G7 leaders meet in Canada hoping to avoid Trump clash
GROUP of Seven (G7) leaders gather in the Canadian Rockies starting on Sunday amid growing splits with the United States over foreign policy and trade, with host Canada striving to avoid clashes with President Donald Trump.
While Prime Minister Mark Carney says his priorities are strengthening peace and security, building critical mineral supply chains and creating jobs, issues such as US tariffs and the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine are expected to feature heavily.
US ally Israel launched a barrage of strikes across Iran on Thursday, a blow to Trump's diplomatic efforts to prevent such an attack.
The summit will take place in the mountain resort of Kananaskis, some 90 km (56 miles) west of Calgary.
The last time Canada played host, in 2018, Trump left the summit before denouncing then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "very dishonest and weak" and instructing the US delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique.
"This will be a successful meeting if Donald Trump doesn't have an eruption that disrupts the entire gathering. Anything above and beyond that is gravy," said University of Ottawa international affairs professor Roland Paris, who was foreign policy adviser to Trudeau.
Trump has often mused about annexing Canada and arrives at a time when Carney is threatening reprisals if Washington does not lift tariffs on steel and aluminum.
"The best-case scenario ... is that there's no real blow-ups coming out of the back end," said Josh Lipsky, the chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank and a former White House and State Department official.
Carney's office declined to comment on how the Israeli strikes would affect the summit.
Diplomats said Canada has ditched the idea of a traditional comprehensive joint communique and would issue chair summaries instead, in hopes of containing a disaster and maintaining engagement with the US.
A senior Canadian official told reporters Ottawa wanted to focus on actions the seven members - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States - could take together.
Canadian Senator Peter Boehm, a veteran former diplomat who acted as Trudeau's personal representative to the 2018 summit, said he had been told the summit would last longer than usual to give time for bilateral meetings with the US president.
Expected guests for parts of the Sunday to Tuesday event include leaders from Ukraine, Mexico, India, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Brazil, who all have reasons to want to talk to Trump.
"Many will want to talk to President Trump about their own particular interests and concerns," Boehm said by phone.
A senior US official said on Friday working discussions would cover trade and the global economy, critical minerals, migrant and drug smuggling, wildfires, international security, artificial intelligence and energy security.
"The president is eager to pursue his goals in all of these areas including making America's trade relationships fair and reciprocal," the official said.
The visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the Oval Office in February descended into acrimony and has served as a warning for other world leaders about the delicate dance they face in negotiating with Trump.
But diplomats say the frustration of dealing with the Trump administration has made some keener to assert themselves.
Canada has long been one of Ukraine's most vocal supporters. Trump came to power promising to end the war with Russia within 24 hours but diplomatic efforts to end the conflict have stalled.
One Ukrainian official involved in preparations for the summit said hope had faded for a strong statement in support of Ukraine. Instead, success for Kyiv would merely constitute an amicable meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy.
A European official said the G7 summit and the NATO summit in The Hague later in June provided an opportunity to underscore to Trump the need to press ahead with a sanctions bill put together by US senators alongside a new European package to pressure Russia into a ceasefire and broader talks.
Trump's first international summit will offer some early clues on whether Trump is interested in working with allies to solve common problems, said Max Bergmann, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"The big overarching question here is, basically, is the United States still committed to formats like the G7? That is going to be the big test," Bergmann said.
French President Emmanuel Macron has said he has a good, but frank relationship with Trump despite differences on subjects such as Ukraine or climate change.
Macron said on Friday that a United Nations conference co-hosted between France and Saudi Arabia scheduled after the G7 to work towards a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians has been postponed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
The US is dooming the UN
SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.
New Straits Times
4 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump told a news network Sunday the United States could become involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, and that he would be "open" to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin being a mediator. The Republican president, according to ABC News, also said talks over Iran's nuclear programme were continuing and that Tehran would "like to make a deal," perhaps more quickly now that the Islamic republic is trading massive strikes with Israel. "It's possible we could get involved" in the ongoing battle between the Middle East arch-foes, Trump said in an off-camera interview with ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott that was not previously publicised. He stressed that the United States is "not at this moment" involved in the military action. As for Putin being a potential mediator in the conflict, "he is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it," Trump said. Israel and Iran traded heavy aerial assaults for a third straight day Sunday, with casualties mounting following Israel's large-scale attacks aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, sparking retaliation. Oman, which has acted as a mediator on the nuclear issue, has said a sixth round of talks between Iran and the United States planned for this weekend had been cancelled. But Trump said the two sides were continuing discussions. "No, there's no deadline" on negotiations, he told ABC when asked whether there was a time limit for Tehran to come to the table. "But they are talking. They'd like to make a deal. They're talking. They continue to talk," Trump said, according to Scott. Trump suggested that something like the clash between Israel and Iran "had" to happen to spur talks on a nuclear agreement. It "may have forced a deal to go quicker, actually," Trump said.--AFP
