Going nowhere with G7
Issue 58 - 15 June 2021 (6-min read)
There was something unsettling about that image of the leaders of the seven most-advanced economies of the world laughing at the sky at the recent G7 Summit held in Cornwall, England. And then climate activist Greta Thunberg explained just why it made my skin crawl.
The summit with its staged photographs of white men and women fist bumping each other and laughing out loud at jet planes putting on fossil-fuelled air shows will go down in history as the symbol of humanity’s complacency in the face of an ongoing pandemic and a looming climate crisis.
This week, The Global Tiller will take a look at what was on the agenda at the G7 Summit and the underwhelming commitments announced at the end. Is it naive of us to expect such elite and disconnected cliques to determine the fate of our future?
G7, or the Group of 7, is an annual meet-up of the heads of states of Canada, France, Germany, Italy Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. It used to be the G8 with Russia until it was kicked out for its annexation of Crimea. In 2020, the then US president Donald Trump extended an invitation to Russia but it was quickly opposed by the remaining member states. Unsurprisingly, China has never been a member since it doesn’t meet the income-per-capita threshold to qualify as an advanced economy.
The Covid-19 pandemic cancelled the in-person summit last year, so naturally the global health crisis was top of the agenda for the summit this year, along with climate change and an attempt to show "Western democratic cohesion" against China and Russia. In the end, the entire summit — that cost the UK government￡70 million just for security arrangements — seemed to achieve little else besides some optics. And in a world struggling to get on its feet after a devastating year and a half, these optics make you cringe at best.
Charities and campaigners working on global issues dismissed this summit as a 'missed opportunity', claiming that it merely announced already-made commitments. The big announcement regarding the pandemic was a pledge to donate one billion vaccine doses through COVAX, even though the WHO believes at least 11 billion doses are needed to vaccinate 70% of the population by mid-2022.
Another area where the wealthy democracies fell short was a bold policy change on climate change. "We commit to … halving our collective emissions over the two decades to 2030, increasing and improving climate finance to 2025 and to conserve or protect at least 30% of our land and oceans by 2030,” read the joint communique, adding that the seven leaders also agreed to raise their contributions to meet an overdue spending pledge of $100bn a year to help poorer countries cut carbon emissions and cope with global warming.
Climate activists point out that these announcements lack concrete plans. Rich nations have already failed before to fund climate action in poor countries and the lack of details in their climate policy leaves a lot to be desired. It is hardly surprising that Greta Thunberg roasted these world leaders for their empty climate commitments and for repeating old unfulfilled promises. In fact, several other organisations held creative protests to mark their displeasure.
Perhaps this in-person meeting achieved what it was meant to: mere optics. If these countries want to maintain the globe that allows them to create this exclusive club, then they should pay attention to what the scientists are saying, instead of sipping champagne as the world around them burns.
Until next week, take care!
Hira - Editor - The Global Tiller
If you’d like to read our previous issues, you can access our archives here.
If you would like to dig deeper into how this G7 Summit will impact Asia, don’t miss this analysis in The Diplomat:
…and now what?
There is not much to say about the G7. When reality calls for real action, nothing excited has come out of the recent summit, except maybe the replica of Mount Rushmore made out of used electronics.
When you look around the world today, you question what gives G7 the legitimacy to do what they do? What makes NATO legitimate when it was a formed to deal with the Cold War, which ended a long time ago?
They say G7 is the gathering of the biggest economies of the world. Well, sort of. We’re missing some big ones there. So then, I guess it’s a group of the biggest allied economies.
But why just them? Why not others? There was the G20 that was created in 1999 to try to be more inclusive, following major global economic issues. But even then, is economy the only factor that could allow you to have a seat at the table?
When we know that economies are influenced by geography, history and the size of the army, we realise how it’s far from being an objective criterion.
Are big economies the most competent entities to think about climate change? Common sense tells us there is a huge conflict of interest here! They are, in fact, more interested in preserving their economies than helping Pacific Islands mitigate sea level rise. Because, at the end of the day, to borrow from Stalin: "Pacific islands, how many tanks and dollars?"
Since the end of the Cold War, the world has become more fluid, more volatile. Things change quickly. But our institutions, national and international, have remained pretty much the same: centralised, rigid and exclusive.
Maybe this G7 summit just reinforces the need for a more flexible, shared and inclusive way of multilateral cooperation? Maybe it's time to give everyone a voice? In 2015, the Paris Accord showed that the world can speak together as one after days of collaboration, and manage to get an agreement done.
Since then, it seems like this methodology has been brushed aside way too quickly by the big powers. And let’s be clear, whether it’s the G7 or their willing counterparts (such as China, Russia, India, Brazil), they’re all quite happy with the current order.
But it may be time for change. It may be time to give a louder voice to the Pacific Islands when we talk about sea level rise. It may be time to give a louder voice to Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Somalia when it comes to talking about war. It may be time to vie a louder voice to those who are impacted more than those who have benefited from the current status quo.
Perhaps it’s also time to give a voice to the global community. It may be time for a global democracy where the voices of the people won’t be filtered by governments who may not share the same interests.
We know that humans care for each other. If they were to vote, they would agree on sharing vaccines with everyone even if it comes at the cost of taxing more billionaires. We know that humans care for their natural environment. So if we put that to vote, they’ll agree on favouring conservation and protection even if that means upsetting private equity.
The New World Order, a term once coined by Bush, hasn’t happened yet. Maybe it could be the one that will make sure that protests in Hong Kong, Chile, Belarus, India and elsewhere will be heard globally and not shut down by a government who will then after parade in the lobbies of an inter-governmental organisations. It’s time for multi-humanism more than multilateralism. It’s time for people’s global governance.
Philippe - Founder - Pacific Ventury