By Han Yafeng
The G7 summit was held in Canada from June 16 to 17. It marked Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's debut in hosting a multilateral diplomatic event since taking office, and also the first G7 summit attended by US President Donald Trump since his return to power.
However, the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran has overshadowed the originally scheduled agenda. Leaders of the participating countries spoke past one another, making it difficult to reach substantive consensus. Donald Trump's abrupt departure on the evening of the 16th, despite one day remaining on the schedule, signaled the premature and perfunctory end of this small clique gathering.
The participating countries held sharply divergent positions that proved difficult to reconcile. The so-called "democratic consensus" has become little more than empty rhetoric. This G7 summit concluded without issuing a joint communiqué. Instead, it produced a series of fragmented, interim joint statements, highlighting the participating countries' inability to bridge their deep-seated differences and their reluctant compromise in the face of growing disunity. The joint statement on the Israel-Iran conflict issued during the summit serves as a telling example of such fragmented coordination.
Prior to the summit, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba publicly condemned Israel's actions as "totally intolerable". Germany, France, and other European countries expressed concern that escalating tensions in the Middle East could drive up global oil prices and further strain their already fragile economies. They called for preventing an escalation of the conflict and resolving the issue through diplomatic means. In stark contrast, US President Donald Trump voiced strong support for Israel and appeared unfazed by the prospect of continued escalation. Multiple media outlets revealed that he was at one point reluctant to sign the joint statement. The final statement was revised multiple times. Phrases in the earlier drafts such as calling on both sides to abide by international law and exercise restraint and diplomacy is the best way to resolve the crisis were removed. The language and position of the statement were significantly watered down, appearing more like a compromise tailored to secure Donald Trump's endorsement. It failed to reflect the firm stance and sense of responsibility that the G7 claims to embody as a self-proclaimed "leader of the democratic world." In addition, Donald Trump's complaint that Russia should not have been expelled from the G8 caused further embarrassment among the other participants.
Member states increasingly prioritized their own agendas, while enthusiasm for the multilateral agenda visibly waned. At the summit, leaders effectively placed their own interests above the collective agenda. Rather than focusing on the multilateral topics originally set for discussion, they prioritized bilateral meetings with Donald Trump in hopes of addressing issues such as tariffs that directly affect their domestic economies. The EU sought to reach a compromise with the US on tariffs in order to mitigate the impact of US trade protectionism. Canada was eager to renegotiate certain provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, during his bilateral meeting with Trump, followed up on the US-UK trade framework agreed upon in May. The summit failed to achieve its stated goals of collective deliberation and coordinated decision-making. Instead, it further deepened internal divisions within the G7, weakening its cohesion and diminishing its influence as a bloc in global affairs.
The summit continued its habitual practice of politicizing China-related issues. On the first day of the meeting, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen once again stirred up China-related topics, deliberately bringing a magnet prop to the meeting. She baselessly accused and smeared China's policies in trade, technology, and other fields, hyping up the so-called "new China shock" and advocating for decoupling and disruption of industrial and supply chains from China. This tactic aimed to divert the G7 countries' attention away from their internal divisions and pressing challenges, steering the discussion on internal conflicts and global governance toward a misguided path.
Reality has proven that the narrow mindset of the G7 small clique fails to address the practical challenges it faces. Externally, it persists in Cold War thinking and unilateralism, while internally, it is fraught with deep contradictions. The G7 small clique is increasingly incapable of responding to the growing complexity of global issues and lacks broad recognition from the international community.
(The author is from the Institute of American Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.)
Editor's Note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
