94Ha ViewpointFrom June 15 to 17, leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States will gather in Kananaskis, Canada, for the 51st G7 summit.
The summit was held in the charming Rocky Mountains, but was shrouded in a tense atmosphere and was seen as an unprecedented test of Western unity. Because the return of US President Trump cast a heavy shadow on the G7 summit in Canada.
Analysts believe that from the background atmosphere to the setting of the agenda to the potential results, this summit may not escape one word: embarrassing. And what is reflected behind this is the decline of the G7 after half a century.
Challenging moments
In November 1975, the first G7 summit took place in France.
To be precise, it was the G6 summit at that time, and the G7 was officially formed after Canada joined the following year. But this does not affect the G7’s historical definition of the “first summit”.
In Canada’s eyes, this year’s summit can be seen as the opening meeting of a new 50 years.
However, standing at a new starting point, the situation facing the G7 does not seem good, and even the host country does not shy away from this.
“50 years ago, faced with dramatic changes and geopolitical tensions, some developed economies formed the current G7… In 2025, as global challenges intensify, the G7 must respond firmly and forcefully to this moment.” Canada wrote on the official website of the G7 summit.
Although Canada did not specify what the “challenging moment” refers to, US President Trump and his unilateral and radical policies are considered to be the biggest risks currently facing the G7.
This is Trump’s first time attending the G7 summit since returning to the White House. Trump is no stranger to the G7 and attended the G7 summit several times in his first term.
But he did not leave too many good marks in the history of the G7, but more shadows. Especially the 2018 G7 summit, the photo of being “besieged” by the other six countries is still a classic.
At that summit, Trump refused to sign the communiqué and left early, making the host country Canada angry and embarrassed.
Coincidentally, this summit was hosted by Canada again, and the “guest” was still Trump.
The difference is that the Canadian Prime Minister has been replaced by Carney from Trudeau. Moreover, Trump’s “appetite” for Canada has become bigger, and he has repeatedly said that he wants to incorporate this sovereign country into the territory of the United States and incorporate it as the 51st state.
Canadian international affairs columnist Doug Saunders said that when preparing for this G7 summit, Carney and his team were most concerned about how to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2018.
But for Carney, this is not an easy task. Some commentators said that although the summit provides opportunities to resolve trade disputes, the Ukraine issue and even bridge the differences between the G7, given the serious internal divisions, it may make the differences “more obvious”.
“If last year was the ‘weakest’ summit, this year may be described as the ‘most embarrassing’.” Cui Hongjian, professor at the Institute of Regional and Global Governance of Beijing Foreign Studies University, said that the internal contradictions of the G7 are difficult to cover up and are becoming more and more in-depth.
At present, the internal differences of the G7 are not only reflected in issues such as tariffs and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but also in the sharp confrontation between Trump and other member states. The differences between the two sides in the fields of politics and economy are becoming more and more prominent.
“In recent years, the G7 has deliberately strengthened its common external position to cover up its contradictions, but this task will be more difficult to accomplish at this year’s summit.” Cui Hongjian said, however, as the Western political environment changes, the scene of “siege” Trump in 2018 may not be repeated, and the atmosphere this year may be relatively flat.
Covering up contradictions
As the rotating chair, Canada has identified three “core tasks” for this year’s G7 summit: protecting our communities and the world, establishing energy security and accelerating digital transformation, and tightening future partnerships.
The Canadian side said that the summit will seek to reach an agreement and coordinate actions around these three core tasks.
The specific contents include: strengthening peace and security, combating foreign interference and transnational crime, etc.; strengthening cooperation in the supply chain of key minerals and using artificial intelligence and quantum technology to release economic growth momentum; promoting private investment, improving infrastructure construction, creating high-paying jobs, and opening up markets, etc.
The host country said that the summit will also discuss the Ukrainian issue, other regional conflicts and forward-looking agendas with non-G7 partners.
To reflect the open attitude of the G7, Canada has also invited non-G7 countries such as Ukraine, South Africa, Brazil, Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, India, Mexico and Saudi Arabia to attend the meeting.
Matthew Goodman, director of the Greenberg Center for Geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that trade and geopolitical topics are expected to occupy an important position at this year’s summit, but don’t expect to reach a consensus.
It is unlikely that trade and tariff issues will be “on the table” at the summit, but will only be hotly discussed in closed-door meetings or side meetings. Just as the previous G7 finance ministers’ meeting did not mention tariffs in public statements, the G7 summit may also do the same.
In fact, Canada, the European Union, other G7 members and even non-G7 partners attending the summit are seeking to engage with Trump at this summit in order to reach a trade agreement with the United States before the 90-day suspension period expires.
Geopolitical issues will focus on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict first. Ukrainian President Zelensky will also attend the meeting and intends to meet with Trump again.
However, Goodman believes that given the uncertainty of Trump’s policies, the weakening willingness to mediate, and the differences between the United States and Europe, the prospects for whether the G7 can take meaningful actions to promote conflict resolution are highly uncertain.
In Cui Hongjian’s view, Canada’s characteristics of avoiding the important and covering up contradictions in the agenda setting are highlighted.
For example, some issues with sharp differences, such as tariffs and NATO defense spending, were not explicitly included in the agenda.
“From the perspective of the agenda, it also highlights the embarrassment of the G7. If it only discusses superficial issues in a vague way, the effectiveness of the G7 will not be reflected; if it touches on actual problems and intends to show the coordination and even action of the G7, it will inevitably lead to differences.” Cui Hongjian said.
In this context, the G7 may repeat the old tune and talk about China again.
Cui Hongjian believes that in order to divert internal contradictions and cater to the United States, the G7 may “increase the stakes” in its statements on China, including pointing the spearhead of supply chain, industrial chain, and trade issues to China’s overcapacity, so as to shape consensus.
From the perspective of potential results, this summit is also full of embarrassment.
According to a report by Japan’s Mainichi Shimbun cited by Cankaoxiaoxi.com, the G7 summit plans to give up issuing a leaders’ declaration to prevent differences from being exposed. If so, this will be the first time since the G8 returned to the G7 in 2014.
Cui Hongjian believes that it is likely that the parties will find it difficult to form a joint statement, and instead form a consensus in specific areas such as energy and key mineral supply chains, using technical achievements to cover up internal differences on major issues.
In addition, the G7 is also seen as a window to observe diplomatic dynamics. This year, the outside world’s attention will fall on several new faces: Canadian Prime Minister Carney, German Chancellor Merz, Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru, British Prime Minister Starmer and South Korea’s new President Lee Jae-myung. Among them, whether the first leaders’ meeting between South Korea and the United States, South Korea and Japan, and the United States, Japan and South Korea can be held at the G7 summit has attracted much attention.
Exhaustion is fully revealed
The G7, a “rich club” that has been operating for half a century, seems to have become increasingly dysfunctional and ineffective in recent years, showing signs of fatigue.
Take last year’s Italian summit as an example. All parties called for “unity and unity”, but still failed to achieve substantive results, and were finally labeled as “fatigued” and “the last supper”.
This year, the situation seems to be even more difficult. Some commentators said that given the obvious internal rifts, the “threshold” of expectations for this year’s summit may have to be lowered: as long as the leaders can line up and smile and take a traditional “family portrait”, it can be defined as a success.
Talking about the current situation and prospects of the G7, Cui Hongjian said that the G7, as a global governance platform with the West at its core, faces a crisis of survival and development.
The reason why the G7 has declined is, on the one hand, an objective result of changes in the international landscape. The decline of the G7’s strength and the rise of non-Western countries have formed a “one rises and the other falls” situation. The so-called Western governance model represented by the G7 is difficult to adapt to the trend of multipolarization and can no longer dominate global governance. The second reason is related to the mistakes of the domestic and foreign policies of the G7 members, which have led to a decline in soft and hard power.
“In the future, the G7 will continue to seek survival and development, but it may have a negative impact on the world.” Cui Hongjian said.
At present, the G7, which is in trouble, is adjusting its partnership for the second time in history, that is, to create a “G7+N” model.
The specific path is to use the G7 platform to strengthen the Western-centric order, win over other potential regional powers, and shape a new geopolitical pattern that is in line with the interests of the G7.
For example, this year Canada continued the practice of inviting countries from the global South at last year’s Italian summit, showing that the G7 intends to infiltrate the global South in order to balance other forces such as China and Russia.
For the G7, developing new partnerships can create an open atmosphere and also divert and weaken internal conflicts. However, given the G7’s own difficulties, at least during Trump’s administration, there is a risk of internal division, which may hinder its external expansion of its “circle of friends”. In addition, the G7 and non-G7 partners have their own thoughts, so whether “G7+N” can give the G7 new vitality remains to be seen.
