(C) Freedom House
This story was originally published by Freedom House and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



The G7 is least bad group for a troubled world [1]

['Hugo Dixon']

Date: 2023-09-04

President Joe Biden, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and other G7 leaders pose for a photo before a working session on Ukraine during the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, Sunday, May 21, 2023. Acquire Licensing Rights

LONDON, Sept 4 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the rising tension between the U.S. and China have torn apart the global order. Different groups of countries are now vying for influence. In this troubled world, the Group of Seven rich democracies is the best bet for keeping the peace and protecting the planet.

I can already hear some readers objecting. The G7 has several serious shortcomings and could struggle if the U.S. turns inwards after next year’s presidential elections.

Quite so. But what are the alternatives? The Group of 20 large economies and the United Nations, both of which hold summits this month, are broken. Meanwhile, the BRICS club of emerging economies, which added six new members last month, is a motley crew. The G7, at least, is a powerful and reasonably cohesive club.

It would, of course, be wonderful if the UN could keep the peace. That was the main task it was handed by the victors in World War Two. But it rarely achieved that goal because five founding members - the U.S., the Soviet Union (now Russia), China, the United Kingdom and France - can veto decisions by its Security Council. Since Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, the UN has been mostly deadlocked.

Things are little better at the G20, which gathers in New Delhi later this week. The group, which gave growing powers like China and India a seat at the table, played a vital role in stabilising the global economy after Lehman Brothers went bust in 2008. But that was before China and the U.S. were at loggerheads and Russia had shown the full ferocity of its aggression.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants the G20 to agree on various useful things, such as channelling more finance to developing countries to help them fight climate change. But it is fiendishly hard to get deals on anything controversial because all G20 members have a veto. What’s more, Putin won’t attend this year’s summit and Chinese President Xi Jinping may skip it too.

AUTOCRACIES AND PETROSTATES

A newer group competing for influence is the BRICS. The club - an acronym of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - has achieved little positive since it held its first summit in 2008. This is unlikely to change after it decided last week to add six new members: Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Apart from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the new members are hardly economic powerhouses. The other four have a combined GDP of just $1.6 trillion this year, according to the International Monetary Fund. That’s 1.5% of total world output.

All except Argentina are rated “unfree” by Freedom House, the U.S. non-profit organisation. Ethiopia has been fighting a series of wars while Saudi Arabia is a key player in Yemen’s brutal civil war. So don’t expect the expanded BRICS to do anything to advance freedom or peace. And as Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are big oil and gas producers, the enlarged group is unlikely to lead the fight against climate change.

Many large developing countries haven’t joined the BRICS. These include countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, Thailand, Nigeria, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Bangladesh; their collective GDP will be $6.9 trillion this year.

India and Brazil may also be out of place in an expanded group which China seems to be dominating. Both are democracies and don’t want to be part of an anti-American bloc.

G7 BY DEFAULT

That leaves the G7, which brings together the U.S., Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada. This club also has weaknesses. The U.S. has struggled to convince the rest of the world that it stands for a rules-based order, especially after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Donald Trump’s chaotic presidency. Other members, especially Japan, Britain and France, have imperial pasts which undermine their credibility in some parts of the world.

The group’s recent track record of supporting less fortunate nations is also poor. The rich democracies were slow to provide vaccines to poorer countries during the Covid-19 pandemic. They have still not met their promise to mobilise $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries, although they are pledging to do so again this year.

That said, the U.S. seems to have learnt the lesson that it’s normally foolish to invade other countries. President Joe Biden’s administration also realises the country cannot contain China on its own, which means its allies have the potential to shape some policies.

The club is economically strong. Including the European Union, which attends its meetings as a non-voting member, the combined output of the countries around the table is $54 trillion - just over half the global total.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, the G7 has also developed an increasingly cohesive geostrategic vision. Its members want to prevent Putin from winning the war and reduce their dependence on China. What’s more, they are beefing up their defences and coordinating their security partnerships in both Europe and Asia.

The G7 can do more to strengthen itself. For example, it would make sense to add South Korea and Australia, as Japan is currently its only Asia-Pacific member. The group could also create a secretariat to drive forward plans to boost economic security.

Some emerging economies which feel threatened by China, such as the Philippines, welcome this geostrategic vision. But it leaves many countries in the so-called Global South cold.

The G7’s success therefore depends in part on whether rich democracies can address the needs of the developing world. The most promising option is to help them grow in a climate-friendly way, by ramping up investment in green technologies and including them in new supply chains as the U.S. and its allies cut their dependence on China.

The G7 is already doing this a bit. For example, it has promised funding agreements to help Indonesia and other countries transition towards low-carbon energy. But to see off challenges from other groups, the G7 needs a more ambitious offer for the Global South.

Follow @Hugodixon on X

Editing by Peter Thal Larsen and Thomas Shum

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/g7-is-least-bad-group-troubled-world-2023-09-04/

Published and (C) by Freedom House
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/freedomhouse/