EXCLUSIVE CLUB?

One could say that the latest annual meeting of the G7, which took place in Japan's national reserve Ise-Shima on 26-27 May was, in a way, a test to check how strong the Group of Seven are, though it may seem at first sight that this was not that noticeable.

The summit was chaired by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The USA's Barack Obama, France's Francois Hollande, Germany's Angela Merkel, the UK's David Cameron, Italy's Matteo Renzi, Canada's Justin Trudeau, European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker discussed a range of problems so wide that it is surprising that it all took them less than two days, taking into account that they had a mandatory protocol programme, rest and dinners. Nevertheless, it is reported that the leaders of the Group of Seven spoke about the global economy (including the oil price slump, the fight against corruption, tax reforms, etc), climate, human rights, a UN reform, the situation in Syria, Ukraine, the Korean peninsula and in the South China Sea, international terrorism, nuclear disarmament, Iranian ballistic missile tests, and the migration crisis in Europe.

However, as many media suggested, the summit's final declaration was put together even before the meeting began. After Russia was banished in 2014, the G7 turned into an exclusive club where it is very easy to reach a compromise and identify key threats. But is this really the case? Perhaps, it is this easy for G7 members to come to agreement because, in principle, they get along with general wordings that are agreed in detail at other levels and the club's decisions are actually not binding but purely advisory. For example, with respect to the economy, the powers that be agreed on joint actions to make sure it grows, and backed the entry into force of the IMF quota reform. With regard to terrorism, they adopted a plan that envisages expansion of exchange of information among relevant authorities, a boost to border control cooperation, fight against the financing of extremists and against smuggling of cultural property.

But they also made even more serious decisions. This time round, the G7 countries expressed fairly specific concerns about the situation taking shape in the South China Sea, and stressed that all disagreements should be resolved on the basis of international law and in a peaceful manner. This is about the dispute between China and several countries in the region - Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines - over maritime borders and areas of responsibility in the South China and East China seas. In response to the statement by the G7, Beijing expressed extreme dissatisfaction - an official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, said that China's actions in the South China Sea were in line with China's sovereignty, while the G7 countries should take a neutral position on territorial disputes and do more to maintain peace and stability in the region.

Albeit, it is certainly not about banal justice only. After all, the USA does not care who pieces of land in the South China or East China seas will belong to - China or, say, Vietnam. Washington, which in one way or another controls most of the strategic spots in global maritime trade, is much more concerned about the fact that China consistently redraws the map of regional transport routes as part of its plan to establish the Silk Road Economic Belt - it puts a part inland, but also tries to seize the initiative at sea (the 21st century Maritime Silk Road concept).

In addition, China's actions, especially such as the activities of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), are a big impediment for the Americans in terms of the operation of the trade and economic organization Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which means the creation of free trade zones in the region, of course, under the control of the USA and Japan, with the possibility of filling Asia Pacific with US products and not Chinese.

Against this background, Japan continues to stay the USA's main ally in the region, and to once again emphasize this status, the head of the White House decided during his visit to the summit to highlight the importance of US-Japanese relations. To this end, he even travelled to Hiroshima - this is the first time that an incumbent US president has visited the city that was hit by US atomic bombing in World War II, which was the only case in the history of the combat use of nuclear weapons. Concerns were expressed that the Japanese could demand an apology, but the Japanese authorities did not highlight that.

Throughout post-war history, the USA has been an important economic partner for Japan and also a country that has military bases in Japan. Therefore, both sides, without going into detail, commemorated the victims of the bombing and focused on statements about the need to reduce and destroy nuclear weapons. This problem indeed does not cease to be relevant. At present, Russia and the United States remain the largest nuclear weapon holders (the two countries have an aggregate of 15,000 warheads), and they are increasingly more often talking about return to the times of the Cold War, and this certainly does not add global optimism. However, statements are made but nobody is going to give up nuclear weapons. This also goes for Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009, including for his efforts to create a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia was highlighted as one more threat to the interests of the G7. At the summit in Japan, G7 leaders supported the retention of sanctions against Moscow. It is absolutely clear that the relations between Moscow and the West continue to be in a very acute phase, even though Russian media are emphasizing that the text of the final agreement also contains words about the importance of continued dialogue with Russia and are citing, for example, the statement by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier that EU countries face difficulties in the course of negotiations on extension of sanctions against Russia or pointing out that shortly before the G7 summit in Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, contrary to advice from Washington, flew to Sochi and is now expected at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September.

This can be felt especially clearly along the line of confrontation between Russia and NATO, which includes all members of the Group of Seven, except for Japan. The upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw in July is expected to make crucial decisions on the presence of forces in Eastern Europe. NATO is beefing up its troops in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, including with tank groups and artillery. Tallinn has invited NATO to deploy the Patriot missile system on its territory. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO acts purely in defence and does not want a new cold war with Russia, but there is no other way because the alliance "has long been watching the Russian Federation intensively invest in the armed forces". In addition, before the G7 meeting in Japan, the foreign ministers of NATO member countries signed at the organization's Brussels headquarters a protocol on the accession of Montenegro to NATO. Montenegro will officially become the 29th member of the alliance.

The reaction is going round in circles, and Russia is perceiving it all, as well as the missile defence system being set up in Europe, as a threat to its national security. Almost in parallel with the summit in Japan, Putin said during an official visit to Greece that Russia would have to react to the start of the operation of the US missile defence system in Romania, because strike systems may be deployed there, for which it is enough to change software, and the Russian Federation would have to take retaliatory action to protect its security. "Yesterday, those parts of Romania did not yet know what it is like to be a target but today we will have to take certain action that will protect our security," Putin threatened.

However, in addition to terrorists and China and Russia, G7 members have many problems anyway. These are, above all, the migration problem in Europe and a possible British exit from the EU (Brexit). A referendum on Britain's withdrawal is to take place very soon - on 23 June, and the British nation will have the final say. G7 finance ministers said that a British exit from the EU could inflict a "shock on the global economy". With regard to refugees, there is every reason to fear a repetition of what happened in the summer of 2015. In the last week of May, due to warm weather, the flow of refugees into Europe has now once again increased dramatically. The resolution of the migration issue largely depends on Turkey, which is also a NATO member. However, Ankara has lately entered a period of political turbulence, and its relations with the EU have once again become complicated and, therefore, all bilateral agreements are in jeopardy. At the same time, European Council President Donald Tusk said that this is a global crisis and it therefore requires global responsibility. One thing is clear - the Europeans are failing to cope on their own with the inflow of "guests" from North Africa and the Middle East.

Nonetheless, the seven countries conscientiously tried to respond to a lot of global problems. But is it something feasible in this format? According to many analysts, G7 is too pro-Western, and in this sense the G20 format is, certainly, more fair, because emerging economies - and, more importantly, China, the world's second largest economy - can also have a say within its framework. G20 is presently considered the leading platform for discussion of global economic and fiscal cooperation, but it seems that politics will soon also take a leading role there. Incidentally, the next G20 summit will be held in China's Hangzhou. On the sidelines of the G20 summit, the largest business summit in history will be held and Xi Jinping will also deliver a speech there.

It is now also not in favour of the G7 format that a number of G7 leaders are political "lame ducks" or are coming very close to that condition. First of all, this certainly applies to US President Barack Obama. Despite the fact that during his tenure in the White House, Obama has pulled US troops out of the Middle East, concluded trade agreements important for the United States, did a lot with the wording "for the first time in the past few decades for a US president" (the normalization of relations with Cuba and Iran, and the Hiroshima visit are in this category), he is called the most unpopular head of the White House in post-war history. But what is even more alarming to US partners is that it is not clear who they will have to deal with next year, after Obama leaves. US policies remain a big question - Clinton plans to prioritize foreign policy but Trump is more focused on domestic interests.

The approval ratings of incumbent French President Francois Hollande are so low that he has also been named "the most unpopular leader of the Fifth Republic". It is said that he has failed to keep most of his election campaign promises, that it was under his rule that a series of terrorist attacks hit his country, and in spring 2016 France became a hostage to thousands-strong protests against labour law reform. Protests engulfed many key economic sectors, including nuclear power plants. A leader of a neighbouring country - German Chancellor Angela Merkel - has so far managed to hang in there, but her approval ratings are low too, mainly due to the same migration problem, which brought many other problems to light, too.

Summit organizers chose a rather strange song to be the official song of the G7 summit - popular Japanese musician Ken Hirai sings about faded love: "Everything from our tomorrow, like today, will flow away again like the sands of time… I hope we can still reach out our hands and understand and find the way back to love". In politics and economy, unlike in love, these kinds of hopes, alas, do not come true. Another matter is that, in addition to hope, the G7 member countries really do have enough power and influence to tackle global problems. The only question is to what extent is it necessary for them to convene G7 meetings just to check what their positions are.