G-7 Summit Why It Still Matters Now

The annual gathering of the G-7, a coalition of wealthy democracies, feels increasingly anachronistic. Established in 1975 to coordinate economic policy, this year’s summit in Kananaskis, Canada, arrives at a moment of significant global upheaval, fueled by disruptive trade policies from the U.S. and a shifting balance of power. The absence of economic giants like China and India from the G-7’s membership underscores its outdated structure, a fact difficult to ignore as wealth and influence move eastward and southward.

Despite these criticisms, dismissing the G-7 entirely would be a mistake. Its value lies not in its representation of the current global order, but in its potential to shape a more stable future. The summit provides a crucial forum for leading democracies to engage in sustained dialogue, a necessity in an era where multilateral institutions like the U.N. and World Trade Organization are often paralyzed by geopolitical divisions. The G-7’s smaller, more informal nature allows for a level of frank conversation and consensus-building difficult to achieve in larger, more bureaucratic settings. It echoes the 19th-century Concert of Europe, a similarly ad-hoc group of major powers that maintained peace through consultation.

The rise of alternative groupings, like the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), highlights the growing fragmentation of global diplomacy. While the BRICS offer a counterweight to Western-dominated institutions, they also represent a different set of values and priorities. This division is concerning, particularly given the complex, interconnected challenges facing the world – climate change, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, and the rapidly evolving risks of artificial intelligence.

The G-20, with its broader representation, attempts to address this diversity, but its size often leads to watered-down outcomes. A more effective approach, in my view, lies in creating smaller, focused “concerts” dedicated to specific issues. Imagine dedicated groups tackling the war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, climate change, and the regulation of AI. These groups should include both democracies and non-democracies, bridging ideological divides and fostering cooperation.

These bespoke groupings wouldn’t replace existing institutions, but rather supplement them, providing a space for sustained dialogue and paving the way for concrete action in more formal settings. The G-7 summit should serve as a model for this approach.

This year, Ukraine and trade are expected to dominate the agenda. A key objective will be to persuade the U.S. to maintain economic pressure on Russia and provide further support to Ukraine. A meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump could be pivotal in setting the stage for a successful NATO summit focused on defense spending.

The looming expiration of a 90-day pause on U.S. tariffs presents another critical challenge. G-7 members, collectively representing over half of global GDP, must convince the U.S. to step back from a potentially damaging trade war.

The world is at a precarious moment, with the demand for global governance exceeding its supply. While the U.N. and other institutions remain vital, they are insufficient on their own. A network of focused “concerts,” like the G-7, is needed to facilitate compromise, cooperation, and collective action. The hope is that this summit will not only address immediate crises but also lay the groundwork for a more effective and collaborative approach to global challenges.