Subscribe
The recent meeting of G7 foreign ministers, hosted by Canada in Southern Ontario, took place in an international context marked by deep political and strategic divisions. Discussions focused on three global issues: the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza, and the trade and tariff policies promoted by the US administration. But more than a demonstration of unity among the major industrialized democracies, the summit highlighted the growing divergences between the United States and its historic allies. The summit, chaired by Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand, brought together representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the European Union, as well as a number of invited countries such as Australia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa, and Ukraine. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, representing President Donald Trump, emphasized U.S. national security as the top priority of American foreign policy, sparking discontent among other attendees, concerned about Washington’s increasingly unilateral stance.
THE TRADE RIFT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
Among the main sources of tension is the deterioration of bilateral relations between the United States and Canada, historically characterized by close economic and military cooperation. The Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports has triggered a climate of growing distrust. However, the widespread perception is that Washington is now prioritizing the pursuit of its own national economic interests over multilateral cooperation. This trend poses challenges for Canada, which, despite being a member of the G7 and a historically ally of the United States, currently finds itself in an ambivalent position: on the one hand, the need to preserve economic ties with its American partner; on the other, the desire to defend its political and commercial autonomy.
THE WEIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL CRISES: UKRAINE AND GAZA
In addition to economic disputes, the G7 had to confront two geopolitical crises that are reshaping the global balance: the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza. Both issues highlighted how US leadership is now being contested among its allies. On the Ukrainian front, the summit saw the participation of the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, welcomed as a priority interlocutor. European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, announced new aid packages, including a British contribution of thirteen million pounds intended to repair Ukrainian energy infrastructure damaged by Russian attacks. Canada expressed a similar commitment, a sign of coordination between European and North American allies that, however, does not always align with US priorities. The Trump administration, while continuing to declare support for Kiev, has demonstrated a more cautious and negotiating attitude. This stance has raised concerns among G7 partners, who fear a weakening of pressure against Russia. While European countries are pushing for a firm policy, Washington appears to favor a pragmatic approach, closer to the logic of containment than deterrence. This divergence undermines the G7’s ability to present a united front against Moscow. In the Middle East, the situation is even more complex, with the American initiative for a ceasefire in Gaza promoted directly by Trump. Canada, France, and the United Kingdom have expressed their intention to recognize a Palestinian state even in the absence of a definitive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a move that contrasts with Washington’s cautious and conditional stance. The gap remains clear between the American vision, centered on Israel’s strategic interests, and the European one, more attentive to the humanitarian dimension and the need for regional political balance.
THE CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION OF DEFENSE SPENDING
Another area of conflict is US demands regarding military spending. President Trump has asked NATO partners – most of them G7 members – to allocate 5 percent of their gross domestic product to defense. This is significantly higher than the previous 2 percent commitment agreed upon within NATO. Many countries, including Canada and Italy, have expressed difficulty meeting this request, which they consider unsustainable in the medium term. Canada has set a goal of reaching 5 percent of GDP by 2035, but the commitment appears more symbolic than concrete. The American proposal reflects the desire to shift part of the financial burden of collective security from the United States to its allies, but it risks deepening internal divisions and undermining Atlantic solidarity. In this context, the only ally that appears to fully align with the American strategy is Japan, which, despite not being a NATO member, has significantly increased its military spending in an anti-China and anti-North Korean effort.
THE DIFFICULT BALANCE BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND COOPERATION
The Canadian summit thus highlighted a dynamic of growing fragmentation within the G7. While the United States continues to represent the political and military center of gravity of the alliance, its leadership is increasingly contested, especially when it translates into unilateral impositions. Rubio’s declared priority of “putting the security of Americans first” effectively encapsulates the philosophy of current American foreign policy: a vision in which national interest prevails over any multilateral consideration. This approach clashes with the approach of other members, who see the G7 as a tool for global cooperation and not an extension of Washington’s strategies. The tension concerns not only concrete policies, but also the very conception of the international order. For Europe and Canada, global stability requires compromise, multilateralism, and long-term diplomatic investment; for Trump’s United States, however, the priority is to achieve immediate benefits for national security and the economy, even at the cost of weakening international institutions.
TOWARDS A FRAGMENTED G7?
The picture emerging from the Canadian summit is of a G7 plagued by growing tensions and a sense of uncertainty about its ability to effectively influence major global issues. The lack of a common line on Gaza, uneven defense commitments, divergences on trade policies, and growing US assertiveness paint a picture of strategic disarticulation. The alliance that once represented the political and economic core of the West now appears engaged in a difficult process of redefinition. The rise of new global players – such as India, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, invited to the summit – signals that the G7 is no longer the sole decision-making center of the industrialized world. In this scenario, the United States’ ability to exercise leadership will depend on its willingness to recognize the autonomy of its partners and return to a logic of balanced cooperation.
A NEW BALANCE TO BE BUILT
The G7 Foreign Ministers’ Summit in Canada offered an eloquent glimpse of the current state of transatlantic relations. The United States, while maintaining a preponderant role, must now contend with growing allies’ intolerance of perceived unilateral policies. Canada, Europe, and Japan are trying to reconcile the need to collaborate with Washington with the desire to preserve a margin of decision-making autonomy. The G7 thus faces a dual challenge: on the one hand, maintaining its relevance in a multipolar world; on the other, rebuilding an internal balance based on mutual trust and a shared vision. Crisis management in Ukraine and Gaza, trade policymaking – with duties continuing to rock European and global stock markets –, and the issue of defense spending will be the decisive tests of whether the group will be able to overcome the current fractures or whether, conversely, the tension between American leadership and multilateral cooperation will mark the beginning of a slow decline of the G7 as a cohesive political player on the international stage.