logo
Canada hosts G7 summit as tensions with US grow over trade, foreign policy

Canada hosts G7 summit as tensions with US grow over trade, foreign policy

Express Tribune8 hours ago

Listen to article
Group of Seven 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.
Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other overnight into Sunday, killing scores hours before the leaders of the world's industrialized democracies meet.
"This issue will be very high on the agenda of the G7 summit," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. He said his goals are for Iran to not develop or possess nuclear weapons, ensuring Israel's right to defend itself, avoiding escalation of conflict and creating room for diplomacy.
The summit takes 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, 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 that 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.
"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 Zelenskiy 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.
'The big test'
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 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 Zelenskiy.
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 of his second term will offer some early clues on whether he 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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

From mining real gold to digital gold
From mining real gold to digital gold

Express Tribune

time14 minutes ago

  • Express Tribune

From mining real gold to digital gold

Listen to article In March 2022, Pakistan made headlines when Mark Bristow signed a landmark agreement to launch the country's largest-ever copper and gold mining project—a symbol of traditional resource extraction. Three years later, in March 2025, a new frontier emerged with the formation of the Pakistan Crypto Council (PCC), aiming to mine a different kind of gold: digital. From proposals to use idle electricity for crypto mining to controversial links allegedly aimed at attracting US President Donald Trump's attention, Pakistan's crypto ambitions have taken on a complex and politically charged tone. Currently, cryptocurrencies are banned in Pakistan, as confirmed by officials from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) and the Ministry of Finance during a recent National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance meeting. The SBP, in multiple statements, has reiterated that trading, holding, or promoting cryptocurrencies violates domestic law. Citing concerns over capital flight, money laundering, and terrorist financing, the SBP has warned financial institutions against engaging in crypto-related activities. In early 2025, the finance ministry echoed these concerns, calling crypto ventures "misaligned with national economic goals." This has created internal contradictions, as other government bodies appear to be exploring crypto integration through unofficial channels. Until there is regulatory clarity—preferably through legislation or a policy framework—Pakistan remains a high-risk jurisdiction for any legitimate crypto activity. The Pakistan Crypto Council (PCC) emerged in early 2025 as a private initiative with lofty ambitions. Branded as an innovation-driven entity, the PCC has signed non-binding agreements with international partners to promote blockchain use in Pakistan. However, many of these agreements and the entities involved have been criticised in both mainstream and social media for lacking transparency. A major event triggering scrutiny was the visit of Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) to Pakistan. Convicted in the US in November 2023 for violating anti-money laundering laws, CZ's company also paid a record $4.3 billion penalty. His visit, reportedly facilitated by PCC intermediaries, was viewed by analysts as tone-deaf and damaging to Pakistan's international image. Adding a geopolitical dimension is PCC's recent Letter of Intent with World Liberty Financial (WLF), a US-based crypto company in which the Trump family reportedly holds a 60% stake. The agreement proposes collaboration on blockchain, stablecoin, and decentralised finance projects in Pakistan. Critics argue that the move is less about technology and more about political manoeuvring—an effort to curry favour with Donald Trump. The involvement of Steve Witkoff, a Trump ally now serving as a US special envoy, has further fuelled speculation of backdoor diplomacy disguised as financial innovation. Pakistan has over 10,000 MW of excess power generation capacity due to over-commitment in generation contracts and under-utilised industrial demand. But this surplus comes at a steep cost. Electricity remains expensive—10 to 15 cents per kWh for industrial users—making it non-viable for crypto mining, which thrives on rates below 5 cents per kWh in places like Venezuela, Kazakhstan, and Ethiopia. While crypto mining could monetise some of this idle capacity, alternative uses offer better long-term value. Industrial and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) can justify higher tariffs through job creation and exports. Green hydrogen targets premium markets, while data centres and IT parks generate high income per energy unit. Cold storage facilities for agriculture are crucial for exports and reducing food waste. EV infrastructure can help lower fuel imports while promoting sustainability. If the government is considering subsidised energy for crypto mining to attract global miners, then why not do the same for these sectors? These alternatives maximise economic utility by pairing energy use with employment, export potential, and long-term gains. In contrast, crypto is volatile and speculative, potentially locking Pakistan into low-return ventures while sidelining more transformative opportunities. Amid rising interest in cryptocurrency, Pakistan's consideration of Bitcoin as a strategic reserve is fraught with significant risk. While countries like El Salvador have recently profited from such investments, Pakistan's volatile economy, regulatory vacuum, and legal bans make this approach dangerous. The IMF has already raised concerns over subsidised power tariffs. Meanwhile, any move to build Bitcoin reserves—especially from confiscated assets—could provoke renewed scrutiny from the FATF, jeopardising Pakistan's progress in exiting the grey list. With limited reserves and a fragile economy, adopting crypto as a reserve asset may seem reckless. Instead, Pakistan must focus on financial stability and regulatory clarity, rather than speculative digital ventures. Ultimately, the question isn't whether Pakistan can enter the crypto economy, but whether it should—and to what extent. In the absence of clear regulation, public consensus, and a sound economic rationale, the pursuit of crypto mining may cost more than it offers. As the world moves toward regulated, sustainable digital finance, Pakistan must decide whether chasing crypto-mining under uncertain pretences is worth the price of strategic credibility. THE WRITER IS A FINANCIAL MARKET ENTHUSIAST AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH PAKISTAN'S STOCKS, COMMODITIES AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

Israel's attacks could result in regime change in Iran: Netanyahu
Israel's attacks could result in regime change in Iran: Netanyahu

Express Tribune

time5 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Israel's attacks could result in regime change in Iran: Netanyahu

US President Donald Trump speaks as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waves following a meeting in the White House, in Washington, US, April 7, 2025. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article Regime change in Iran could be a result of Israel's military attacks on the country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Sunday, saying Israel would do whatever is necessary to remove the "existential threat" posed by Tehran. Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion" with a surprise attack on Friday morning that wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command and damaged its nuclear sites, and says the campaign will continue to escalate in coming days. Iran has vowed to "open the gates of hell" in retaliation. Israel's military has said the current goal of the campaign is not a change in regime, but the dismantling of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Asked by Fox's Bret Baier on his "Special Report" program if regime change was part of Israel's military effort, Netanyahu said: "Could certainly be the result because the Iran regime is very weak." "We're geared to do whatever is necessary to achieve our dual aim, to remove ... two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat," Netanyahu said in one of his first interviews since Israel's attacks began. "We did act - to save ourselves, but also, I think, to not only protect ourselves, but protect the world from this incendiary regime. We can't have the world's most dangerous regime have the world's most dangerous weapons," he said. Israel has said its operation could last weeks, and Netanyahu has openly urged the Iranian people to rise up against their Islamic clerical rulers. Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other overnight into Sunday, killing scores and raising fears of a wider conflict, as US President Donald Trump said it could be ended easily while warning Tehran not to strike any US targets. Asked about a Reuters report that Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Netanyahu said: "I'm not going to get into that." But he said he had informed Trump ahead of Friday's military action. American pilots are shooting down Iranian drones headed toward Israel, he said. With worries growing of a regional conflagration, Trump has lauded Israel's offensive while denying Iranian allegations that the US has taken part in it. He warned Tehran not to widen its retaliation to include US targets or else face the "full strength and might" of the US armed forces. Trump has repeatedly said Iran could end the war by agreeing to tough restrictions on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but Western countries say could be used to make a bomb. The latest round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, due to be held on Sunday, was scrapped after Tehran said it would not negotiate while under Israeli attack.

Realism and shifting tides of international relations
Realism and shifting tides of international relations

Express Tribune

time5 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

Realism and shifting tides of international relations

The writer is a former Secretary to Government, Home and Tribal Affairs Department and a retired IGP. He can be reached at syed_shah94@ Listen to article In the ever-evolving arena of international politics, the concept of permanent alliances or perpetual hostilities often proves to be a myth. As Lord Palmerston had put it long ago, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This preposition remains central to realist thought in foreign policy, where national interest overrides ideological consistency or historical ties. Recent geopolitical developments — from the US President Donald Trump's unconventional diplomacy to shifting alliances in South Asia -— demonstrate these powerful illustrations of this timeless truth. Trump recently visited the Middle East and had diplomatic engagements amid scenes of pomp and show. He had interactions with Saudi Arabia - which is poles apart from the US from an ideological perspective. One espouses democratic values and the other Sharia law with a dynastic rule. However, overridding considerations of lucrative arms deals and mutual economic benefits set all those ideals to naught. Trump even declared Saudi Arabia as a model for a reimagined Middle East, emphasising the promise of economic prosperity over instability in a region reeling from multiple wars. Similarly, Trump's brief chat with President Ahmed al-Sharaa of Syria, though on the sidelines of his diplomatic initiatives, was widely speculated and analysed. He also announced easing sanctions on Syria to give the country "a chance at peace". Trump's remarks and subsequent actions, however melodramatic in presentation, reflect the primacy of interest over principle. In the complex chessboard of international relations, strategic considerations often overshadow moral judgments. Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of realist foreign policy was observed during the US-Taliban talks culminating in the 2020 Doha Agreement between the two. After nearly two decades of warfare that claimed thousands of lives and cost billions of dollars, the US opted to negotiate directly with its once-archenemy. The very group that had been the target of a massive military campaign post-9/11 was now being recognised as a legitimate stakeholder in Afghanistan's future. This position from combat to the negotiating table, sidelining Ashraf Ghani and finally abandoning his government, was not a reflection of ideological transformation but rather a calculated move to pull out the US troops from a protracted and unwinnable conflict. It was a textbook case of interest-based diplomacy. This trend is not unique to the United States. China's recent diplomatic initiatives further portray the realist approach. The trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan in Beijing marked a strategic reevaluation in the region. Expressing unanimity of views, the three states agreed to shore up diplomatic and economic engagement, assuring a cooperative stance on counterterrorism. From a Chinese perspective this move would further enhance security along its western borders, ensuring the success of the Belt and Road Initiative, and countering the influence of rival powers in a geopolitically sensitive area. Pakistan's participation in this meeting also reflects a realist recalibration. Once a frontline ally in the US-led War on Terror, Pakistan is increasingly leaning towards regional partnerships that align more closely with its evolving strategic and economic interests. The re-engagement with Afghanistan, under Taliban leadership no less, is a nod to regional stability over ideological divergence. It's a pragmatic choice aimed at containing security threats and fostering economic integration. The meeting has also provided a fair chance to the de facto rulers of Afghanistan to gain legitimacy and economic lifelines. By engaging with regional powers like China and Pakistan, the Taliban seek to break out of international isolation and gain access to trade routes, infrastructure investments and diplomatic recognition. Once again, national interest overrides historical enmities or ideological moorings. All those aforementioned events, underscore the relevance and utility of realism in international politics. Realism postulates that the international system is anarchic and that states primarily follow the law of self-preservation and prosperity. In such a system, moral principles, while not entirely absent, are often subordinated to strategic calculations. Ideological allies may quickly turn into enemies and former foes may transform into partners as dictated by the circumstances. Critics of realism often decry its perceived cynicism and lack of moral compass. However, proponents argue that it is a sober and necessary lens through which to view global affairs. Idealism may inspire, but it is realism that governs the actions of states when stakes are high and options are limited. Moreover, the real-world consequences of deviating from realism can be severe. History is replete with examples where ideological rigidity led to strategic blunders — from the Vietnam War to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Conversely, moments of pragmatic diplomacy — such as Nixon's visit to China or the Iran nuclear deal — have often yielded more sustainable outcomes.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store