七国集团（G7）是不是已经凉凉了（2） [美国媒体]

Is the G7 dead?

七国集团（G7）是不是已经凉凉了
​
Challenger108
Sounds good, doesn't work.
The US and China are rivals. Having them in the same block probably wouldn't work as theyd disagree on most things.
In theory, the G7 is a block consisting of any wealthy,industrialised nation that holds considerable influence on the world.
In practice, the G7 is a western institution, that consists to serve the agenda of like minded democratic Western States. Non-Western nations like Russia were granted temporary membership,which eventually got revoked once Russia took action that oposed Western interests.
So based off of this, Canadian and Italian membership makes sense. They are in effect "filler"members that make the rest of the big members "look good" as they can claim to be part of a larger group. A "G3" consisting of only France,USA and UK doesn't have the same sound as G7.
Non western members like India and China can only be permited to enter the"G9" for as long as they don't go against Western interests.
It would probably be better if India,China and Russia etc founded their own "G"group.
(Unfortunately,the membership of Japan in the G7 kinda throws a wrench into my opinion. However, though Japan is not a Western nation,it's definitely within their Sphere of influence my being such a strong military and economic partner with the West since WW2 US occupation. Meaning Japan is in effect a "Western"nation even though it's not. )

（楼主的建议）听起来不错，但是没有什么卵用。
美国和中国是竞争对手。如果把它们放在同一条船上，可能不会有什么效果，因为他们在大多数事情上意见不一致。
从理论上讲，七国集团是一个由任何一个富裕的工业化国家——这些国家对世界具有相当大的影响力组成的集团。
但在实际上，七国集团是一个西方机构，其目的是为理念相同的西方民主国家的议程服务。像俄罗斯这样的非西方国家被授予了临时成员资格，但一旦俄罗斯采取了反对西方利益的行动，这一资格最终就被撤销了。

因此，基于这一点，加拿大和意大利的成员资格是有存在的意义的。他们实际上是“充数”的成员，使其他大成员“看上去不错”，因为他们可以声称自己是一个更大的群体的一部分。由法国、美国和英国组成的“G3”集团就没有和G7集团一样的影响力。

像印度和中国这样的非西方国家，只有在不违背西方利益的情况下，才能获准加入“九国集团”。
如果印度、中国和俄罗斯等建立自己的“G”集团，可能会更好。
（不幸的是，日本是七国集团中的成员给我的回答带来了一种误解。然而，虽然日本不是一个西方国家，但它肯定在他们的影响范围之内，它自二战以来一直是西方的强大军事和经济伙伴。这意味着日本虽然在地理上不是，但实际上是一个“西方”国家）。

kiwidave
A lot of people consider Japan to be a "Western" nation. Obviously it depends on the exact definition, but "Western" is largely synonymous with liberal democratic systems of government and liberal economies, so Japan would be included in this group.

许多人认为日本是一个“西方”国家。显然，这取决于确切的定义，但“西方”在很大程度上是政府和自由经济的自由民主制度的同义词，因此日本将被包括在内。

Flocculencio
I'd argue that India is fundamentally different from Russia and China in that it's a committed (though flawed) democracy. G(N) membership for India would be a valuable way to help India more palatably align with the West.

我认为，印度与俄罗斯和中国有着根本的不同，因为它是一个坚定(尽管有缺陷)的民主国家。给印一个成员资格将会是帮助印度更好地与西方结盟的宝贵途径。

_____D34DP00L_____
India's democracy may be flawed but it's amazing that it's in as good shape as it is when you consider the development levels in that nation and the amount of people it has to administrate and the tensions in various reasons of the country.

印度的民主制度可能存在缺陷，但令人惊讶的是，当你考虑到印度的发展水平和人口数量并且这个国家必须处理该国各种原因造成的紧张局势时，印度的民主状况可以说是非常好了。

Vakaryan
India and China in a block? They are rivals, and view each other as major security threats.

印度和中国一起组队？他们是对手，把彼此视为重大的安全威胁。

MSchumacher1
They're already in loads of blocs and forums/summits together.
G20, East Asia, BRICS and SCO.
They also already have annual RIC meetings amongst the FMs. A "RIC" amongst the leaders of the nation isn't a step too far. Whilst beneficial for the future, I can see India being resistant to the idea of taking it one step further.
India isn't pushing for G7 inclusion. If they wanted to push for it, they'd very much likely gain inclusion, especially considering it will be the 5th largest economy by next year and 4th by around 2022/2023. Cannot see a single country opposing them.
At the same time, they're not pushing for it because (a) they don't want to shut off the door to Russia and China or start to become aligned and (b) they have bigger fish to fry, inclusion in UNSC and NSG.

他们已经在许多集团和论坛/峰会搅在一起了。
比如20国集团、东亚论坛、金砖国家和上海合作组织。他们还在FMS中举行了年度会议。在这些国家的领导人中间组织“RIC”（俄罗斯印度和中国的首字母）的相反并不是遥不可及。虽然这么做对未来有利，但我可以看到，印度对更进一步的想法持反对态度。

印度并没有推动加入七国集团的议程。如果他们想推动它，他们很可能会被纳入，特别是考虑到明年它将成为第五大经济体，到2022/2023年将是第四大经济体。
他们不想推动加入七国集团议程的原因还有(A)他们不想关闭通往俄罗斯和中国的大门，也不想开始结盟。(B)它们有更大的目标，那就是加入联合国安理会和核供应国集团。

James29UK
BRIC is just a term made up by investment banks to sell investments in those countries, that looked like they would be power houses in the 21st century. Brazil and Russia do not look like that any more. It isn't a formal grouping and is more of a buzz word that caught on.

金砖国家只是由那些销售他们的投资，让它们看起来就像是21世纪的发动机的投资银行组成的一个术语。巴西和俄罗斯已经失去了动力了。这不是一个正式的国际组织，更像是一个流行语。

LostKeez
Don’t they already have their own group the BRICS? Made up of developing economies from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, surely BRICS is a platform for India and China to it forward their interests (although Indian and Chinese interests really don’t align that often these days).

他们不是已经有自己的金砖国家组织了吗？金砖国家由来自巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非的发展中经济体组成，无疑是印中两国共同利益的平台(尽管印度和中国的利益在这段时间里确实不一致)。

paceminterris
There's no actual organization of the BRICS nations. Even the concept itself is somewhat of a shoehorn; as some of these nations have nothing to do with each other, and others are actual rivals. Brazil is actually in danger of falling out of this status, as it had an ascendant economy when the term was coined, but is struggling now.
It was basically made up my western geo wonks who wanted a convenient grouping to describe large economies that have regional pull.

金砖国家没有真正的组织。甚至这个概念本身也有点像是被硬扯出来的；因为其中一些国家之间没有任何关系，而另一些国家则是真正的竞争对手。事实上，巴西正处于脱离这一地位的危险之中，因为当这个词被创造出来时，它的经济处于上升状态，但现在却在泥潭中挣扎。
这基本上是由我的西方地缘政治学家组成的，他们想要一个方便的集团来描述那些具有地区吸引力的大型经济体。

MSchumacher1
It would probably be better if India,China and Russia etc founded their own "G"group.
RIC. RIC is what you're looking for.
It's an annual trilateral meeting amongst the Foreign Ministers.
If I were China and Russia, this would be the absolute prime time to get India involved into a solidified, high ranking meeting of leaders "RIC".
They've already got SCO and BRICS but they'd be wise to set up a "RIC" where FMs, DMs and President and PMs meet at least annually.
But I wouldn't be surprised if India would be hesitant to join such a forum. Can't start juggling a Russia-India-China nexus as well as relations with the West and Japan. As well as other issues, of course.

“如果印度、中国和俄罗斯等建立自己的“G”集团，可能会更好。”
RIC，你所寻找的就是“RIC”。
这是一个年度的三边外交部长会议。
如果我是中国和俄罗斯，这将是让印度参与一场稳定的、高级别的领导人会议的绝对黄金时刻。
他们已经有了上海合作组织和金砖五国，但他们最好建立一个“RIC”，让FMS、DMS、总统和PMs至少每年举行一次会议。但如果印度不愿加入这样的论坛，我也不会感到惊讶。因为这个组织无法开始处理俄罗斯、印度和中国之间的关系以及与西方和日本的关系。当然还有其他问题。

Usmanm11
How can you lump together India with China and Russia. India is a fledgling western influenced democracy and in the last generation has made strides in progressiveness, civil liberties and it's economy.

你怎么能把印度和中国、俄罗斯混为一谈。印度是一个新兴的受西方影响的民主国家，在过去的一代人中，印度在进步、公民自由和经济方面都取得了长足的进步。

TyreSlasher
India also has a painful history of being colonised by one of those western countries. Has had close relations with USSR/Russia for most of its independent history and has been fiercely independent in its foreign policy. It has its own interests that run against the western interests, for example the relationship with Iran.
If the G7 is a club of US and its lackeys close allies, India is definitely not going to be welcome.

印度也有被其中一个西方国家殖民的痛苦历史。在其独立历史上，与苏联/俄罗斯关系密切，对外政策高度独立。它自己的利益中也有与西方利益相冲突的部分，例如与伊朗的关系。
如果七国集团是一个由美国及其“亲密”盟友组成的俱乐部，印度肯定不会受到欢迎。

Soft-Rains
Trump is temporary. I don't see why its an argument to dismantle/reform an organization that's not working because of a one term president.
G7 has transitioned into more a meeting of similar minds and the G20 is now where the leading nations get together. 

特朗普只是暂时的。我不明白为什么只因一任总统而无法运作的组织就要对它进行解散或者改革。
七国集团已经转变为更多地类似于拥有相同理念的国家的会议，而G20现在是主要国家聚集在一起的地方。

BlackBeardManiac
Trump is temporary.
He is a symptom, not the cause.

“特朗普只是暂时的。”
他是一种症状，而不是原因。

AdrianBrony
What's more, if something like this administration can just happen here now, who would ever make any agreements with the US that lasts longer than until the next election?
We could have the most trustworthy and reasonable government in the world and that won't mean a damn thing now if we were never more than a few years away from a complete wildcard.

更重要的是，如果美国现在能选出像这样的政府，谁还会与美国达成比进行下次大选的时间更久的协议呢？
我们可以拥有世界上最值得信赖和最合理的政府，而这一点也不意味着现在我们再过几年是否就能找到一个完全的适合的政府。

BlackBeardManiac
Exactly. It seems the US (and its image outside the US) is suffering from the Democrats vs Republicans hostilities and to some degree the two party system itself. As someone looking at it from the outside, it seems both parties (and a majority of their respective suppporters) are way too occupied with attacking the other. Even if there's a president who really tries to accomplish something... like you said... we can't be sure the next president won't go out of his way to deconstruct everything again. Trump may be unprecedented with his disregard for decisions made by the previous administration, but he has techead the world a "lesson" and I don't think it will get much better after him. Judging by what I read here and on other platforms, there's not just disagreement between both "sides" in the US, but often genuine hatred towards each other. That, IMHO, is the core of the problem because the two party system in the US isn't new, but the US was still viewed as somewhat consistent regarding its foreign policy in the past.

一点儿也没错。看起来，美国(以其在美国之外的形象)正在遭受民主党和共和党之间的敌对行动的影响，在某种程度上，两党制度本身也是如此。从表面上看，似乎双方(以及他们各自的大多数支持者)都过于忙于攻击对方。即使有一位总统真的想要做些什么…但就像你说的…我们不能确定下一任总统会不会再费尽心思去解决一切。特朗普无视上届政府做出的决定，这可能是前所未有的，但他给世界带来了一个“教训”，而且我不认为在他之后，美国的情况会好多少。从我在这里和其他平台上看到的情况来看，美国的“双方”之间不仅存在分歧，而且往往对彼此怀有真正的仇恨。在我看来，这是问题的核心，因为美国的两党制并不是新事物，但美国在过去的外交政策上至少在某种程度上仍然被视为是一致的。

rgh85
I think you are correct about the decline in importance of the G7 and there are several aspects to it. In the 1990s the G7 were the only game in town and largely shared a political outlook with regard to free trade and liberalisation. This policy program hit the buffers in Asia in 1997 and in Europe and North America in 2008 with enormous financial blow-ups, which ultimately led to the emergence of the G20 as a global forum. With the emergence of a sizeable constituency in G7 countries that demands protectionism after 2008 this program is now largely dead on an international, institutional level.
“There’s no way we can tackle climate change, failed states, and global poverty without an intimate annual meeting that includes the world’s major players.”
With regard to other policy areas there just isn't a lot of overlap or agreement among the G7 or among the group you propose, which is the main reason that there is little progress (although I'm not sure that is an entirely correct assessment, e.g. poverty in East Asia has sharply declined in the last 30 years).
Climate policy in the US is opposed mainly by a strong domestic lobby that has two arguments, one of which is it is expensive (although that is waning as the price of renewables is coming down year by year), and the other that no international agreements should restrict US policy (this is the real issue, a bipartisan consensus that US greatness (the right thinks 'power', the left thinks 'values') confers upon it privileges that other nations don't enjoy). All other G7 are in agreement that climate change is a serious problem and have programs to address it. These programs are of course not perfect, and one could always do more, but there is a broad acknowledgement of the issues in leadership circles throughout.
There are forums gaining in importance at the expense of G7 that have broader and/or different membership and this reflects the diffusion of political and economic power in a world that is considerably more multi-polar than it used to be in 1991. Such forums are for example the G20 or the SCO. Also the character of established institutions is changing: If someone told you in 1985 that in 2017 the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party would give a speech at the WEF meeting in Davos endorsing globalisation, that would not have sounded plausible.

我认为你对七国集团重要性下降的看法是正确的，以下有几个方面。上世纪90年代，七国集团是城里人唯一的游戏，在自由贸易和自由化方面的政治观点基本上都是一致的。这一政策计划在1997年的亚洲受到冲击，在2008年又在欧洲和北美遭遇了巨大的金融打击，最终导致g20的出现并成为一个全球论坛。随着七国集团在2008年后要求实行保护主义的庞大选区的出现，这一政策(政治和贸易自由化)在国际和机构层面上基本上已经消亡了。

“如果没有一个包括世界主要参与者的亲密年度会议，我们就不可能解决气候变化、失败的国家和全球贫困问题。”

关于其他政策领域，七国集团和你提议的集团之间没有太多的重叠或一致的意见，这也是没有取得多大进展的主要原(虽然我不确定这是不是一个完全正确的评估，例如东亚的贫困水平在过去30年里急剧下降)。

美国的气候政策主要受到强大的国内游说团体的反对，他们有两个论点，其一是代价高昂(尽管随着可再生能源的价格逐年下降，这一数字正在下降)，另一个美国的政策不应受到国际协议的限制，这是真正的问题，两党一致认为美国是最伟大的(右派认为是“权力”，左派认为是“价值观”）赋予了它其他国家所没有的特权。所有七国集团的其他国家都同意气候变化是一个严重的问题，并计划来解决这个问题。虽然这些计划不是完美的，而且总是可以做得更好，但至少这个问题在领导层会议的整个过程中都得到了广泛的承认。

以牺牲七国集团为代价的世界上其他的论坛变得越来越重要，它们拥有更广泛的成员和(或)不同的成员，这反映了世界政治和经济力量比1991年的时候更分散了。比如，20国集团或上海合作组织。此外，现有机构的性质正在改变：如果在1985年有人告诉你说，2017年中国CCP的总书记将会在达沃世界经济论坛会议上发表讲话支持全球化，你可能会觉得他就是个傻子。

lowlandslinda
G7/G8 was meant for democracies. That's why China cannot be in it.

G7/G8是由皿煮国家组成的。这就是为什么中国不能参与其中的原因。

furiousfrenzied
I find it interesting that you want to put Russia into the equation. It’s obvious that their current government is not to be trusted.

我觉得有趣的是，你想把俄罗斯纳入G7来平衡这个组织。但是很明显，他们现在的政府是不值得信任的。

ARussianSpy-
Why include America when they clearly don't want to cooperate with anyone? Trump wants a G2 with Russia and screw everyone else. Anyway I think China, Germany, England, Japan, UK, France and India would the ideal group, but we know there is a lot of geopolitical tensions among them so it won't happen.

为什么要把美国包括在内？他们显然不想与任何人合作？特朗普希望与俄罗斯达成G2协议，对其他人不闻不问。无论如何，我认为把中国、德国、英格兰、日本、英国、法国和印度组合起来会是一个理想的集团，但我们知道，它们之间存在着很多地缘政治紧张关系，所以不会发生这种情况。