It’s tempting to dismiss the G-7, a group of affluent democracies designed to coordinate global trade and economic policy. The summit—taking place June 15-17 in Kananaskis, Canada—occurs as U.S. President Donald Trump is disrupting the global economy with tariffs and suggesting annexing the host nation as America’s “51st state.”
The G-7 also appears outdated. Established fifty years ago for the world’s largest economies, it now excludes major players like China and India. The G-7 has failed to adapt to the shifting global distribution of wealth and power from West to East and North to South.
Despite this, the upcoming G-7 summit remains a valuable diplomatic opportunity. Primarily, it unites many of the world’s leading democracies. If the liberal, rules-based international order is to endure, these advanced democracies must take a leading role. While Trump seems intent on dismantling this order, the summit offers allies a chance to dissuade him or minimize the damage.
Secondly, the G-7’s small and informal nature facilitates sustained dialogue and consensus-building. In many ways, the G-7 echoes the 19th-century Concert of Europe, a group of major powers without formal rules that preserved peace through consultation and coordination.
With geopolitical divisions hindering larger bodies like the U.N. and WTO, small, informal groups are becoming preferred diplomatic tools. Although several other countries—including , , and —will attend as guests, the format allows for intimate and productive discussions. In terms of achieving results, smaller is better.
The wealthiest democracies aren’t alone in using bespoke and informal groupings for diplomacy. China and Russia have actively formed steering groups like the , to counter the G-7 and other Western-dominated bodies. The BRICS group includes both autocracies like China and Russia, as well as developing democracies like Brazil, India, and South Africa.
The G-7 and BRICS regard each other with suspicion, dividing major powers into competing camps. This division poses a significant problem in an interdependent world facing shared challenges such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, and the threats of AI. The G-20—encompassing democracies, autocracies, developed, and developing economies—offers the necessary diversity. However, its size and formality lead only to bland statements.
So, what’s next?
The solution lies in more tailored groups like the G-7, focused on specific challenges. One group could address the war in Ukraine, another the Middle East conflict, a third climate change, and a fourth the growing risks of unregulated AI. These groups should include both democracies and non-democracies, bridging ideological and geopolitical divides.
These bespoke groups wouldn’t replace the U.N. and other international bodies. Instead, they’d support them by fostering sustained dialogue difficult to achieve in large institutions. They’d also prepare decisions for implementation in more formal settings.
The G-7 summit should strive to fulfill precisely this function. Top agenda items include Ukraine and trade. If Trump aims to end the war in Ukraine, he must confront Vladimir Putin with stronger sanctions and increased arms for Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelensky is with Trump in Kananaskis, a meeting that could set the stage for a successful NATO summit in The Hague later this month, where is the main topic.
Regarding trade, the world is . A 90-day pause on Trump’s broad “reciprocal” tariffs ends on July 8, and some are reportedly still engaged in trade negotiations. The summit provides G-7 members—representing over half of global GDP—an opportunity to urge Trump to step back from drastic measures.
The world faces a critical moment as the need for global governance surpasses its availability. The U.N. and existing institutions are vital, but insufficient alone. They require complementary groups aimed at facilitating compromise, cooperation, and collective action.
The G7 is one such group. Hopefully, more will follow.
“`
