As geopolitical rifts deepen, the group struggles to find common ground on Ukraine, Gaza, trade, and the climate – raising doubts about its role
The G7 meeting in Canada is likely to put the internal cohesion of the group, which includes the leading Western economies plus Japan, to a severe test. Trump’s America rarely sees eye to eye with the six other countries regarding most issues on the agenda.
As it stands, the relevant weight of this group in providing stability to the global financial system was affected by the 2008 financial crisis, which led to the creation of the G20.
This group of Western powers (with Japan co-opted) that had traditionally dominated the global economic and financial system realised that they could no longer do so on their own, as other economies had emerged whose cooperation to maintain the existing system had become necessary. The goal still was to maintain the global pre-eminence of the G7 by incorporating the emerging economies into the existing globalised system fostered by them.
However, with the geopolitical rivalry with Russia (expelled in 2014 from what had become the G8) becoming intense after its military operation in Ukraine, and China declared as the principal long-term adversary of the US, this goal of preserving the hegemony of the West as much as possible by broadening the base of cooperation through the co-option of select non-Western countries is no longer realistic.
Russia and China have become close strategic partners, their bilateral trade has expanded, and they are trading in their own currencies. The BRICS group has expanded, with members wanting to gain more economic and financial autonomy through development banks, trading more in their own currencies where possible, pressing for reforms of international political and financial institutions, and backing multipolarity in order to have a greater say in global governance.
With his transactional approach towards friends and partners and giving primacy to trade over geopolitics, Trump has delivered a strong blow to internal unity within the G7. He is using trade as a weapon against all countries, including America’s G7 partners, on whom he has imposed tariffs. He has upended the global trade order by grossly violating the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). He is reversing globalisation. He sees the creation of the EU as an anti-American move. (The EU participates in the G7 summits).
His views on European security have caused tremors in transatlantic alliance. His approach to Russia and the Ukraine conflict have flustered Europe. His administration has commented freely on internal European affairs, including the state of democracy in Europe. Trump’s anti-woke agenda challenges the liberal excesses of European society. All this has led many European leaders to talk about a divorce between the US and Europe.
The approaching G7 summit is meeting under the shadow of these developments. When the G7 last met in Canada in 2018 during Trump’s first term as president, no joint communiqué could be issued, as Trump refused to be a party to it. The reason – his infamous spat with then-Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau over aluminium and steel tariffs.
Since then, the bad blood between the US and Canada has worsened, with Trump treating Canada contemptuously by questioning its sovereignty and tauntingly inviting it to become America’s 51st state for survival. The new Canadian Prime Minister Michael Carney has pushed back vigorously to maintain Canada’s dignity and threatened reprisals on tariffs and other issues. This may not help in dealing with Trump.
At the last G7 summit in Italy, the communiqué featured 18 forceful paragraphs on Ukraine – an indicator of the bloc’s united stance at the time. However, it’s hard to envision such consensus at the upcoming summit. Europe remains committed to arming and financing Vladimir Zelensky, who is expected to attend, signaling continued support for prolonging the conflict. It will be interesting to see the language on Ukraine in the final document.
Italy’s summit document also included 10 paragraphs on Gaza. Yet with starkly divergent views between Trump and the Europeans – on Gaza, Palestinian demands, and the two-state solution – reaching an agreed language would be most difficult.
On climate change and environmental issues, which received 27 paragraphs in the 2024 communiqué, as well as on the clean energy transition and matters relating to Africa, which also featured prominetly in the Italian document, it is difficult to envision a unified language emerging.
The text in Italy spoke of the G7 countries all remaining committed to “the rules-based, free and fair, equitable, and transparent multilateral trading system,” with the WTO at its core, besides “having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all Members by the end of 2024.” This is a proposition that the Trump administration defines very differently and unilaterally. The discourse on resilient supply chains has also changed under Trump’s on-shoring manufacturing and MAGA agenda.
In Italy, the G7 also “recognised the need” to strengthen the global health architecture with the World Health Organization (WHO) “at its core.” Trump, however, has walked out of the WHO.
There are issues on which the G7 could still find consensual language such as as on AI, maintaining financial stability, a more stable and fairer international tax system fit for the 21st century, migration, confronting non-market policies and practices that undermine the level playing field and the G7’s economic security, strengthening coordination to address global overcapacity challenges, and fostering resilient and reliable global semiconductor supply chains.
On the Indo-Pacific, China, Haiti, Libya, Sudan, Venezuela and Belarus countering terrorism, violent extremism and transnational organised crime, as well as pursuing nonproliferation, etc., acceptable language can also be be found.
Iran has emerged as an issue of pressing concern following Israel’s attack on the country and Iranian retaliation. It is of utmost importance that this conflict is contained and prevented from degenerating into a wider regional conflict. The usual calls for de-escalation and ceasefire won’t be enough. Some concrete steps to pressure Israel to end the conflict would be required.
The G7, however, is unlikely to put pressure on Israel as the focus will be on the unacceptability of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Europeans will be opposed to any form of Russian involvement in mediation which figured in the Putin-Trump conversation.
It appears that the Canadian hosts, along with five other members – Europeans and Japan – have come to terms with the likelihood that issuing a joint communiqué may not be feasible. Canada is considering releasing a Chairman’s Summary, which would signal that even without US support, six of the seven members remain aligned on a shared agenda. The implications of this lack of consensus – how it might weaken the G7’s voice in global affairs and diminish its relevance – are likely to become a subject of debate and reflection.
The relevance of the grouping is also often questioned in the Global South. For many in this part of the world, the G7 appears increasingly out of touch. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending the summit as an invitee, as has been the case with G7 summits in the last few years.
Given the serious tensions in India-Canada relations over the activities of Canadian Sikh extremists seeking to promote separatism in India and issuing physical threats against Modi and Indian diplomats, an invitation to India to attend the summit was fraught with problems on both sides.
With the ouster of Trudeau, who had burnt his boats with India, and Michael Carney replacing him, an effort on Canada’s part to rebuild ties became feasible. This is despite opposition faced by Carney from local extremists who threatened large scale demonstrations against Modi. India, for its part, is ready to restore ties on the condition that anti-Indian forces in Canada are curbed. Modi’s visit will test the ground.
Modi will be meeting the G7 leaders separately. A meeting with Trump would be of particular importance, as lately the US leader has made statements that have caused concerns in New Delhi about the depth of his commitment to a strong strategic partnership with India.
