Introduction
In June 2025, a significant turning point marked the demise of the traditional multilateral approach to global governance. The United States, without consulting other NATO members or allied governments, signaled its intent to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. This move reflects the waning relevance of Western-built institutions like NATO and the G7, as drums of war drown out pleas for peace through trade.
The G7’s Irrelevance and the State of International Relations
The G7’s irrelevance underscores the current state of international relations. Half a century ago, the group was formed to address Middle Eastern instability following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which threatened Western economic and political stability. The first G7 summit took place in Rambouillet, France, in November 1975, with participants seeking alternatives to direct military intervention.
The Origins of the G7
Attendees were eager to counteract the sense of economic and political vulnerability that endangered democracy. Although the summit’s theme originated from regular meetings among US, UK, French, German, and Japanese finance ministers, it also included Italy due to its precarious democratic situation.
Henry Kissinger’s Proposal
In 1974, Henry Kissinger proposed an alternative to military action: regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran would join the group, encouraging them to invest their oil export earnings in Western banks. These petrodollars would finance emerging markets, connecting them through money and preventing costly, violent confrontations.
The Decline of Neoliberal Thought
This approach was later dismissed as unbridled neoliberalism. Leaders like Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, and Ursula von der Leyen distanced themselves from it. However, few offered a coherent alternative as they criticized neoliberalism and the belief that trade brings peace.
The G7’s Shortcomings and the Rise of the G20
The G7’s institutional composition proved inadequate for global coordination post-millennium. The G20 emerged as the primary group following the 2007-2008 financial crisis, offering an immediate and effective response through its London meeting in April 2009. However, the G20 lost momentum as disputes over trade and monetary issues arose among the US, China, Germany, and others.
Russia’s Expulsion from the G7 and the Path Forward
Russia was expelled from the G7 (formerly G8) after the 2014 annexation of Crimea and attack on eastern Ukraine. Trump complained about this during his first term and revisited the topic in Kananaskis. However, advocating for Russia’s inclusion in international problem-solving seems inconsistent given its role in exacerbating many issues, including support for Syrian and Iranian dictatorships.
The Kananaskis Summit and the Return of Marte
The dynamics at the Kananaskis summit mirrored those of Rambouillet nearly 50 years prior. While French President Emmanuel Macron sought a ceasefire, Trump explained his departure by stating, “I’m thinking much bigger than that. Whether intentionally or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong.” Marte overshadowed Mercurio.
Trump’s Contradictory Stance
Leaving a multilateral summit for war was an odd decision from someone who consistently sought peace agreements. The “America First” promise of global disengagement and rejection of “endless wars” appeals to many Americans. Yet, this decision seems to contradict Trump’s recent Middle East trip, where he avoided Israel and focused on financial and economic agreements.
Key Questions and Answers
- What are the implications of the US’s unilateral actions against Iran? The move undermines multilateral institutions like NATO and the G7, potentially escalating tensions and jeopardizing global stability.
- How has the G7’s relevance changed over time? The G7’s inability to address contemporary challenges has led to its irrelevance, with the G20 offering a more responsive alternative during crises.
- What is the significance of Russia’s expulsion from the G7? Russia’s exclusion reflects its role in various international issues, though some argue for its inclusion to foster dialogue.
- How does Trump’s stance on global engagement contrast with his actions? Despite advocating for disengagement, Trump’s decision to threaten military action against Iran contradicts his previous statements and recent diplomatic efforts.
The Authors
Harold James: Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University, author of “Seven Crashes: The Economic Crises That Shaped Globalization” (Yale University Press, 2023).
Montagu James: Doctoral student in History at Brown University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 1995 – 2025
www.project-syndicate.org
