G7's changing role in a changed world

In response to Crimea's parliament voting to join Russia and a referendum that endorsed the decision, the G7 leaders threatened to sanction Russia and boycott the planned G8 Summit in Sochi. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin's response was very calm and composed, saying "if they don't want to come, they don't need to".

Later on the G7 leaders held an emergency meeting at The Hague on the sidelines of the Third Nuclear Security Summit, claiming they will hold a G7 meeting in Brussels instead of attending the G8 meeting in Sochi and temporarily suspend their participation in the G8. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov played down the G8 snub, saying "if our Western partners think that this format (the G8) has outlived itself, then so be it".

The verbal battle between the G7 and Russia and the G7's scaling up of sanctions against Russia give food for thought about the role and status of the G7 in today's international arena. How much attractiveness does the G7 still have for Russia? And how much will Russia suffer if it is permanently expelled from the G8?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the G7 rewarded Moscow for embarking on the path of democracy with a place in the group, namely the G7 + 1. Then in order to further draw Russia over to its side, the G7 was turned into the G8. But Russia was still treated as a "second-class citizen" in the group of major industrial countries and was shut out of talks on many important issues.

The G7 is the world's top diplomatic and economic table, its GDP once accounted for about 50 percent of the world's total and its influence pervaded over almost all the world. The group once played a crucial role in dealing with many international issues. But with the changing times and the collective rise of emerging economies, the global balance of power is no longer always in favor of the rich club, and the world has entered into "an era of relative power", as the former French president Nicolas Sarkozy described it. The proportion of the G7's GDP in the world's total has fallen to 40 percent and as a saying goes, every dog has its day. When I participated in the Cancun meeting held in 1981 in Mexico, where eight developed countries and 12 developing countries had conversations, the United States and the other G7 members had absolute dominant rights. The developing countries had the right to speak, but their voices carried little weight. But with the establishing of the G7+1 and especially the founding of the G8+5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) they started to dominate the topics and process of the two international groups.

The 34th G8 Summit held in Japan in 2008 witnessed new changes, the leaders of the five leading emerging economies who had been invited to participate in some of the summit activities, also had a separate meeting, and the dialogue topics between the G8 and the five economies were set through joint consultation. A "G8+X" model has evolved, which suggests that the G8 has been incapable of dealing with global political, economic and social affairs alone and needs the support of the developing world. The then-Japanese prime minister Fukuda Yasuo said in the face of the global financial crisis that the G8 alone could not stabilize the global economy, While Sarkozy said that it was unadvisable for the G8 meeting to put aside China and India.

Later, in order to deal with the unprecedented global financial crisis that originated in the United States the G20 Summit evolved. Some even argue that the G20 has replaced the G8, but I have reservations about this. The G8 (now the G7) remains a separate international power grouping with considerable influence and in many fields it still plays a leading role. But what is undeniable is that the G7 cannot save the situation alone, nor call the shots on all issues. The G20 has become a dialogue platform between the G7 and the BRICS countries (Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa), namely between developed countries and developing countries. There is no comparison between today's meetings and the 1981 Cancun meeting.

This is an objective fact that no one can deny and the G7 has to face up to this reality. The G7 should have a clear picture of the situation, abandon its overweening ways, especially the hegemonic behavior, and jointly seek a new positioning, and a new model of international relations featuring no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. Only by so doing can the G7 continue to play an important role in international affairs. Otherwise, its decline is likely to accelerate, leading to a lonely future.

Will excluding Russia from the group of developed countries hurt it? Of course, the answer is yes. Moscow certainly won't be happy, but it cannot change the general situation, only cast away its illusions a little earlier. There are many international organizations in which Russia can play a part. It is an important member of the G20 and the BRICS, and it is also one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the China-Russia-India trilateral cooperation mechanism. After the G7 leaders issued a statement in The Hague excluding Russia from what was the G8, foreign ministers of the BRICS countries also held a meeting, saying there is no way to elbow Russia out of the G20, which set Moscow's mind at rest.

Over the past two decades, the G7, especially the US, continues to squeeze Russia's strategic space and move closer to Russia's doorstep, which eventually resulted in the Ukrainian crisis. The West will have to reap the consequences of what it has sown. The initiative is not in their hands, but the onus for resolving it is on them. The times are changing and the rules of the game cannot stand still. The G7 should keep this in mind.

The author is executive director of the Strategy Study Center, China Foundation for International Studies, and China's former senior official to APEC.