiqués is difficult to track. As Dr. Janning also points out, the G7 was originally founded in order to provide a collaborative setting for “the current top five to seven economics players” to discuss macroeconomic policies, in which European countries would participate more collectively via a sole EU representative. This vision is not in accordance with the current reality of the G7, whereby noneconomic issues are routinely discussed, and European countries are disproportionately represented. Coupled with the inability to reinforce the content of these communiqués, such a disconnect limits the G7’s potential to create meaningful and tangible progress.
However, reform would be difficult to implement given the intimate nature of the G7 summits, which is at the very crux of its identity and legitimacy. Throughout these summits, prominent world leaders are able to discuss politics in a more casual setting than during official government visits or committees within United Nations, which provides a platform for more intimate, and therefore crucial, decision-making. The close-knit ties of an already exclusive community could be jeopardized if enlarged or reconfigured too much, and many argue that the G20 already serves the purpose of giving a voice to a larger number of countries. Given its outdated nature, some countries, such as Italy, could oppose reform of the G7 given their disproportionate “visibility” in the summit talks as compared to its lesser significance in the global economic sphere.
At the end of the day, the G7 exemplifies the power of symbolic politics and collaboration. Though the leaders at these summits aren’t effecting tangible and immediate change, as Dr. Anderson suggests, the G7 still plays an important role in global politics. The gathering of prominent international leaders also allows for the shaping of a long-term agenda, yet any tactile progress to be discerned from these summits shakily depends on the continuously vacillating political motivations of these leaders. Thus, the G7’s significance lies mostly in the inherent symbolism of the world’s economic leaders publicly forming a productive global agenda and drawing attention to what they define as the world’s most pressing issues.
Callie Plapinger is an editorial assistant at World Policy Journal.
[Photo Courtesy of Reuters]*****