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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS