As leaders of the seven major advanced economies gather here Thursday for the G7 summit, ambitions are running high for "guiding the world." However, the rich country club is embarrassingly finding its clout declining as the global political and economic landscape changes.
Japan, host for the two-day summit, has vowed to take "leadership in guiding the world by showing the best path forward to achieve regional and global peace and prosperity." Such an aspiration from the rotating presidency, good in nature, is hard to actualize as the G7 is facing increasing difficulties not only in steering the global economy but also in bridging differences among its own members.
Formed in the 1970s, the Group of Seven used to exert sizeable influence on global affairs, especially in the economic field. Drastic changes in the past decades have profoundly transformed the situation. The group's collective economic value accounted for around two-thirds of the world's total at the beginning of this century but that ratio has slid to less than half of the global GDP.
Growth potentials have also become uncertain for a number of the group's seven members - the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada and Italy. To make things worse, the G7 group is finding internal coordination harder to manage.
Prior to the Ise-Shima summit, G7 finance chiefs who met in Sendai remained divided over currency policies as well as common steps designed to boost public spending and shore up the world economic growth.
Among G7 members, Japan and the United States disagreed with each other over foreign exchange markets. Japan is mulling continued monetary easing, but the U.S. Federal Reserve has sealed off its loosening policy. Japan called for boosting public spending to drive global growth, while another heavy-weight player Germany did not like it that way.
Divergences over economic policies, coupled with political uncertainties caused by the pending presidential election in the United States and Britain's possible exit from the European Union, are also posing challenges to the "elite club."
On political and security fronts, the G7 group, which was once expanded to G8 with the involvement of Russia, has also become less resourceful on handling global issues. The suspension of Russia's membership over disputes on the Ukraine issue, scrapped the United States and the major European countries an important channel to seek dialogue with Russia.
As G7's influence is on the decline, mechanisms including the Group of 20 are becoming more relevant and progressive platforms for world leaders to discuss ways to cope with global challenges, including financial crises and impediments to the world economic recovery.
The Group of Seven, on its part, should have a clear picture of the changing situation, abandon its overweening and hegemonic behavior, and jointly seek a new model of international relations featuring no confrontation, mutual respect, and inclusiveness with the developing countries.
The seven of world's most industrialized nations could indeed play a more constructive role in making the world more prosperous and balanced. The rich countries should meddle less in issues that could intensify regional tensions, but instead contribute more to humanitarian and environmental agendas for which they bear unshirkable responsibilities due to historical and realistic reasons.
On such an agenda as humanitarian issues, G7's recent performance is "disappointing," as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon claimed during the just concluded World Humanitarian Summit in Turkey. It's disappointing that some world leaders did not show up, especially those from G7 countries except German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said the UN chief.
As the Time magazine put it. "Once upon a time the G7 countries ruled the world. Today, not so much."
