TOKYO -- Japanese leaders rarely miss Group of Seven summits, so Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's absence during an online leaders conference Oct. 2 stood out.

In her place, Japan was represented by Kazuya Endo, senior deputy minister for foreign affairs and Takaichi's sherpa at summits.

Takaichi explained her absence during a parliamentary session on Oct. 16, saying the conference concerned diesel prices, an issue "between the U.S. and Europe," and that she had been told a proxy representative would suffice.

The prime minister also said the meeting time was finalized only shortly beforehand and that administrative preparations could not be completed in time. Online summits require a large display and support from outside contractors, she said.

While other G7 leaders met, Takaichi said she was at the prime minister's residence drafting her first policy address since forming a new Cabinet, to be delivered at the opening of an extraordinary Diet session.

Questions linger. When was Japan notified of the meeting? When was it decided that Takaichi could not attend? Lawmakers have pressed the government in parliament.

Perhaps most questionable is the notion that a representative was acceptable because the issue concerned only the U.S. and Europe. To appreciate why, it is important to understand the G7's significance in Japanese diplomacy.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was represented by Foreign Ministry official Kazuya Endo, bottom right, at an online G7 meeting on Oct. 2. (Photo from the X social media feed of International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol) First, membership itself is a valuable political asset that was secured through decades of diplomatic effort.

The G7's origin can be traced to an informal gathering of finance ministers from the U.S., France, West Germany and the U.K. in March 1973. Watching this G4 shape policy among themselves, Japanese Finance Minister Kiichi Aichi, then serving in the cabinet of Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, grew concerned that decisions would be made without Tokyo's input.

Aichi hatched a plan that went into action during the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank that September. He invited the G4 finance ministers to the Japanese ambassador's residence in Nairobi, serving tempura and sake. During that time, he persuaded them to expand the grouping to a G5 that included Japan.

One attendee, French Finance Minister Valery Giscard d'Estaing, won France's presidential election the following year. In 1975, he hosted the first summit in Rambouillet, France, laying the foundation for what became the G7.

Aichi's achievement was in "seizing the moment and boldly steering Japan's currency diplomacy," veteran financial diplomat Toyoo Gyohten later wrote in Nikkei.

Second, the diplomatic value that countries derive from the G7 is not evenly distributed. Japan is among the biggest beneficiaries.

Western countries are active in various security and foreign policy frameworks. The U.S., U.K. and France are all nuclear powers and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. France, Germany and Italy are part of the European Union. The U.S., Canada and several European allies belong to NATO. The U.S., U.K. and Canada are members of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing framework.

Japan has comparatively few alternatives. The G7 remains a rare forum where Tokyo can convert its economic strength into diplomatic influence. Australia's Lowy Institute regards the ability to participate in G7 summits as an element of diplomatic power.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued that membership in a group gives individuals access to its collective social capital, including the prestige associated with belonging to an exclusive group. Membership in the G7 similarly enhances Japan's international standing and strengthens Tokyo's diplomatic voice.

Third, the G7 carries diplomatic norms and courtesies commensurate with its importance. British Prime Minister Andy Burnham was also absent from the Oct. 2 meeting, but he was attending his father's funeral. In his place, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband joined the online meeting.

The question is whether having a bureaucrat, rather than a cabinet minister or elected politician, represent Japan truly serves the national interest. If another country sent only civil servants to a summit hosted by Japan, would the prime minister or Japanese public find that acceptable?

Japan has sent substitutes before. In 1994, Yohei Kono, then deputy prime minister and foreign minister, attended the Naples summit for one day in place of Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, who had fallen ill. At the 1980 summit in Venice, then-Foreign Minister Saburo Okita represented Japan after Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira died suddenly shortly before.

Both substitutions occurred because of emergencies, and the representatives were senior political figures. For the seven G7 online consultations held between 2023 and 2025, Prime Ministers Fumio Kishida and Shigeru Ishiba participated personally rather than sending substitutes.

Direct participation in the summits offers the potential to respond instantly to other leaders, steer the direction of debate and introduce proposals when necessary. Surrendering such opportunities could itself undermine Japan's national interest.

The G7's influence has diminished as emerging economies gain prominence. But for Japan, caught between the U.S. and China and increasingly forced to navigate difficult strategic choices, the value of belonging to the club has arguably grown.

Even if proxy attendance is formally permitted, it is difficult to argue that a prime minister should willingly give up the opportunity to participate. Making full use of the G7, a hard-won and valuable political asset, is an important responsibility for any Japanese leader.