The G7 has outlived its purpose | Orthodox Conservatives

The G7 summit in Cornwall, England, was heralded as the proverbial “return to normality” in international affairs; with the disruptive influence of Donald Trump banished (for now) from high politics, the establishment way of doing things was free to return. Indeed, the habitual tropes were present and correct, though made slightly comical by the awkward fusion of Coronavirus restrictions and international diplomacy. Handshakes, group photos, and speeches abounded. 

Yet what has the G7, a relic of mid-Cold War circumstances, actually achieved? What is its purpose? Most observers would reply with arguments that include economic cooperation or coordination of policy. Yet we already have an abundance of international organisations that are expressly designed for these purposes. For economic relations, we have the WTO, IMF, OECD, and World Bank. Similarly, the diplomatic aspect of the G7 is better fulfilled by forums such as the UN and NATO. In stark contrast to the above, the G7 does not have a secretariat and so cannot independently contribute to world affairs. The G7, though associated with exclusivity and prestige, is at most a glorified discussion group. 

The current iteration of the G7 has three core issues. The first is that it is structurally flawed. The second is that it has been hijacked by activist groups and transformed into a platform for ‘woke’ politics. The third is that it lacks an express purpose for its existence. 

Firstly, the G7 has structural issues that prevent it from properly addressing the challenges of the day. Its membership, consisting of the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Japan is 50 years out of date. If meant to be a forum for the top economies, then nations like Russia, China, and India must be included. Similarly, if it is meant to be a grouping of nations that aim to protect the current rules-based order, then once again it has gaping oversights. Stalwart US allies like India, Brazil, and South Korea are left out in the cold. Indeed, it is unsurprising that the main geopolitical competitor the G7 faces, China (and to a lesser extent Russia) has been actively luring these nations away from US-led organisations. A classic example is BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). This economic dialogue platform exists with many features similar to the G7, with the worrying exception that it includes several critical US allies in what is in many ways a Chinese-led organisation.

Another structural idiosyncrasy of the G7 is the representation of the EU. It is baffling that the EU is given two representative seats in the G7 when the other seven countries are only allowed one. It is similarly strange when considering that nearly half of the G7 is a member of the EU, which effectively allows Germany and France (and to a lesser extent Italy, due to its relatively low influence in the EU compared to the other two) to ‘double-dip’ on representation, effectively enjoying three representative seats each. Of course, the situation would be much worse if the G7 had any executive authority, but the influence of multiple speakers on any discussion is not to be underestimated.

The structural flaws would be enough to make many international organisations ineffective, but with the G7 this is only the tip of the accursed iceberg. The G7 has been used as a platform for progressive liberal policies for decades and seems to be far more effective at prosecuting these goals rather than carrying out any significant economic or diplomatic initiatives. For example, the Prime Minister called for a “more feminine and gender-neutral” recovery to the COVID pandemic at the most recent summit. Similarly, aid to the developing world has been a top priority of the group, even as members face declining living standards in the working class due to globalisation and production offshoring. For the average citizen of the US or UK, the tangible benefits of G7 membership are close to zero.

This ideological drift has been enabled by the lack of any purposeful direction to the G7. Having no goal or common enemy, there is simply no incentive to stay true to any single policy. Hence the scattershot focus of the G7 on issues that range from HIV/AIDS, to climate change, and the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Any hot topic can hijack the G7 summit, and unfortunately, the majority of these have been issues supported by the left.

  However, there does exist a solution. Indeed, it is already active in world affairs. The D10, a group of the ten most powerful democracies, is an institution expressly designed to protect democratic values and counter authoritarianism. It is obvious which countries were in mind; China and Russia. This would provide a common enemy for the group to counter, and give urgency to discussions that would otherwise have countries dragging their feet on. Similarly, expanding from 7 to 10 allows the key allies mentioned earlier to be included, which would provide a far more cohesive grouping that would wield even more geopolitical clout. The D-10 would be “right size and shape: neither too big, which reduces coherence; nor too small, covering only the Cold War West".

The United Kingdom has a key role to play in this club. Though originating in the US State Department, Boris Johnson is not opposed to the idea, having discussed it on various occasions. This would provide Britain with a golden opportunity to take the lead in international affairs and recover some modicum of cordial diplomatic ties with EU nations. It would also ingratiate London with Washington, as setting up an organisation that targets the US’s main competitors is no small demonstration of the continued English commitment to the transatlantic alliance.

The D10 is an organisation that could address the G7’s dysfunctional nature and could bring London back to the international spotlight for something other than continued trade disputes with the EU. It is an opportunity that cannot be missed, lest the abundance of grand rhetoric of regrading "Global Britain" and “foreign policy leadership” turn out to be simple talk and no substance.

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.