Once a powerhouse forum for shaping global economic and security policy, the G7 now seems to operate in a vacuum of declining relevance. Formed during the Cold War to address oil shocks and economic crises, it now grapples with fragmented internal priorities and the exclusion of emerging powers. As it meets from 13-15 June 2025, in Canada, it would be staring at shifts in global influence toward the G20 and BRICS, the G7 appears increasingly outdated, trapped in its elitist legacy and symbolic diplomacy.
AMBASSADOR (DR.) DEEPAK VOHRA, IFS (RETD)
FOR THE NEWS ANALYTICS JOURNAL
a 5 mins read.
The Group of Seven of the world’s seven largest so-called “advanced” economies, which dominate global trade and the international financial system, should be a forum to coordinate global policy. It meets annually to discuss issues such as global economic governance, international security, and energy policy. While its small and relatively homogenous membership promotes collective decision-making, it often lacks follow-through and excludes important global powers. Unlike the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the G7 is not a formal institution with a charter and a secretariat.
At present, we see a “fly-in, fly-out” nature of the G7, with no focus on practical cooperation but on ideological alignment with much “haggling over detailed, but often anodyne, communiqués”. The G7 has been distracted by Ukraine when it should have been responding to China’s growing ambitions. There are reportedly divisions within the group over how to respond to China, as some European countries are leery of jeopardizing commercial ties with the world’s second-largest economy.
RISE OF ALTERNATIVES
People are increasingly questioning the group’s relevance due to internal divisions and the rise of alternative, more representative institutions such as the G20. That G-7 still exists suggests a certain frozen mindset from the 1960s, that 7 rich nations can determine the fate of the other 200.
In addition to its internal divisions, external dynamics have chipped away at the G7’s global influence. The G7, in its current shape, no longer has a reason to exist. Of late, the prestige and influence of the Group of Twenty (G 21), from nineteen of the world’s largest countries and the African Union, EU, has surpassed that of the G7. G-20 member states represent about 80% of global GDP and three-fifths of the world’s population. Developing economies have made huge gains, in a world economy increasingly reliant on growth in less wealthy nations.
Emerging powers, including Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, whose absence from the G7 was often noted, all belong to the G20. Then there is BRICS, which is admitting new members, while the G7 is a closed club.
None of today’s high-level summitry occurs in the United Nations (UN), an indication that the UN is past its shelf life. In 2025, Ukraine and its devastation continue to be the flavour of the year, as is Israel and Gaza.
The India-Pakistan flareup sparked by a horrendous terror attack in Kashmir briefly grabbed international headlines. America is the G7 big boy, and President Donald Trump’s made farcical claims about having prevented World War III by bullying both India and Pakistan to back off or face trade sanctions. Pakistan and its fathering of international terror were conveniently forgotten.
In mid-May 2025, Trump flew to Saudi Arabia, his first overseas trip in his second term, and, with the Saudi Crown Prince watching, hugged Syria’s self-appointed terrorist President, transforming the fellow with a USD 10 mn bounty on his head into Trump’s newest “handsome” favourite. He also went to the UAE and Qatar, and signed billion-dollar defence deals with them. He told Iran that he loved them, after threatening not too long ago to annihilate them.
Trump even decided to do a deal with America’s arch-enemy, China, with its aggressiveness in protecting what it believes are its core interests, even when they overlap with other countries’ fundamental interests. Where does this leave America’s faithful sidekick, Europe, four of whose members are also in the G7? In international headlines, G7 is all but forgotten, as is the EU.
The G7 struggles to maintain unity, often distracted by crises like Ukraine. Its ideological posturing lacks the practical impact seen in larger, more inclusive forums.
G7 VS. GLOBAL SOUTH
India, as the accepted voice of the South, wants the world to retain its focus on vital global issues that predate and will postdate the present crises.
So, what is happening? Where does the G-7 fit into the global churn? It does not. It is an anachronism, a relic of the Cold War, a dinosaur of arrogance, whose expiry date has arrived. The United States, France, Italy, Japan, the UK, and West Germany formed the Group of Six in 1975 to provide a venue for noncommunist powers to address pressing economic concerns, which included the oil shock, inflation and a recession sparked by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo.
Canada begged and was allowed to join the following year, and Cold War politics invariably entered the group’s agenda. Its aggregate GDP then represented three-quarters of the world’s. It is now less than a third.
Russia was invited in 1991 (it joined later before being kicked out), India and China were guests in 2003 when the China romance was in full swing. On China, the G7 is harsh, and keeps expressing serious concern about the situation in the East and South China seas and opposing any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. It tries to roil Beijing by talking of human rights in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. China scoffs and laughs.
In 2014, Russia was suspended and China was excluded, but India remained on the guest list. Since its global economic clout has declined, the G7 is a grouping in search of a cause. It has imposed coordinated sanctions on Russia in response to its war in Ukraine, including a cap on the price of Russian oil and launched a major global infrastructure program to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Net result = minus zero.
The G7’s future has been challenged by continued tensions with Russia and, increasingly, China, as well as by internal disagreements over trade and climate policies. Donald Trump, during his first term, wanted to expand the G7 by including India, South Korea, and Australia. Then he lost interest.
Donald Trump’s erratic diplomacy and preference for bilateral deals have undercut multilateral cooperation, even within the G7. His second term brings further unpredictability and questions the G7’s purpose.
INDIA’S VIEW OF THE G7
It borders on disinterest. The 7 ‘jokers’ will meet next month, enjoy great meals, talk shop, issue anodyne statements on peace and dialogue, and then go home, secure in the fantasy that they have saved the world. Donald Trump prefers bilateral “deals” to plurilateral arrangements. What if America decides to quit the G7, as its maverick President might well do, and the United Nations and NATO? They will all die. Despite all the predictions about its imminent demise, America remains the world’s numero uno nation with unmatched economic, military, and knowledge power. Good bye G-7, rest in turmoil.
(Ambassador Deepak Vohra, IFS (Retd), is a former Ambassador to Armenia, Sudan, and Poland. He was also a special Advisor to the Government of South Sudan. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Journal.)
Major Highlights
- G7, a Cold War relic, now holds under one-third of global GDP.
- Emerging powers and G20 reshape global order, ensuring broader, more effective representation.
- Divisions over China and Russia have fractured G7 unity, exposing alliance vulnerabilities.
- India and Global South see G7 as elitist, outdated, offering little incentive.
- Trump’s unilateral actions and erratic diplomacy strain alliances, jeopardizing G7’s long-term unity.
