Canada last week hosted the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting, skillfully managing the evolving dynamics of US foreign policy on key international issues, particularly Ukraine and Gaza. The diplomatic achievement is significant given that Canada navigated the complex landscape amid its own governmental transition.
Concerns were raised that shifting US positions and attitudes toward Canada might affect the meeting. Such concerns echoed past G20 summits, at which consensuses were hard to achieve. However, G7 meetings have traditionally been more consensual than confrontational. A failure to present a united front could have emboldened China and Russia to exploit divisions among Western allies.
Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Melanie Joly prioritized unity while facilitating rigorous discussions on contentious topics. Notably, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s participation raised questions about whether his positions accurately reflected those of the White House, highlighting concerns over potential US unilateralism.
A significant point of contention was the US’ approach to Ukraine. Washington sought to insulate its ongoing diplomatic efforts with Russia and Ukraine, conducted in Saudi Arabia, from broader G7 deliberations. Similarly, in the context of the Middle East, the US was cautious about allowing G7 discussions to interfere with its engagement with Israel and Arab states.
Another major divergence was the US’ reluctance to criticize Russia’s “shadow fleets,” used to circumvent sanctions by transporting energy to buyers. Ultimately, the issue was addressed in a separate statement on maritime security rather than in the main communique. Additionally, the US advocated for stronger language regarding China in the final G7 statement.
The G7 communique explicitly opposed any unilateral attempts to alter the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait through coercion, a stance that Taipei welcomed. A dedicated session on the Indo-Pacific region allowed ministers to exchange views on regional security and economic challenges.
Japan’s leadership in promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific” region received strong backing from the G7.
Beyond the Taiwan Strait, the G7 expressed concerns about North Korea’s nuclear and missile developments, as well as cyberwarfare and cryptocurrency-related challenges. A separate session on strategic cooperation examined North Korean troops joining Russia in the Ukraine conflict, illustrating the widening effect of Pyongyang’s actions beyond East Asia. The discussion underscored how its activities, traditionally a concern for Japan, pose broader threats, including to Europe, particularly given incidents of submarine cable sabotage and disinformation campaigns.
Canada’s initiative on maritime security was well received, reinforcing alignment among European, Canadian and Japanese perspectives. The G7 members unanimously supported the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, a notable stance given that the US is not a signatory.
The broader discussion on maritime security led to a dedicated G7 Foreign Ministers’ Declaration that underscored the link between international security, economic prosperity and sustainable marine resource use. The declaration made it clear that China’s actions challenge those priorities and must be addressed.
The final G7 communique dedicated seven of its 22 paragraphs to the Ukraine crisis. It notably identified China’s provision of weapons and dual-use components as enabling Russia’s war effort, highlighting the need to counteract its actions. Regarding the Middle East, four paragraphs addressed regional instability, emphasizing Iran’s role in exacerbating tensions and stressing the necessity of curbing its nuclear ambitions.
On the Indo-Pacific region, six paragraphs articulated serious concerns about the East and South China seas. The G7 opposed unilateral attempts to change the “status quo,” particularly by force or coercion. Specific criticism was directed at China Coast Guard maneuvers, and the use of water cannons against Philippine and Vietnamese vessels, tactics aimed at asserting control over key maritime routes.
The communique reaffirmed the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and rejected unilateral attempts to alter the “status quo” by force. Additionally, the G7 expressed support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations.
The G7 also voiced unease over China’s growing military capabilities, particularly its expanding nuclear arsenal. The statement called for Chinese engagement in strategic risk-reduction negotiations conducted transparently. It also highlighted concerns about China’s efforts to undermine democratic institutions, its nonmarket economic policies that distort global markets and its restrictive export control measures that threaten supply chain stability.
Despite these criticisms, the G7 asserted that its stance was not aimed at curbing China’s economic growth. The group maintained that a prosperous China, operating within international norms, aligns with global interests.
However, the G7’s latest position on China reflects a shift toward a more assertive approach, aligning closely with the Japan-US perspective. Unlike past statements, this one omitted reference to “one China” policies and earlier commitments to maintaining “constructive and stable relations with China.”
Compared with the G7 foreign ministers’ statement in November last year, the latest communique introduces a new focus on China’s nuclear buildup, while simultaneously omitting previous references to human rights violations in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong. Additionally, prior reassurances regarding non-decoupling and maintaining open economic ties with China were removed.
The G7’s evolving stance suggests a harder line on China, particularly in security matters. While some European members might prefer a more balanced approach due to economic dependencies, the overall trajectory reflects growing alignment with the tougher US-Japan position.
In response, China dismissed the G7 statement, saying it “ignores facts and China’s solemn position, grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs and blatantly smears China.” That reaction underscores the widening gap between China and the G7, particularly as Western allies adopt a more critical stance toward Beijing’s policies and international conduct.
Gurjit Singh is a former Indian ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, ASEAN, Ethiopia and the African Union.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS