How did you come to choose your research topic, the G7 and the transformation of the relationship between the US and Western Europe?

I have been acquainted with the topic since around 2013, when, for my master’s thesis, I worked on Italy’s stance in the establishment of the G7 in 1975–1976. Such a limited study left me with the hunger to know more. So, when I prepared the application for the PhD I knew already where to head. Furthermore, I think academic researchers are influenced by the environment (economic, cultural, and political) that surrounds them. I am no exception, and I started the research in 2017, the first year of the Trump presidency, which constituted a turbulent period for transatlantic relations. Further historical inquiries about the structural patterns governing the ties between the US and Western Europe seemed to me all the more relevant. 

Can you describe your thesis questions and the methodology you used to approach the questions? 

here is one key question that guided most of my work, and it has to do with the fact that the G7 (made up of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) could seem diplomatically uninfluential, but it still exists today. Hence, how can we explain the longevity of the G7? Why did it survive the international economic difficulties of the 1970s that rendered it necessary? Why did it survive the end of the Cold War that structurally fostered Western cohesion? Why did it survive the establishment of alternative and more representative economic forums such as the G20?

To answer this question, I researched multinational archives, with a particular focus on the US and the European members of the G7. My aim was to uncover the political rationale that lies behind international economic diplomacy. To that end, I critically assessed the official narrative of the actors involved, concentrating on the policies actually enacted rather than the political and ideological discourse employed to legitimise them. 

What are your major findings?

I would like to underline two of the meaningful conclusions I draw in the dissertation. The first relates to the historical role of the G7. The interaction between the seven members efficiently illustrates the intention of the leading Western countries to stick together in response to external challenges in order to preserve their international primacy: what we could call the instinct of survival and spirit of adaption of the West. More specifically, the G7 very well illustrates the American and European effort to provide US hegemony with a more acceptable and sustainable face. In the 1970s, Washington’s grip over its closest partners entered a period of crisis. The establishment of the group testifies to the common intention of all participants to create a forum where the members could disagree and differentiate themselves – either for domestic consumption or international positioning – while keeping the confrontation limited in the name of an indispensable unity: an escape valve to make the system function smoothly. 

Secondly, I realised that foreign policy, foreign economic policy in particular, is rooted in the tension (or alignment) between two structural variables. On the one hand, there is what should be called the geopolitical and geo-economic trajectory that is proper to any country: a set of long-term strategic objectives that prescind changing circumstances. On the other hand, foreign policy also responds to more immediate exigencies related to the need for consensus of any political leadership. For instance, we refer to partisan politics, electoral logics, and economic nationalism, especially when we talk about economic diplomacy. These essential interpretative tools allow to build a reading of foreign policy stripped of a series of overarching structures such as personal leadership, partisan politics, or ideological legitimation that could hide its actual sway.

Does your historical study help to shed light on the current war in Ukraine – and if so, how?

Even if not explicitly, nor directly, my research is intertwined with the ongoing international debate, in which the conflict in Ukraine holds paramount importance. The thesis investigates how, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, a series of external challenges to the primacy of the US-led international order, originating in the relationship with both the developing and communist countries, impacted the ties between Washington and its closest partners. In turn, it also looks at how the West handled these dossiers in order to uphold its political and economic primacy.

Similarly, today’s geopolitical landscape sees a confrontation between the “West” – led by the US and its sphere of influence – and a group of revisionist nations seeking to reshape the global order in their favour. While China is prominently positioned from Washington’s viewpoint, it is striving to garner support from a broader coalition of countries aspiring to establish an alternative narrative to the Western one, primarily championed by the Global South, with Russia among its vocal flagbearers.

The relevance of the thesis to contemporary debates appears in two key aspects. Firstly, the G7, traditionally viewed as a peripheral diplomatic player, played a crucial role in shaping the narrative of Western triumphalism by ostensibly projecting shared values, principles, and policies, as evidenced in the dissertation. This significance is echoed to some extent by the establishment of the BRICS process, which, like the G7, seeks to articulate a new narrative as an alternative to the West-centred one. Secondly, while the study does not claim to fully grasp the current multifaceted challenges to American hegemony, it offers insights that prompt reflections on how current uncertainties could impact transatlantic relations. While it may not provide definitive answers, it contributes to the debate by raising pertinent questions, such as: How will the confrontation between blocs affect transatlantic ties? Is the confrontational rhetoric vital for the US to maintain a cohesive alliance? And is American imperial fatigue – its apparent reluctance to sustain its global projection – irreversible? 

Last year you took part in a symposium on the origins of the war in Ukraine, co-organised by the Graduate Institute and the University of Geneva. Your contribution, which focused on economic diplomacy at the end of the Cold War, has just been published in the Institute-supported journal Relations internationales. Can you summarise it? 

The article is rooted in the need to critically assess the official narrative – the propaganda – concerning Western hostility towards Russia, especially in the economic sphere, which is being used to legitimise the war. It explores the economic relations of the major Western countries with the USSR and then with Russia during the transition that ended the Cold War. It challenges the notion that the G7 countries deliberately abandoned Moscow to a fate of economic regression. This study, focusing on trade and financial flows, seeks to determine the political and economic motivations of the West towards Moscow. Despite numerous stances that attempted to highlight the divergence between the United States and its main European allies, the analysis shows a substantial convergence of the Western front concerning bipolar policies. The article emphasises that the decisions of G7 governments were more influenced by immediate political and economic constraints, especially internal ones, rather than by a geopolitical or ideological vision. 

*    *    *

Mattia Ravano (right) defended his PhD thesis in International History on 1 March 2024. Associate Professor Carolyn Biltoft (second from the left) presided over the committee, which included Professor Jussi Hanhimäki, Thesis Director (left), and Professor Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol, Department of History, European University Institute.

Citation of the PhD thesis:
Ravano, Mattia. “Handling a Collective Interest: The G7 and the Euro-Atlantic Club’s Interaction with the Rest of the World in the Long 1980s.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2024.
For access, interested readers can contact Mattia Ravano.

Banner image: Series: Reagan White House Photographs, 1/20/1981–1/20/1989. Collection: White House Photographic Collection, 1/20/1981–1/20/1989, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. 
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.