The G7 must accept that it cannot run the world

“GOODBYE G7, hello G20.” That was the headline of an article in The Economist on the first summit of the Group of 20 (G20) in Washington in 2008, which argued that this represented “a decisive shift in the old order”. Today, hopes of a cooperative global economic order, which reached their zenith at the G20’s London summit in April 2009, have evaporated. Yet it is hardly a case of “Goodbye G20, hello G7”. The earlier world of Group of Seven (G7) domination is even more remote than that of G20 cooperation. Neither global cooperation nor Western domination looks feasible. What might follow? Alas, “division” might be one answer, and “anarchy” another.

That is not what the communique from the meeting of G7 heads of government in Hiroshima suggests. It is breathtakingly comprehensive. It covers: Ukraine; disarmament and non-proliferation; the Indo-Pacific region; the global economy; climate change; the environment; energy, including clean energy; economic resilience and economic security; trade; food security; health; labour; education; digital; science and technology; gender; human rights, refugees, migration and democracy; terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime; and relations with China, Afghanistan and Iran (among other countries).

At 19,000 words, this reads like a manifesto for a world government. In contrast, the communique of the London G20 summit in April 2009 was just over 3,000 words. This comparison is unfair, given the focus at that time on the economic crisis. But an unfocused wish list cannot be useful: When everything is a priority, nothing is.