&w=3840&q=100)
A fractured G7 and India's strategic turn
'In an uncertain world, partnership is our strength and cooperation our compass.' Prime Minister Narendra Modi's words at the 2025 G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, did not merely reflect India's aspirations; they underlined the strategic paradox at the heart of the gathering—a summit that showcased a world short on coordination, conviction, and coherence. It seemed to reflect that those powers that matter are transfixed by the geopolitical gyrations—especially of the last six months—into relative inaction.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
What should have been a moment of democratic resolve against converging crises—war, climate, poverty, debt, terror, and technological disruption—instead revealed a G7 priding itself on being the directorate of the world and flag-bearer of the Western liberal order, grappling with internal dissonance and shrinking geopolitical heft and strategic will for development cooperation with the Global South.
The absence of a joint communiqué—the first since 2018—was no procedural glitch but a symptom of deeper dysfunction. The contrast with 2024 was stark. That year's summit in Italy had produced real global public good outcomes: a $70 billion World Bank financing commitment, forward momentum on IMF quota reform, and concrete pledges on climate finance and debt relief. In Kananaskis, however, the grand table remained undecorated by such policy fruit. Despite the physical presence of the heads of the IMF, the World Bank, and the UN, there was no progress on Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)-related support, debt relief for developing countries' unsustainable $29 trillion public debt, climate finance, and technology.
The only watered-down reference to global solidarity on these issues was a discussion the G7 had on the importance of building coalitions of partners—including the private sector, development finance institutions, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)—to drive inclusive economic growth and sustainable development. There was no reference to the SDGs themselves or to developing countries, no fresh financial pledges for energy transition, no reaffirmation of the $100 billion climate finance goal, no follow-up on the Bridgetown Initiative on debt relief, and no joint plan on green tech partnerships with the Global South.
The silence reflected the uncomfortable reality of the US—having withdrawn from the Paris Climate Treaty, cut aid, and even resisted sustainable development language in UN forums. With Europe distracted by inflation and war-related instability, the tariff battles and 'bilateral deals' eroding the WTO-led multilateral trading system, and Japan caught in alliance dilemmas, the G7's normative project on the Western liberal order—on climate, equity, and solidarity with the Global South—is visibly fraying.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Meanwhile, the ongoing UN Financing for Development Summit in Seville—also referenced in the G7 Summit—spotlighted a US-led funding and aid retreat by the West, including the stunning cutoff of US contributions to the UN budget—a consequential 25 per cent share. The widening SDGs financing gap of $4 trillion per year threatens the entire sustainable development project for humanity.
In sidelining these issues, the G7 not only ignored a majority of the world's population—it neglected the very engines of future growth and resilience. When those most vulnerable to climate shocks, food crises, and debt spirals are excluded, talk of global leadership rings hollow. Multilateralism, once the G7's shared project, is losing its breath.
It wasn't just the chequebook that was missing—it was vision. The G7, once seen as the self-styled conductor and animator of the multilateral system anchored in the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO, increasingly resembles an orchestra rehearsing without a score: the institutions remain, the instruments are not tuned, and harmony is absent. This does not bode well for the G20—a counterpart that includes the 10 strongest developing economies—especially after the high of India's historic presidency.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Divergences appeared on Russia. In 2024, the G7 had presented a unified front—reinforcing sanctions, vowing long-term support to Ukraine to fight on 'as long as it takes,' and positioning Russia as the primary threat to peace and security in Europe and a disruptor of international order. This year, however, US President Donald Trump's assertion that Russia's expulsion in 2014 had been a 'mistake' signalled a change of tack.
The Chair's Summary supported Trump's efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, noted Ukraine's willingness for a ceasefire, and called on Russia to do the same—possibly reflecting a pragmatic softening of position among European powers towards ending the war. The only concession was that sanctions against Russia should be used to bring it to the negotiating table.
But the US narrative, now coloured by President Trump's America First predilections and a focus on transactional diplomacy, underscored the deepening trust deficit in the Western alliance, as the subsequent NATO summit also indicated. President Trump's abrupt and premature departure from the summit—to address the Iran–Israel escalation without consulting allies—was a symptom.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In all of this, China—the authoritarian challenger to the G7 and its Western liberal order—emerged as the antipodal geopolitical and economic gainer. In contrast to the 2024 G7 Communiqué, which contained 28 direct and indirect 'frenemical' references to China—accusing it of economic coercion, cyber aggression, support to Russia's war machine, and human rights violations in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong, including explicit legal invocations of the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific—the 2025 summit retreated into euphemism and strategic ambiguity.
Combatting China's weaponisation of economic interdependence, its export controls, forced tech transfers, and cyber-enabled interference was now couched as a clarion call for Western collective capacity-building defensive frameworks—signalling concern without escalation. Also, the seeming retreat from global development cooperation and multilateralism seemed to vacate the space for China to occupy.
In 2025, the Chair's Summary reaffirmed commitment to a 'free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific' and explicitly named China for destabilising actions in the East and South China Seas and stressed the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Yet, without a full communiqué, the framing was more symbolic than strategic, reflecting continuity in posture but caution in pressure.
The competition-cum-threat perception about China was specifically evident in three of the six most action-oriented, G7 leaders' joint statements—on the Critical Minerals Action Plan, Transnational Repression, and the Kananaskis Common Vision for the Future of Quantum Technologies. The first signalled G7 action beyond rhetoric, in response to China's near-monopoly on rare earth elements and its recent export curbs causing price spikes and global supply chain disruptions. India formally endorsed the Action Plan, along with Australia and South Korea, positioning itself not merely as a stakeholder but as a co-author of the emerging mineral security order, opening avenues for standard-setting, technology sharing, and investment partnerships.
The Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Prosperity joint statement reaffirmed the G7's commitment to human-centric, secure, and trustworthy AI, introducing initiatives like the G7 GovAI Grand Challenge, the GAIN network, and a comprehensive AI Adoption Roadmap—including measures to accelerate AI adoption in the public sector and among SMEs. However, the omission of any framework for frontier AI regulation or safety standards was conspicuous—especially given the G7's own Hiroshima AI Process. The pivot appears to be from shared global governance—which the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025 had set out in a Declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI—to a laissez-faire approach favoured by the US and UK. India, with its robust AI programs and ambitious plans, will no doubt continue to engage with these initiatives.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
On quantum technologies, the G7 called for a 'trusted ecosystem' for open and secure innovation—a framing that subtly reflects awareness of China's accelerating capabilities in the field. While not explicitly exclusionary, the repeated emphasis on collaboration among like-minded partners and protection of sensitive technologies signalled a preference for tighter convergence within existing alliances—which India could join.
The 2025 G7 Leaders' Statement on Transnational Repression marks a significant shift—outlining concrete tactics like spyware-enabled surveillance, forced returns, and diaspora intimidation, and signalling a coordinated pushback against authoritarian overreach. It builds on the 2024 framing, where the G7 had grouped transnational repression under Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI)—alongside 'malicious cyber activities'—with 'indirect but unmistakable references to China, including mentions of economic coercion and support to Russia's war effort'. This year, however, no country is named. The language is more operational but also more cautious—retreating from last year's sharper references. Still, the behaviours described remain clearly recognisable, and the targets evident.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The G7 Leaders' Statement on Countering Migrant Smuggling, vowing to 'dismantle transnational organised crime networks,' reflected growing hardline anti-immigration policies aggressively espoused by the US and now echoed in parts of Europe. These will have implications for Indians emigrating to these countries.
Amidst these fractures, India's participation as a 'guest' became a means to thaw its relations with Canada and share its perspectives. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called India 'an essential actor in global governance and sustainable development', positioning it not just as an emerging partner but as a systemic player.
India used this strategic space with finesse. Its support for traceable, ethical critical mineral supply chains, responsible AI governance, and Global South development priorities marked a shift from transactional engagement to agenda-setting. In many ways, India stepped into the leadership void—not by dominating, but by convincingly articulating.
India also recalibrated the security discourse. In the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, PM Modi advanced a broader framing: cross-border terrorism as part of a hybrid threat ecosystem, alongside cyberwarfare, spyware, and foreign information manipulation—which was also on the radar of the G7. While the G7's declarations avoided specifically focusing on terrorism, the threat's scope—from the US to Europe—made this omission glaring.
India's choice of strategic multi-alignment and its agility to interact with and within organisations like the G7, G20, and Brics—while engaging bilaterally with strategic partners in the G7—must remain central. We must continue to engage with G7 initiatives, which may become important platforms to build on our path towards Viksit Bharat. This, of course, must be done while engaging and cooperating wherever and whenever it serves our interest and advances our security and development objectives.
India's presence at Kananaskis offered a rare note of strategic clarity. While the G7 grappled with internal discord and diminishing purpose, PM Modi's emphasis on inclusive development, Global South priorities, and equitable energy transitions gave the summit a broader relevance. In a gathering that risked becoming a ritual without resonance, India's conduct lent meaning to the very cooperation others invoked rhetorically. As the multilateral and plurilateral grammar of international institutions evolves, India is not merely navigating the space between blocs—it is helping to reshape the script.
Whether the G7 chooses to follow remains uncertain.
The author is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and Deputy Executive Director of UN Women and a former Ambassador of India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View: For India, is BRICS worth it?
The 2025 BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ended over the weekend with a wide-ranging declaration on global and regional issues. But few outside the hapless desk officers in various foreign offices around the world and policy wonks in think tanks would want to pore over the 126-paragraph, 47-page, over-16,000-word declaration. With such familiar phrases as 'multipolar world', 'Global South', 'inclusive', 'sustainable' and 'global governance', it will certainly impress the enthusiasts who see BRICS as a powerful instrument to upend the global order. Many in the West do fear BRICS for the same reason. There is no reason to believe that US President Donald Trump would have had the time to read the long declaration, but he has repeated his earlier claim that BRICS is 'anti-American' and threatened to impose additional tariffs on members of the forum. But the hopes and fears of BRICS engineering a global transformation are misplaced. For, the forum is riddled with several contradictions of its own and its grasp has always been larger than its reach. As irony would have it, if anyone is trying to build a 'post-American order', it is Trump. In less than six months, he has overturned many traditional assumptions about US global policies and is seeking to radically overhaul the international system that Washington built after World War II and that was modified by it at the turn of the 1990s. Consider, for example, the BRICS talk about reforming the Bretton Woods system; Trump is doing precisely that by pressing for change at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The BRICS call to save the World Trade Organisation is a sad (and hypocritical) cry in the wilderness with Trump well on his way to demolishing the rule-maker for world commerce. Even more damaging is that leading members of BRICS have been queuing up in Washington to negotiate bilateral deals with Trump holding a gun to their heads. They are not saving the WTO but protecting their own national trade with America by looking for bilateral deals. China has cut a limited deal. Vietnam, another communist country, announced a trade deal of its own. India hopes that its intensive trade negotiations with Trump's Washington in the past few months will bear fruit this week. Equally far-fetched is the idea that members of BRICS can submerge their bilateral differences to collectively blunt American dominance. For India, the economic and security challenges presented by China are much bigger than those posed by American hegemony. Two BRICS states — Saudi Arabia and the UAE — are as worried as Israel and the US about the nuclear weapons programme of a third member, Iran. But here is the rub. Trump's actions to overhaul the global economic, financial, and security order have produced great global churn. The Rio declaration has no answers, only hot air, in response to the Trump challenge. The circumstances that persuaded India to found BRICS and promote it for three decades are no longer present. Yet the political groupthink in Delhi is so entrenched that no questions are asked about the virtue of India investing so much political and diplomatic capital in a forum that does little to serve the country's current interests. With India taking over the chair of BRICS, the time to ask those questions is now.


Hans India
17 minutes ago
- Hans India
China fumes as Modi greets Dalai Lama on his birthday
Beijing: China on Monday objected to Prime Minister Narendra Modi wishing the Dalai Lama on his 90th birthday and to Indian ministers flocking to his residence in Dharamshala for celebrations, reiterating Beijing's stance on matters concerning Tibet. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters that the country's position on Tibet is consistent and well-known. Mao further stated that the Dalai Lama is a political exile and alleged that he has been involved in efforts to separate Xizang -- also known as Tibet outside China -- under the guise of religion. 'India should fully appreciate the great sensitivity of Xizang-related issues and recognise the anti-separatist nature of the 14th Dalai Lama and honour the commitment it made to China on issues related to Xizang,' she said. She also alleged that India is trying to use the Dalai Lama issue to interfere in China's internal affairs and cautioned New Delhi against doing so. The Chinese Embassy in India protested against the Dalai Lama's announcement regarding the continuation of the reincarnation system, asserting that he has no authority to decide whether the institution should continue or be abolished. Prime Minister Modi on Sunday extended warm wishes to the Dalai Lama, and said he has been an enduring symbol of love, compassion, patience and moral discipline. "His message has inspired respect and admiration across all faiths. We pray for his continued good health and long life," Modi posted on X. Union ministers Kiren Rijiju and Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu, and Sikkim minister Sonam Lama attended his birthday celebrations in Dharamshala.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
PM Modi raised Bihar's railway budget by 9 times to ₹10,000 cr: Vaishnaw
Vaishnaw noted that Bihar is among the top states with the highest number of Vande Bharat trains, underlining the government's focus on modernising rail travel in the region ANI Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw announced on Monday that the rail budget for Bihar has been increased nine times since 2014 under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, taking the total allocation to Rs 10,000 crore. Speaking during his visit to Patna, the Union Minister said, "Since 2014, PM Narendra Modi has increased Bihar's railway budget by 9 times and taken it to Rs 10000 crores." He shared multiple infrastructure and service developments aimed at enhancing connectivity across the state and linking it to key regions nationwide. He stated that the 111 km Araria-Ghagaria railway line had been completed, significantly improving local connectivity. Additionally, the doubling of the Samastipur-Darbhanga line has made good progress, helping to reduce travel time and increase rail capacity. In a major announcement for long-distance travellers, the minister said, "A decision has been taken to operate Amrit Bharat Express between Patna and Delhi every day." He also declared that a weekly Amrit Bharat Express train will soon begin service between Darbhanga and Lucknow. Meanwhile, to enhance southbound connectivity, Vaishnaw announced a new train, saying, "A train connecting Seemanchal to Erode in Tamil Nadu will soon be made operational." Vaishnaw noted that Bihar is among the top states with the highest number of Vande Bharat trains, underlining the government's focus on modernising rail travel in the region. Apart from railway projects, the minister also highlighted developments in the technology sector, especially in the state capital. He said, "Software Technology Park of India (STPI) is an outstanding facility that has been built in India to bring in industry to Patna." Furthermore, he also conducted a window-trailing inspection of the Digha Bridge Halt-Karpuri Gram rail section. During the visit, he encouraged the on-duty gangmen. Earlier, Vaishnaw stated that the Union Cabinet, meeting under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, approved the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme to boost job creation, incentivise first-time employees, and strengthen social security for the country's workforce. With an outlay of Rs. 99446 crore, the ELI Scheme will support the creation of over 3.5 crore jobs, Vaishnaw said. Gives details on the Employment Linked Incentive Scheme approved by the Union Cabinet, the Union Minister said, "The focus of the Employment Linked Incentive Scheme will be on the manufacturing sector. It has two parts; part one is for first-timers and part two is for support to sustained employment." Under the Scheme, while first-time employees will receive one month's wage (up to Rs 15,000), employers will be given incentives for a period of two years for generating additional employment, with extended benefits for another two years for the manufacturing sector. The ELI Scheme was announced in the Union Budget 2024-25 as part of PM's package of five schemes to facilitate employment, skilling and other opportunities for 4.1 Crore youth with a total budget outlay of Rs 2 Lakh Crore.