The famous epitaph of the cenotaph for the victims of the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima in the city’s Peace Memorial Park reads: “Rest in peace, for the error shall not be repeated.” The leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized nations and other major countries who just days ago laid flowers at the memorial have a duty, like never before, to demonstrate their commitment to ensuring such a catastrophe never occurs again.

This requires the creation of an international order based on inclusion and dialogue to stop the war now raging in Ukraine and prevent nuclear arms from being used.

TIES WITH WIDE SPECTRUM OF NATIONS

Globalization created an increasingly complicated world and a raft of tough challenges that demand cross-border efforts.

During the just-ended G-7 summit, held from May 19 to 21, the leaders of the wealthiest democracies discussed a broad array of topics, from global security issues such as the war in Ukraine and nuclear disarmament to areas that directly affect the lives of everyone, including climate change, artificial intelligence, international public health and gender equality.

The most disturbing problem with the world today is its inability to take effective steps to stop the war waged by Russia, a major power that should be working to protect the international order.

The U.N. Security Council has been mired in dysfunction due to the veto power of Russia, a permanent member. The Group of 20, which includes emerging countries, is also powerless to adopt a consistent policy to end the war due to Russia’s opposition.

This situation makes the G-7’s responsibility even more important as a group of leading nations that share common values such as freedom and democracy. As might be expected, the G-7 leaders’ communique pledged to “support Ukraine for as long as it takes in the face of Russia’s illegal war of aggression.”

But the grim reality of today’s world is that there are limits to the G-7’s ability to tackle challenges.

In the nearly half century since the first G-7 summit was held, the member nations’ combined gross domestic product now accounts for just 40 percent of global economic output, down from 60 percent all those years ago. The group’s influence has declined accordingly.

This reality forced the G-7 to devote precious time in Hiroshima to building working relationships with emerging and developing nations collectively referred to as the Global South. Nearly half of the summit schedule was devoted to discussions involving them.

It is still too early to gauge the results of these efforts. But it can be said the agenda for the Hiroshima summit at least set the tone for future meetings of the G-7 leaders. It will, however, be impossible to gain the trust of emerging and developing nations if the G-7 divides the world into two camps and urges them to pick sides. The G-7 must listen to their voices and demonstrate its seriousness about tackling common challenges together rather than focus on self-interest.

NO PATH TO WORLD WITHOUT NUKES

Russia’s repeated threats to use nuclear weapons reinforced the case for holding the summit in Hiroshima, which has long stood as a symbol of nuclear devastation. The leaders of the nuclear powers and those protected by their nuclear umbrellas bowed before the memorial monument and saw first-hand, although not sufficiently, gruesome reminders of the atomic bombing during a tour of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

But they failed to present a specific road map to bring the world closer to a future without nuclear weapons. The G-7 leaders’ communique justified maintaining nuclear deterrence as “a realistic, pragmatic and responsible approach.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also attended the summit. His presence provided a strong incentive for the G-7 to reaffirm its unity in supporting Ukraine. He also had an opportunity for face-to-face talks with the leaders of major countries outside the G-7 framework, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has refrained from joining international sanctions against Russia to protect India’s own interests.

Much international attention, however, was drawn to additional military aid to Ukraine prior to the country’s expected counteroffensive. Of particular interest was an announcement in Hiroshima by the Biden administration, made just prior to Zelenskyy’s arrival in the city, that it will allow its Western allies to supply Ukraine with American-made F-16 fighter jets. It is hard to understand why the G-7 did not engage in debate over how to end the war from a broad perspective.

JAPAN AS AN EFFECTIVE BRIDGE

China was another key topic. The leaders’ statement referred to numerous issues involving China, ranging from the situation in the East China and South China seas, tensions over Taiwan and human rights issues to Beijing’s strategy of economic coercion, or the weaponization of economic vulnerabilities to punish other nations that displease Beijing through the use of China’s vast economic resources.

The primary problem, however, is the lack of an effective channel of dialogue with China under the G-7 framework. From this viewpoint, the passage in the communique stating, “We stand prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China” and calls for Beijing to work with the G-7 to tackle common challenges in areas like climate change, offer a ray of hope.

It is crucial for the G-7 leaders to redouble their efforts to ensure in-depth and meaningful dialogue with China. China should be aware of its responsibility to work with the leading nations to build an international order.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida repeatedly said the summit’s primary objective was to push the international community to cooperation, instead of division and confrontation.

Now that it is clear the G-7 alone cannot solve any of the major challenges facing the world, Japan, as the only Asian member of the group, should make steady efforts to serve as a bridge to improved ties between the G-7 and China as well as between emerging and developing countries.

Tokyo needs to provide effective leadership for the work to revitalize frayed international frameworks, including the United Nations and the G-20.

Kishida should not be complacent about his “success” in attracting global attention to Hiroshima as part of his signature policy initiative of pursuing a world without nuclear weapons. He should realize that only the first step has been taken in the long path toward the vision.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 22