G7 Summit in Canada: Outcome and impact

This article is authored by Rajiv Bhatia.

The 51st summit of the Group of Seven or G7, an exclusive club of the world‘s advanced economies and democracies, was held in Kananaskis, Alberta, in Canada from June 15–17. It drew considerable attention from the international media, although eventually, it was overshadowed by the outbreak of the Israel-Iran conflict. The intensification of this conflict apparently led President Donald Trump to restrict his participation to only Day One of the summit. Despite this setback, which some saw as an opportunity for more candid discussions among the remaining participants, the summit ultimately produced a substantial outcome. However, to appreciate its real achievements correctly, it is necessary to go beyond the headlines.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney on the sidelines of the G7 Summit.(PTI)

There is little doubt that most multilateral and plurilateral institutions have lost their significance and ability to shape the trajectory of international relations today. The G7, comprising some of the world’s most powerful nations – the US, UK, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, and Italy, as well as the President of the European Council and the European Commission – is no exception. The global shift of economic and military power from the Atlantic to the Pacific reduced the significance of the G7. And then, since January 2025, the trans-Atlantic rift between the US and the rest of the members of the G7 has created new challenges. They were all too evident, impacting discussions and their outcomes in the summit documents.

The first casualty was a lengthy, pre-negotiated joint communiqué, so characteristic of G7 summits of the past.  As the chair and host, Prime Minister (PM) Mark Carney read the writing on the wall and decided early to do away with the joint communicate for the latest summit, given the wide differences with the US on a range of issues, such as tariffs, economic policy, European security, Ukraine, territorial assertions, Gaza, and Iran. Instead, the Chair’s Summary, brief and crisp, became the principal summit product.

The Chair’s Summary highlighted the value of the G7 as a platform for advanced economies to coordinate financial and economic policy, address issues of peace and security, and cooperate with international partners in response to global challenges. To address the slowing international economy, they considered protecting themselves against “unfair non-market policies and practices” and the imperative to establish responsible critical minerals supply chains. They had to be content with a paragraph on Ukraine, as a separate statement on the issue was not possible, given the US-Europe differences. A stand-alone statement was issued on the recent developments between Israel and Iran, which reiterated the grouping‘s support for the security of Israel – “Israel has a right to defend itself” – and asserted that “Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.“ As a result, the G7 urged the resolution of the Iranian crisis, which might lead to “a broad de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including the ceasefire in Gaza.”

The paragraph in the Chair’s Summary on the Indo-Pacific was forthright, balancing constructive and stable relations with China with a candid call on it to refrain from “market distortions and harmful overcapacity”. The members expressed their concerns over “China’s destabilizing activities” in the East and South China Seas, as well as the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

The G7’s global footprint was enhanced by the presence of leaders from guest countries, including South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, India, Australia, as well as the UN Secretary and the president of the World Bank, at the outreach session. The focus of attention was on energy security and the collaboration required to achieve it through technology and innovation, as well as the diversification of critical mineral supply chains and the mobilisation of new investment.

The package of conference products included six joint statements concerning cooperation in the domains of:

• Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Quantum technology
• Critical mineral supply chains
• A multilateral effort to fight and recover from wildfires
• Combatting foreign interference with a focus on transnational repression
• Countering migrant smuggling by dismantling transnational organised crime groups.

Against the broader backdrop outlined above, it is desirable to assess the outcome from the Indian perspective. New Delhi was somewhat concerned about the delay in inviting PM Narendra Modi to attend the summit as a special guest. Still, when the invitation arrived, it was accepted with grace and alacrity. This reflected India’s awareness of the valuable role still played by the G7. The participation allowed the Indian PM to reconnect with key world leaders at a prestigious forum, where China was absent. The expectation of meeting President Donald Trump was not met. Still, it was somewhat compensated for by a 35-minute telephone call between Trump and Modi. The summit was also an opportunity for Modi to convey New Delhi’s considered views on energy security within the context of North-South cooperation. While presenting this, he also highlighted his views on terrorism, energy transition, and a human-centric approach to AI and technology in general.

A significant positive outcome was the reset, agreed mutually by PM Modi and PM Carney, on the normalization of and step-by-step improvement in India-Canada relations. This development primarily resulted from the change in leadership in Ottawa, from Justin Trudeau to Carney, and was particularly driven by Canada’s intense search for reliable partners at a time when tensions in its relations with the US and even with China continue unabated. The Canadian political elite seems to have concluded that benefits from expanded cooperation with India in multiple domains – trade, investment, science, technology and innovation, higher education, energy, space, critical minerals, and fertilisers – far outweigh the domestic compulsion to ignore New Delhi’s legitimate view and sensitivity over the promotion of separatism. It was encouraging to note PM Modi’s observation that his counterpart and he planned “to work closely to add momentum to India-Canada friendship.”

In bringing about this change in the Canadian view, a recent report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may have played a crucial role. An extract from it reads as follows: “Khalistani extremists continue to use Canada as a base for the promotion, fundraising or planning of violence, primarily in India.”

To sum up, while G7 sceptics are welcome to dismiss the Alberta Summit as ‘an irrelevant and endless talk shop’, an objective and fair view would give PM Carney high marks for hosting and leading one of the trickiest summits of this grouping in recent years. He did so with a mélange of acumen, patience, and humour. Consequently, not only has the G7 survived, but it has also proved its worth both for its members and partners. This is no mean achievement in these dangerous and treacherous times.

This article is authored by Rajiv Bhatia, Distinguished Fellow, Gateway House and former ambassador of India with extensive diplomatic experience in bilateral, regional, and global issues.