​Failed summit: on the G-7 summit in Canada  

At 50, the G-7 — a grouping of the most advanced economies — should appear robust, cohesive and experienced in managing global conflict. Instead, the G-7 Summit and Outreach session in Kananaskis, Canada presented a disunited and ineffective force in the face of some of the most testing conflicts including an escalating Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Iran strife and Israel’s ceaseless bombardment of Gaza. In addition, it has been unable to deal with the biggest disruptor in global trade — that of the U.S. Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs worldwide. This year’s G-7 was rocky from the start as host Canada saw an unexpected election just months before the summit. The government of Mark Carney was still finding its feet, which meant leaders such as Prime Minister Modi were invited just days before the summit. Upheavals in U.S. foreign and trade policy have also caught the grouping off-guard: U.S. President Donald Trump’s pivot to Russia on the Ukraine crisis, and ambiguous approach to China have been particularly noted. In Kananaskis Mr. Trump even suggested that the G-7 become the “G9, including Russia and China”, much to the chagrin of other leaders, including the Ukraine President, who was a special invitee. Mr. Trump’s volte face from proclaiming to be a “Peace-time President” to actively supporting Israel’s aggression was another issue. The U.S. refused to sign on to a draft statement by G-7 members that called for a de-escalation or any criticism of Israel, and pushed for a statement that condemned Iran. Mr. Trump’s early exit dealt another blow. Eventually, the G-7 was unable to issue a joint statement on key issues, and a Chair’s Summary was issued to deal with the crises at hand, along with statements on less divisive issues such as AI and quantum computing, critical minerals supply chains, wildfire and prevention, and transnational repression, but not on terrorism, as India had hoped.

Perhaps the most productive part of Mr. Modi’s trip was his meeting with Mr. Carney, and the decisions to restore Indian and Canadian High Commissioners, and to reset ties ruptured over the Nijjar case. However, the Carney government has not demonstrated any change in its position on the case or on action against Khalistani extremism. Moreover, the G-7 statement on Transnational Repression (TNR) does not name any country, but is pointed in its reference to allegations of foreign interference and TNR made by Canada against India, as well as China, Russia and Iran. Given the outcomes, the government must review the utility of India’s participation in the G-7 process. To have the Prime Minister travel more than 11,000 kilometres to address one outreach session of a fractious summit may not be the most optimal use of India’s resources.