What's not being discussed at G7 as Trump shapes agenda

KANANASKIS - Gender equality, climate change, biodiversity, poverty, health, gay rights and more -- the list of issues missing at the Canada G7 from past summits is long.
The G7 gathering has been carefully planned to ensure US President Donald Trump agreed to attend at all and Canada is keen to avoid a public dust-up.
Official agenda items are the global economic outlook and energy security, with organisers naming priorities as critical mineral supply chains and AI adoption, as well as "international peace and security."
Last year's Group of Seven summit in Italy, when Joe Biden was US president, ended with a joint declaration promising better ties with Africa, action on poverty, and determination to tackle "the triple crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss."
Such subjects are almost totally absent at the G7 talks this year in order to placate Trump, said John Kirton of the G7 Research Group at the University of Toronto.
"There's no point in putting them on the agenda if the Americans will just refuse to discuss them. And if you put too many of them on, Trump wouldn't even come," he said.
Kirton added that the schedule was also crowded out by crises from Ukraine to the Middle East, with G7 nations increasingly concerned with defense spending rather than development aid.
For the G7 -- founded 50 years ago by the world's leading economies at the time -- such a lurch in priorities poses major questions about the club's purpose and future.
But, for the Trump administration, the group is just returning to its original function of promoting global economic stability and growth.
"Canada knows its audience and if it wants a unified outcome of this year's G7 leaders summit then it should stick close to traditional G7 values while avoiding controversial topics," said Caitlin Welsh of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
- 'Retreat' from world problems -
The impact on the ground has alarmed many campaigners who say the G7 reduction of foreign aid is hitting millions of world's poorest, threatening food supplies, water, education and health.
"The G7's retreat from the world is unprecedented and couldn't come at a worse time," said Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar.
'Rather than breaking from the Trump administration's cruel dismantling of USAID and other US foreign assistance, G7 countries like the UK, Germany and France are instead following the same path."
Oxfam calculated that G7 nations, which provide three-quarters of all official development assistance, are cutting aid by 28 percent between 2024 and 2026.
No joint communique is expected at the end of the summit on Tuesday to avoid the potential failure for all members to agree on the text.
But there is one way that the non-US members of the G7 are fighting back -- discreetly.
An unexpected item on the agenda is to "boost collaboration to prevent, fight and recover from wildfires."
The wildfire issue "allows us to talk about climate change without saying it directly because we know that unfortunately not everyone likes it," a Canadian official speaking anonymously told AFP.
Both Canada and the United States are increasingly affected by major forest fires -- worsened by climate change -- including blazes that burned down swathes of Los Angeles earlier this year.
Professor Kirton said the wildfire's agenda tactic was "clever rather than sneaky."
"They saw wildfires as a point of entry, and one that would work with Donald Trump."
Kirton highlighted that wildfires are currently causing damage across the US states of North and South Carolina, both Trump heartlands.
"That's getting into his MAGA base," he said.
by Ben Sheppard

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Maverick

26 minutes ago

• Daily Maverick

UN Security Council meets on Iran as Russia, China push for a ceasefire

'The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States marks a perilous turn,' U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council on Sunday. 'We must act – immediately and decisively – to halt the fighting and return to serious, sustained negotiations on the Iran nuclear programme.' The world awaited Iran's response on Sunday after President Donald Trump said the U.S. had 'obliterated' Tehran's key nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution. Russia and China condemned the U.S. strikes. 'Peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved by the use of force,' said China's U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong. 'Diplomatic means to address the Iranian nuclear issue haven't been exhausted, and there's still hope for a peaceful solution.' But acting U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Dorothy Shea told the council the time had come for Washington to act decisively, urging the Security Council to call upon Iran to end its effort to eradicate Israel and terminate its drive for nuclear weapons. 'Iran long obfuscated its nuclear weapons program and stonewalled our good-faith efforts in recent negotiations,' she said. 'The Iranian regime cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia recalled former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell making the case at the U.N. Security Council in 2003 that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent danger to the world because of the country's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. 'Again we're being asked to believe the U.S.'s fairy tales, to once again inflict suffering on millions of people living in the Middle East. This cements our conviction that history has taught our U.S. colleagues nothing,' he said. COST OF INACTION 'CATASTROPHIC' Iran requested the U.N. Security Council meeting on Sunday. Iran's U.N. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani accused Israel and the U.S. of destroying diplomacy, said all U.S. allegations are unfounded and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty 'has been manipulated into a political weapon.' 'Instead of guaranteeing parties' legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear energy, it has been exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action that jeopardize the supreme interests of my country,' Iravani told the council. Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon praised the U.S. for taking action against Iran, saying: 'This is what the last line of defense looks like when every other line has failed.' He accused Iran of using negotiations over its nuclear programme as camouflage to buy time to build missiles and enrich uranium. 'The cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence just as much for you as it would have been for us,' he told the council. It was not immediately clear when the council could vote on the draft resolution. Russia, China and Pakistan have asked council members to share their comments by Monday evening. A resolution needs at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the U.S., France, Britain, Russia or China to pass. The U.S. is likely to oppose the draft resolution, seen by Reuters, which also condemns attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and facilities. The text does not name the United States or Israel. 'Military action alone cannot bring a durable solution to concerns about Iran's nuclear program,' Britain's U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward told the council. 'We urge Iran now to show restraint, and we urge all parties to return to the negotiating table and find a diplomatic solution which stops further escalation and brings this crisis to an end.' U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said that while craters were visible at Iran's enrichment site buried into a mountain at Fordow, 'no one – including the IAEA – is in a position to assess the underground damage.' Grossi told the Security Council that entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit at Iran's sprawling Isfahan nuclear complex, while the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz has been struck again. 'Iran has informed the IAEA there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels at all three sites,' said Grossi, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Citizen

33 minutes ago

• The Citizen

SA can't go rogue any longer

SA needs to forsake revolutionary affiliations and reset its relations with the Western democracies. South Africa's solidarity with a ragbag of international terror organisations and rogue states in the Middle East is not returning the benefits the ANC hoped for. Instead of this alliance of outlaws being the next big thing in geopolitics, it's imploding. Over the past 20 months, the Iranian orchestrated 'axis of resistance' – Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria and the Houthi in Yemen – that for decades kept the region ablaze in pursuit of wiping Israel from the face of the earth, has been virtually obliterated. Now it is Iran's turn. Over the course of just a week, Israel has reduced Iran's feared military, terror and repressive apparatus to ruins. The Jewish state has control of Iranian skies, has subverted the banking system and has been so successful at assassinating Iran's military and nuclear leadership elite that cadre promotion, rather than being coveted, is now a death sentence. The regime held a single negotiating card. Its most important nuclear enrichment plant, at the mountain redoubt of Fordow, appeared untouchable. That was literally trumped when the US president on Saturday dropped bunker-busting bombs on three Iranian nuclear installations. ALSO READ: US joins Israel-Iran conflict with overnight bombing campaign It's a dangerous escalation. But, then again, Trump has never seen a bandwagon that he doesn't yearn to take charge of. Following Trump's decision, the latest Middle East developments will worsen SA's already fraught diplomatic relationship with the US. When President Cyril Ramaphosa attended the G7 summit in Canada, the meeting he had announced with Trump did not materialise. Whether this was a calculated snub by Trump or, as the SA delegation insists, simply because of his early departure to deal with the conflict in Iran, remains to be seen. It is nevertheless curious that not a word was exchanged between the two men, especially given the expectations raised by what Ramaphosa had hailed as a triumphant visit to the White House. ALSO READ: Did the US strikes succeed, and how will Iran respond? The G7 summit shows how fringe our Middle East foreign policy has become. In spite of waning support by some member countries for Israel's actions in Gaza, especially from some EU countries, the summit's position on the Israel-Iran conflict was remarkably unambiguous. 'Israel,' the G7 statement read, 'has the right to defend itself and we reiterate our support for the security of Israel. Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror and it must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.' This is at odds with SA's stance. It is with Iran itself that SA has developed the warmest relationship. SA facilitated Iran's entry into Brics. There have been inter-ministerial engagements to strengthen political, economic and cultural cooperation. They worked together on SA's International Court of Justice case accusing Israel of genocide and there are claims, as yet unproven, that Iran rewarded the ANC by bailing it out with a few hundred million rands when the party almost went bankrupt last year. All this put SA on a conflict course with the US. SA's response to Trump's order cutting off aid has been to fixate on concerns regarding land seizures and race-based discrimination. It has ignored US displeasure over 'egregious actions' in the international arena. As the order puts it, 'South Africa has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide.' The ANC has been unwilling to address these issues. Serendipitously for SA's long-term interests, the linchpin around which the 'axis of resistance' turned is on course to being neutralised by Israel. This will reshape the Middle East and afford SA an opportunity the ANC must seize – forsake revolutionary affiliations and reset relations with the Western democracies. NOW READ: Apartheid then, apartheid now: Israel's aggression is no different

The Citizen

an hour ago

• The Citizen

Assault on Iran signals ‘oil crisis'

The US's strike in Iran could lead to increased transport charges and hiked fuel costs. Israeli security forces and first responders gather at the site of an Iranian strike that hit a residential neighbourhood in the Ramat Aviv area in Tel Aviv on June 22, 2025. AHMAD GHARABLI / AFP The last time there was a crisis this serious in the Middle East, during the Arab-Israel war of 1973, the rest of the world suffered in what is now called the 'oil crisis', as Arab oil producers reduced supplies and petrol stations everywhere ran out of fuel. In South Africa, that manifested as draconian restrictions, including a ban on fuel sales after hours and over weekends, as well as a reduction in the national speed limit from 120km/h to 80km/h to conserve fuel. When US President Donald Trump ordered the B-2 bombers to destroy Iran's supposed nuclear weapon development facilities, he set the world on what might well be a similar trajectory to 1973. This time, even if the Arab oil producers don't announce an embargo, Iran may forcibly close the Strait of Hormuz, through which most oil flows… or the Houthi rebels in Yemen may resume attacks on merchant shipping and US Navy vessels in and around the Red Sea. Those actions will have knock-on effects in increased transport charges and hiked fuel costs, which will, again, be felt around the world. Worryingly, too, Russian Deputy President Dmitri Lebedev said 'a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads'. That would ratchet tensions up to a shade less than World War III in the minds of many people. It also seems that despite the ongoing Israeli assault on Iran, Tehran is far from finished… and if you doubt that, look at the damage being visited on Israel. How long the Israeli population, concentrated as it is in a very small area compared to the size of Iran, will be able to tolerate the situation, remains to be seen. Finally, will the US bombs bring the Iranians to the negotiating table – or will they harden their resolve to fight on? NOW READ: Did the US strikes succeed, and how will Iran respond?