본문 바로가기
발간자료 The 2023 G7 Summit: The G7 Regroups and Charts a New Course for the World 강선주 경제통상개발연구부 교수 작성일 2023-06-22 조회수 372419
페이스북 트위터 카카오톡

이메일 보내기

* 모든 항목은 필수 입력 사항입니다.

* 받는 사람 이메일
* 컨텐츠 주소
* 제목
* 메시지
Ⅰ. Forces Behind the G7 Regrouping
Ⅱ. The G7 Bloc Shaped by the 2023 G7 Summit 
Ⅲ. The G7's New International Order  
Ⅳ. Policy Considerations for South Korea

The 49th Group of Seven Summit (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) was held in Hiroshima, Japan from May 19 to 21. At the Summit, the G7 countries not only took leadership in resolving the fourfold global crisis - the covid-19 pandemic, Russia-Ukraine War, stagflation, and climate change, but also regrouped themselves in a bloc to lead a new international order. 
The G7’s emergence as a bloc means that the seven countries will act as a single political force aligning around common interests. The G7 countries used to act as a bloc during the Cold War but sought individual national interests more in the 2000s as the reduction of global security threats and tensions in the post-Cold War period weakened incentives to act as a bloc. The G7 countries restored their bloc identity in 2023 as they found a renewed sense of purpose and relevance as a group in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The G7 countries have committed to a united position toward China as well as Russia and formed a bloc to push back against the China-Russia coalition. And the G7 goes further to propose a new international order different from the one promoted by China and Russia. The G7 defines China and Russia as authoritarian powers posing threats to the rules-based international order and aims to preserve it.  

Ⅰ. Forces Behind the G7 Regrouping

Japan, the host of the 2023 G7 Summit, chose two themes: “Upholding the international order based on the rule of law” and “Outreach to the Global South.” Unlike in the past, the G7 opted for such a politically charged theme this year because the rules-based international order which has defined the existence of the G7 since 1945 is under attack. The G7 shares the view that China and Russia are undermining the rules-based international order that has governed international relations with liberal principles in politics and economy such as democracy, market economy, human rights, and multilateral institutions, and the bloc agreed to preserve the order with a united stance. 
Russia is a source of threat to the rules-based international order; the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not only the biggest war to take place in Europe 77 years after World War II but also an attempt to change the status quo by force. China is also a threat to the rules-based international order because it supports Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine and has formed an anti-West coalition with Russia. China hints at the use of force against Taiwan, which is tantamount to changing the status quo by force, and exactly what Russia is doing now. China further undermines international economic rules with unfair, non-market trade practices.  
The second theme of the 2023 G7 Summit, “Outreach to the Global South,” is also indicative of the G7’s commitment to upholding the rules-based international order while addressing the problems commonly facing the international community. Although the G7 has long been addressing issues pertinent to the developing world such as food crisis, health, and debt crisis, this year’s theme “Outreach to the Global South” has a strategic intent of “balancing.” The G7 faces the need to engage with the Global South to mobilize support from the developing world for the rules-based international order and enhance the effectiveness of sanctions imposed on Russia. 

Ⅱ. The G7 Bloc Shaped by the 2023 G7 Summit 

G7 Hiroshima Leaders' Communiqué addresses a range of issues including trade, digitalization, gender, human rights, environment, labor, and education. Nevertheless, the G7’s stance toward Russia’s war in Ukraine and economic security best represents the revival of the G7 bloc and its deliberation of a new international order. 
The G7 reaffirmed its support for Ukraine as long as it takes and commits to upholding the rules-based international order and opposing any attempts to change the status quo. And the G7 has unveiled new economic sanctions to further curb Russia’s ability to wage war against Ukraine.
The G7 called on China to press Russia to stop its military aggression and immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw its troops from Ukraine and reaffirms the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as indispensable to security and prosperity in the international community. Also, the G7 called on China not to conduct interference activities aimed at undermining the security and safety, integrity of democratic institutions, and economic prosperity of other countries. 
The G7 agreed to reset economic relations with China, looking to de-risk and build economic resilience and economic security. While the G7 stands prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China, it emphasizes the need to de-risk and diversify. The bloc also aims to reduce excessive dependence on China for critical minerals and diversify supply chains. The G7 also agreed to forge a collective response to China’s economic coercion, which forces, with unofficial economic punishments, other countries to give in to Chinese demands in case of diplomatic frictions and to establish the Coordination Platform on Economic Coercion for collective assessment, preparedness, deterrence, and response to Chinese economic coercion.

Ⅲ. The G7's New International Order  

First and foremost, the G7 has re-emerged as a bloc putting forward a unified position toward China as well as Russia. The G7 countries have been unified against Russia since Russia invaded Ukraine and have now achieved a broad convergence over China issues. The G7 solidarity against China is an outcome of a compromise between the United States’ strategic goals regarding China and other G7 members’ approach to Beijing. The European G7 members gave a nod to the United States’ strategic goals to counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific, while the United States embraced less confrontational approaches to China as preferred by the European allies. This is indicative of the G7’s effort to prioritize ‘de-risking’ China links over ‘decoupling.’  
Second, the resurgence of the G7 as a bloc would potentially make international relations more confrontational because Russia and China are likely to strengthen their coalition against the G7 as a response. The world would become more visibly bipolar with the emerging system of G7 vs. China-Russia whereby countries would find strategic ambiguity to be no longer effective and be forced to choose a side between the two blocs. Rising tensions between the G7 and the China-Russia coalition would further hamper global governance such as the UN Security Council and the G20. 
Third, the world is divided into three groups, the G7, the China-Russia coalition, and the New Non-Aligned. The New Non-Aligned countries are mostly from the Global South and are neither fully aligned with the G7 nor the China-Russia coalition. The New Non-Aligned includes autonomous regional powers such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Turkiye. Compared with the Non-Aligned Movement of the 20th century, the New Non-Aligned in the 21st century have made significant strides in their capabilities and actively weigh in on global affairs. While the New Non-Aligned is not likely to become a unified power, the three-way division of the world would increase uncertainty and fluidity in international relations.   
Fourth, the new economic consensus within the G7, which places security in front of the economy, would change the overall dynamics of globalization. The G7-China reset for economic resilience and economic security suggests that the seven countries are willing to manage globalization and limit free trade to selected partner countries across a limited number of goods and services. 
Lastly, although the G7 countries are realigned to be a bloc, the duration of the G7 bloc cannot be predetermined in advance and will be affected by various factors. The solidarity of the G7 is likely to depend on the seven countries’ willingness to cooperate, the costs incurred from confronting China and Russia, and the equitable distribution of benefits from being part of a bloc. Domestic politics in the G7 countries would affect the solidarity of the G7 as well. Economic conditions in the G7 countries could influence election results and weaken the solidarity of the G7. And the G7 countries might find it difficult to confront both Russia and China at once. It could be particularly burdensome for the European G7 members to confront China while enduring energy and economic pressures emanating from the war in Ukraine. This would especially be the case if the war in Ukraine continues to drag on.   

Ⅳ. Policy Considerations for South Korea

The realignment of the G7 presents both diplomatic opportunities and challenges to South Korea. South Korea needs to establish a foreign policy that is clearly in line with upholding the rules-based international order. South Korea has achieved significant development under the rules-based international order and shares the values of the rules-based international order with the G7, which was well displayed by President Yoon’s participation in the 2023 G7 Hiroshima Summit. South Korea also needs to execute its foreign policy of upholding the rules-based international order while carefully navigating its relations with China, Russia, and the New Non-Aligned.  
Since South Korea has made clear its stance on the rules-based international order, Seoul should seek to build diversified partnerships with the G7. South Korea’s continuous participation in future G7 summits would demonstrate Korea’s deepening partnership with the bloc. To that end, South Korea will have to place greater emphasis on diplomacy with Japan and the United States. As part of an effort to build partnerships with the G7, South Korea needs to increase its contribution to the international community to a level comparable with the G7. Not to mention, South Korea needs to fulfill its promises made at the 2023 G7 Summit to help the Global South address food crises, promote public health and achieve clean energy transition. Those promises could be carried out as part of South Korea’s official development assistance. Also, in doing so, South Korea needs to ensure that its role in and contribution to the international community is compatible with the norms and values advocated by the G7.
Lastly, South Korea needs to prepare for potential diplomatic backlash as China and Russia might hold negative views of South Korea’s close ties with the G7. For this reason, South Korea should adeptly manage its relationship with China and Russia as it moves closer to the G7. 

* Attached File
다운로드
IFANS FOCUS 2023-09E(강선주).pdf
이전글
스위스 제네바안보정책센터(GCSP) 전문가 방문간담회 개최
다음글
우주자산의 군사적 역할과 미국의 우주전략: 한국 우주정책에의 함의
이전
메뉴 담당자 정보 안내
메뉴담당자연구행정과 전화02-3497-7668