 "How G7 has united against China")
Canada hosted the recent Group of Seven (G7) foreign ministers’ meeting, skilfully managing the evolving dynamics of US foreign policy on key international issues, particularly Ukraine and Gaza. This diplomatic achievement is even more significant given that Canada navigated this complex landscape amidst its own governmental transition at the time of the meeting.
Concerns were raised that shifting US positions and attitudes towards Canada, the host nation, might impact the success of the meeting. Such concerns echoed past G20 summits where consensus was 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 the Western bloc.
Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly prioritised 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 American 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 engagements involving Israel and Arab states.
Another major divergence was the US reluctance to criticise Russia’s “shadow fleets”, used to circumvent sanctions by transporting energy to buyers. Ultimately, this issue was addressed in a separate statement on maritime security rather than in the main communiqué. Additionally, the US advocated for stronger language regarding China in the final G7 statement.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsThe G7 communiqué explicitly opposed any unilateral attempts to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait through coercion, a stance likely to be welcomed by Taiwan. A dedicated session on the Indo-Pacific allowed ministers to exchange views on regional security and economic challenges. The G7 consensus now recognises the increasing interconnection between European and Indo-Pacific security. Japan’s leadership in promoting a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” received strong backing from the G7.
Beyond the Taiwan Strait, the G7 expressed concerns about North Korea’s nuclear and missile developments, cyber warfare, and cryptocurrency-related challenges. A separate session on strategic cooperation examined North Korean troops joining Russia in the Ukraine conflict, illustrating the widening impact of North Korea’s actions beyond East Asia. The discussion underscored how North Korea’s activities, traditionally a concern for Japan, now 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 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a notable stance given that the US itself is not a signatory.
The broader discussion on maritime security led to a dedicated G7 Foreign Ministers’ Declaration, which underscored the link between international security, economic prosperity, and sustainable marine resource use. The declaration made it clear that China’s actions challenge these priorities and must be addressed.
The final G7 communiqué 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 these actions. Regarding the Middle East, four paragraphs addressed regional instability, emphasising Iran’s role in exacerbating tensions and stressing the necessity of curbing its nuclear ambitions.
In the Indo-Pacific, 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 Chinese coast guard manoeuvres and the use of water cannons against Philippine and Vietnamese vessels, tactics aimed at asserting control over key maritime routes. The communiqué 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 organisations.
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. Furthermore, the G7 highlighted concerns about China’s efforts to undermine democratic institutions, its non-market 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 to the G7’s November 2024 foreign ministers’ statement, the latest communiqué 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.
Overall, the G7’s evolving stance suggests a harder line on China, particularly in security matters. While some European members may prefer a more balanced approach due to economic dependencies on China, the overall trajectory reflects growing alignment with the tougher US-Japan position.
In response, China dismissed the G7 statement, claiming it “ignores facts and China’s solemn position, grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs, and blatantly smears China”. This reaction underscores the widening gap between China and the G7, particularly as Western nations adopt a more critical stance towards Beijing’s policies and international conduct.
The author is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, ASEAN and the African Union. He tweets @AmbGurjitSingh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
