Peace is in everyone’s interest. Socrates recalled, two thousand years ago, that no one is totally right or totally wrong. To achieve peace and put an end to conflicts, the reasons and limitations of all contenders must be recognised. It is this secular choice that paves the way for diplomacy.
The G7 meeting held in Borgo Egnazia discussed important topics: first and foremost, the war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East, the development of Africa, artificial intelligence, and frozen Russian assets. This summary of the agenda is enough to first of all pose a question: how does the G7 fit into the international order, with what relationship to other international institutions?
The international order is changing, the international institutions that have governed it are consequently in crisis, there is a lack of a coherent project supported by general consensus to overcome this phase of change.
The G7 cannot escape this situation, it can certainly influence the search for solutions.
To orient ourselves, it may be useful to try to understand in which “box” the G7 is placed in the mosaic of the international order. This exercise is not abstract, it is worthwhile to better understand the impact of the decisions taken at the June 2024 meeting.
The institutions that govern government in most countries fall into two forms of representation, one of the people (the House), a second of components of society, qualified differently in the various experiences (the Senate).
With the birth of the United States, this bicameralism was qualified with the House expressing the citizens and the Senate expressing the member states of the federation. In reality, changes were made to this division in an attempt to improve the balance. Thus, the weight of the smaller states was overestimated and the weight of the larger states underestimated.
This principle, applied in the European Union, involves the European Parliament, which, by way of example, provides for Germany, the most populous country, to have a less than proportional number of representatives, while Malta has a more than proportional number of representatives.
The logic of two representative bodies in different ways has also been adopted by international institutions, with specific solutions for each institution. The UN sees the assembly made up of representatives of the member states, the Council composed of the states with greater power, with the right of veto.
The logic of two representative bodies has been qualified in the Italian experience by providing the right to vote for all citizens for the Chamber of Deputies, while only citizens over a certain age guaranteeing maturity have the right to vote for the Senate.
The G7 fits into this framework with characteristics of its own. It is a self-defining collection of developed states. It can expand membership, it can expel members. It must be seen within the framework of the international order as a whole, to whose governance it contributes.
What has the G7 decided, what are the possibilities of putting decisions into practice? It is possible to seek some answers to this question, only with some approximation. The communiqués at the end of the international meetings are necessarily concise.
War in Ukraine. The G7 confirmed its support for Ukraine. The will to achieve peace was not supported by the definition of a path to peace. Space was given to the nationalistic positions of the Ukrainian President.
To conclude peace, the disputants must sit down at a table, with the international community mediating. This is a rule that history teaches, not a new rule for Ukraine. Such a path must be defined and prepared in all its main aspects.
Conflict in the Middle East. For this conflict, too, the rule applies that peace requires negotiation between the contending parties, with the international community mediating. The precondition is the recognition of both states, Palestine and Israel.
The greatest difficulty is the exclusion of terrorism and the development of democracy. The mediation of the international community is crucial; a first step was taken with the unanimous resolution at the UN for a truce, with the important abstention of the Russian Federation.
Africa’s development. The commitments made by the G7 are significant. Italy in particular strongly supported an open approach to collaboration, to support Africa’s development and integration.
In addition to individual African states, the development of Africa involves five key players: the African Union, the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and China. It is up to these actors to define a non-conflictual overall framework that is as synergy-oriented as possible.
Ultimately, it is the theme of the new international order, declined with reference to Africa.
Artificial intelligence. Here lies the major novelty of the G7, the participation of Pope Francis, who addressed a special session on the perils and promises of AI. Beyond the very important topic of artificial intelligence, the possibility has opened up for the voice of men of faith to be heard on the fundamental topic of peace. It is conceivable that the Masters of the monotheistic religions (Francis and Kirill in primis) will assume a recognised role for the good governance of the international community.
Russian assets frozen. Beyond the decisions, the awareness emerged in the G7 that there are high uncertainties on the issue, first and foremost legal uncertainties, and that it is difficult for G7 member states to continue financing Ukraine, due to the difficult financial situation of many countries. In Europe, Italy and France are the countries with the least balanced financial position.
A general consideration. Peace is in everyone’s interest. Socrates recalled, two thousand years ago, that no one is totally right or totally wrong. To achieve peace and put an end to conflicts, the reasons and limitations of all contenders must be recognised. It is this secular choice that paves the way for diplomacy.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.