Can the G7 leaders still find anything to agree about?

Fifty years ago this fall, the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States met in a castle outside of Paris for three days of meetings, at the end of which they published the Declaration of RambouilletA declaration of principles and commitments of 15 points.

Noting that they were “each responsible for the government of an open democratic society, dedicated to individual freedom and social advancement”, the group of six said they had gathered due to “shared beliefs and shared responsibilities”.

The leaders have undertaken to “strengthen our efforts for closer international cooperation and a constructive dialogue among all countries”, “restore the growth of the volume of global trade” and “restore greater stability under the underlying economic and financial conditions of the world economy”.

In June 1976, with Canada at the table to create the G7, the leaders gathered in Puerto Rico and declared that “the interdependence of our destinations made us necessary to approach common economic problems with a sense of common goal and to work on mutually coherent economic strategies thanks to better cooperation”.

Last year, when the G7 leaders gathered in Italy for the 2024 summit, they agreed with a joint press release of almost 20,000 words, covering their shared positions on a wide range of global issues, including the invasion of Ukraine, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, migration and the global economy by Russia. The pronoun “us” appeared dozens of times.

Even if it is fair to ask how much all the words represent, there is something to say for the value of the seven most powerful democracies in the world to express common views and beliefs – in addition to the specific specific initiatives which often result from their annual gatherings.

But in 2025, on the occasion of the 50th of these meetings, it is not clear on the measure where the seven leaders of these countries can still agree. Such a lack of consensus would at least highlight how the world has changed in recent months.

The ghost of Charlevoix

The 50th G7 meeting is unlikely to produce a large press release. A senior Canadian civil servant, addressing journalists this week, suggested that leaders will approve a number of closer statements on specific issues.

In this case, the results of the 2025 summit could resemble the exit of 2019 summit in Francethat produced a Succinct declaration of 259 words accepted by all managersAlongside specific declarations on gender equality and Africa, and a pair of “summaries” of chair examining the discussions that took place.

This summit in Biarritz was notably the last time Donald Trump attended a G7 summit. It was also the first after the infamous G7 explosion in Charlevoix, that. And the memory of that Summit 2018 – The last time Canada has played – is suspended during this year’s meeting in Kananaskis, Alta.

The rally of Charlevoix is ​​the best known for what happened shortly after its conclusion. Trump, apparently injured by the declarations that Justin Trudeau made during his press closure on American prices on steel and aluminum, used Twitter for Blast the Prime Minister and declare that the United States renounces the summit press release.

But these tweets were only the culmination of what had been a 48 -hour skillful while the leaders and their advisers worked on the wording of the press release.

The United States wanted the declaration of conclusion to refer to “an” international order based on rules, not to “international order” based on rules (essentially a disagreement on the current existence of an international order based on rules). The United States did not want to refer to the Paris climate change agreements (Trump had withdrawn the United States from agreements in 2017). There were other differences on Iran and plastic pollution.

A finish press release was finally produced – accepted for a few moments before Trump’s departure – but all the differences could not be nicknamed: the split on climate change was explicitly recognized in the text.

The example of Charlevoix may have influenced Biarritz. And this can help guide the approach of the Kananaskis.

The quantity of work required to obtain a consensual document “would really mean a race down” for what would be included, Peter Boehm, who was the best Trudeau negotiator at the top of Charlevoix, said in a recent interview With the Canadian Institute of World Affairs.

This is also, of course, a summit to be held in the middle of a trade war waged between certain countries at the table.

The first objective for Carney – which has some experience with international summits as a former governor of the central bank and finance responsible – during next week’s meetings could simply be to avoid another explosion. And this could mean targeting a lower level of agreement, perhaps in accordance with the official priorities that the Prime Minister announced last week – which included the fight against foreign interference and transnational crime, improving joint responses to forest fires, strengthening the critical chains of mineral supply and exploiting artificial intelligence.

“It is useful to keep the United States engaged by continuing cooperation on a narrower set of priorities,” explains Roland Paris, professor of international affairs and former advisor to Trudeau.

What message will the G7 of this year send?

But if the seven leaders can no longer agree on many things – including great fundamental things such as climate change or the war in Ukraine – it is tempting to wonder if the G7 always makes sense as a group.

“The internal strains of the G7 reflect the greatest fragmentation of multilateral governance, at a time when the world needs urgent more, no less, of cooperation,” says Paris.

Kim NOSSAL, a stock market in foreign policy at Queen’s University, says that there is still value in the leaders of these seven nations who meet in person to take a measure of each other and discuss global issues.

“It seems to me that, from the point of view of one of the others [leaders]That there remains an institution useful to continue until or unless the United States throws it and burn it, “explains Nossal.

He said that a relatively narrow agreement could send an implicit message to the state of the world (Nossal and I spoke last week, before government sources begin to suggest that a large joint press release would not come).

“A good result is that where there is a relatively harmless general press release at the end that the Americans are clear that clearly demonstrate the world how far from the commitment,” said Nossal.

“This then provides an incentive for other members of the West to double to work with each other to answer questions that are no longer interested in Americans, for example, for example, climate change.”

If there is no longer any belief unanimously held among the G7 in shared responsibilities, this will put an even greater waves on nations which always believe in common.