After Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Donald Trump met one by one for 30 minutes on Monday morning, but before their respective teams joined to continue the discussion, the two leaders invited reporters and television cameras to a meeting room in Kananaskis, Alta. to witness them by exchanging formal jokes.
Carney opened the president of a latest birthday and then noticed the 250th anniversary of the United States Army (the reason for Trump military parade in Washington last weekend). The prime minister then gave the fact that this was the 50th anniversary of these meetings of the leaders of the most powerful democracies in the world.
“And the G7 is nothing without the leadership of the United States, its personal leadership, the leadership of the United States,” said Carney.
To be fair, Carney also told German Foreign Minister Friedrich Merz that “we would not be anywhere without Germany and without you personally” and said that French president Emmanuel Macron, the current dean of the G7 leaders, offered “essential” leadership. But perhaps, given the context, this suggestion to Trump resonates differently.
At a level, this undoubtedly flattered the president, personally. Perhaps it could even be read as a plea for the United States to remain committed and ally with the nations of the G7.
On another level, it could be read as a simple statement of the obvious: about the central and historical importance of the United States for G7, on the US influence on a body that operates in consensus or on the simple mathematical reality that G7 without the United States would be the G6.
On a higher level, Carney’s comments could have spoken with the central tension of this week’s meetings in Kananaskis and the bigger questions about the utility and future of G7 In a world where Trump is president of the United States.
At a different level, there is also the question of whether the United States still wants to lead, or in what direction and how.
You could say that something or all this was hung during the two days of the meetings that Carney presided in Alberta, two days that highlighted both the potential value and the real tensions of a group that at least managed to spend its 50th meeting without falling apart.
In fact, moments after Carney’s initial comments, the challenge of finding consensus was made aloud when Trump, without prevention, began to regret (again) that Russia was expelled what had been the G8 in 2014. When a journalist asked him if he should also be invited to China, Trump agreed.
Carney, who appeared more and more anxious to continue with the rest of his meeting with the president, finally took a step forward and encouraged journalists to be on their way.
Despite the shadow issued by the early departure of US President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Mark Carney advanced with his G7 goals, but did he get everything he wanted? The National breakdown the great moments of the summit and what the interest of the United States means for the G7 in the future.
At that time, the 50th group of the group of seven was still an hour or so from the official beginning, shortly after completing its meeting with Trump, Carney would leave to welcome each leader to the summit.
“We are gathering in one of those inflection points in history. A turning point where the world seeks leadership at this table,” said Carney, maybe a little luckily, when the leaders gathered around a circular table inside to begin their formal conversations. “We may not agree on absolutely all problems, but where we will cooperate, we will make a huge difference, for our citizens and for the world.”
Approximately 12 hours later, Trump left by helicopter, supplying that he needed to return to Washington urgently to treat the Israel-Iran conflict.
Where G7 leaders agree and disagree
The early departure of the president of Kananaskis recalled his early departure from Charlevoix in 2018 and, therefore, could suggest something about Trump’s interest in these forums. But before leaving, he still claimed to have enjoyed this time.
“I tell you, I loved it,” Trump told reporters in the family photo of G7. “And I think we did a lot.”
As foreseed by Canadian officials last week, the Kananaskis Summit did not produce the type of expansive joint communication, a formal expression of the shared opinions of the G7 and the desired actions, which generally follows this type of international consideration. On the other hand, the summit ended with narrower statements about artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, migrant smuggling, transnational repression, critical minerals and response to forest fires.
Limiting the desired results to those issues probably prevented a more bitter summit. But the differences were still impossible for paper completely.
Canada promised $ 4.3 billion in support of Ukraine and added sanctions to Russia, since the G7 summit wrapped in Alberta. Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the last day of the summit.
The leaders finally agreed to issue a statement on the situation with Israel and Iran, but according to the reports of the Washington Post and the Guardian References to “restriction” and a high fire were eliminated at the request of US officials. And Trump then He attacked Macron on social networks on Monday night After Macron suggested that Trump could press for a high fire.
Official Comments on Ukraine may or may not have found a difference of opinion. But after repeated questions from journalists at his final press conference, Carney acknowledged that “there would be things that some of us, including Canada, would say beyond what was said in the chair summary.”
And although the leaders agreed on the threat of forest fires, the text of their agreement does not explicitly refer to “climate change.”
What was it in the room like?
“In recent days,” Carney reported Tuesday night, “Canada has worked with our G7 partners to determine where we can cooperate, develop lasting resilience and prosperity.”
That this G7 summit reached a conclusion without a great fight will probably be seen as a successful brand. Carney seemed comfortable in the president’s seat, at least during the few moments that were transmitted publicly. And tangible progress may ultimately flow on what leaders agreed, however, the paper production of this summit may have left something to be desired.
That strains and limitations are still evident will undoubtedly continue asking questions about the exact nature of the future of G7.
But after the time for the questions of the journalists on Tuesday he had expired, Carney decided to ask a question for himself that no one had done: “What was it in the room?” And when answering his own question, he offered an implicit defense of the institution based on the value of the dialogue (he says he echoes that a former official of the United States Department of State Recently made to CBC News).
In his final comments at the G7 press conference, Prime Minister Carney offered a personal reflection on the summit, telling journalists that discussions in the last two days were marked by a variety of different opinions, Franco conversations and strategic exchanges.
“The advantage of, particularly, the G7 is that there are only nine people in the room,” said Carney (G7 meetings generally include the presidents of the European Council and the European Commission). “And there is a lot of direct dialogue and discussion. Very frank exchanges, very strategic exchanges. Differences of opinion on a series of topics. But of an effort to find solutions common to some of these problems.”
These exchanges, said Carney, are very important to build relationships and trust. “At a time when multilateralism is under great tension … that we get together, that we agree several areas … That is important, that is valuable.”
As much as the world has changed and whatever the state of American leadership, the members of the G7, including the United States, apparently see the value in the meeting around the G7 table.
