After Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Donald Trump met one-on-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 into a meeting room in Kananaskis, Alta. to witness them exchanging formal pleasantries.
Carney opened by wishing the president a happy belated birthday and then noted the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army (the reason for Trump’s military parade in Washington this past weekend). The prime minister then segued to the fact this was the 50th anniversary of these meetings of the leaders of the world’s most powerful democracies.
“And the G7 is nothing without U.S. leadership, your personal leadership, leadership of the U.S.,” Carney said.
In fairness, Carney also told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that “we’d be nowhere without Germany and without you personally” and he 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.
On one level, this no doubt flattered the president, personally. Perhaps it could even be read as an entreaty for the United States to remain engaged and allied with the nations of the G7.
On another level, it might read as a simple statement of the obvious — about the central, historic importance of the United States to the G7, about American influence over a body that operates on consensus or about the simple mathematical reality that the G7 without the United States would be the G6.
On a higher level, Carney’s comments might have spoken to the central tension of this week’s meetings in Kananaskis and the larger questions about the G7’s utility and future in a world where Trump is president of the United States.
On a different level, there is also the question of whether the United States still wants to lead — or in what direction and in what ways.
Some or all of this might be said to have hung over the two days of meetings that Carney chaired in Alberta — two days that highlighted both the potential value and the real strains of a grouping that at least made it through its 50th meeting without falling apart.
Indeed, moments after Carney’s opening comments, the challenge of finding consensus became loudly apparent when Trump, unprompted, began to lament (again) that Russia was expelled from what had been the G8 in 2014. When a reporter asked him whether China should also be invited, Trump agreed.
Carney, appearing increasingly eager to get on with the rest of his meeting with the president, finally stepped forward and encouraged reporters to be on their way.
What Carney achieved at the G7 after Trump left
At that point, the 50th meeting of the Group of Seven was still an hour or so away from officially beginning — shortly after concluding his meeting with Trump, Carney would go outside to officially welcome each leader to the summit.
“We’re gathering at one of those turning points in history. A turning point where the world looks to this table for leadership,” Carney said, perhaps a little hopefully, when the leaders gathered around a circular table inside to begin their formal talks. “We might not agree on absolutely every issue, but where we will cooperate, we will make an enormous difference, for our citizens and for the world.”
Approximately 12 hours later, Trump departed by helicopter, pleading that he needed to return to Washington urgently to deal with the Israel-Iran conflict.
The president’s early exit from Kananaskis recalled his early departure from Charlevoix in 2018 and thus might suggest something about Trump’s interest in these forums. But before he left he still claimed to have enjoyed himself this time.
“I tell you, I loved it,” Trump told reporters at the G7’s family photo. “And I think we got a lot done.”
As foreshadowed by Canadian officials last week, the Kananaskis summit did not produce the sort of expansive joint communique — a formal expression of the G7’s shared views and desired actions — that typically follows these kinds of international confabs. Instead, the summit ended with narrower statements on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, migrant smuggling, transnational repression, critical minerals and responding to wildfires.
Limiting the desired results to those topics likely prevented a more acrimonious summit. But the differences were still impossible to completely paper over.
Carney pledges support for Ukraine to wrap G7
The leaders did ultimately agree to issue a statement on the situation with Israel and Iran, but according to reporting by the Washington Post and the Guardian references to “restraint” and a ceasefire were removed at the behest of American officials. And Trump then attacked Macron on social media on Monday night after Macron suggested Trump might push for a ceasefire.
Official comments on Ukraine may or may not have run into some difference of opinion. But after repeated questions from reporters at his closing news conference, Carney acknowledged that “there would be things that some of us, Canada included, would say above and beyond what was said in the chair’s summary.”
And while the leaders did agree about the threat of wildfires, the text of their agreement does not explicitly refer to “climate change.”
“Over the past few days,” Carney reported on Tuesday evening, “Canada has worked with our G7 partners to determine where we can cooperate, build resilience and lasting prosperity.”
That this G7 summit came to a conclusion without a major falling-out will likely be viewed as a mark of success. Carney seemed comfortable in the chairman’s seat — at least during the few moments that were broadcast publicly. And tangible progress may ultimately flow from what the leaders agreed to, however much the paper output of this summit may have left something to be desired.
That the strains and limitations are still apparent will no doubt continue to raise questions about the exact nature of the G7’s future.
But after the time for questions from reporters on Tuesday had expired, Carney decided to pose a question to himself that no one had asked: “What was it like in the room?” And in answering his own question, he offered an implicit defence of the institution based on the value of dialogue (echoing comments that a former U.S. State Department official recently made to CBC News).
Carney addresses the room where it happens
“The advantage of, particularly, the G7 is that there are only, oddly, nine people in the room,” Carney said (meetings of the G7 typically include the presidents of the European Council and European Commission). “And there is a great amount of direct dialogue and discussion. Very frank exchanges, very strategic exchanges. Differences of opinion on a number of issues. But from an effort to find common solutions to some of these problems.”
These exchanges, Carney said, are very important for building relationships and trust. “At a time when multilateralism is under great strain … that we got together, that we agreed on a number of areas … that’s important, that’s valuable.”
However much the world has changed and whatever the state of American leadership, the members of the G7, including the United States, apparently still see value in gathering around the G7’s table.
