Latest news with #democracies
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Ex-Australian PM Morrison to address China's ‘economic coercion' at US House panel hearing
Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison will testify at a US House panel hearing on Wednesday about countering China 's 'economic coercion against democracies,' the committee said on Friday. Advertisement Former US ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel will also testify before the House Select Committee on China. Relations with China , already rocky after Australia banned Huawei from its 5G broadband network in 2018, cooled further after Canberra called for an independent investigation into the origins of Covid-19 China responded by imposing tariffs on Australian commodities, including wine and barley, and limited imports of Australian beef, coal and grapes, moves described by the United States as 'economic coercion.' Morrison was defeated in a bid for re-election in 2022. Advertisement
CBC
12-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
What you need to know about the G7 summit in Alberta
Social Sharing The news is about to be flooded with the latest from the Group of Seven (G7) as some of the world's most powerful leaders travel to the Canadian Rockies next week for high-level meetings on some of the most pressing global issues. Here's a primer on the G7. What is the G7 again? The G7 is made up of some of the world's key democracies, who meet every year to act as a co-ordinated voice on major issues, including trade and economics, security and climate change. What is now the G7 dates back 50 years and is currently made up of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, who rotate hosting duties. The European Union is also a member. It used to be the G8 when Russia was at the table. But the country was expelled in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea. Historically, the elite group's mission has been to guide the world's economy and rally around shared values, like protecting human rights and the rule of law. But its relevance and effectiveness has been questioned in recent years amid increasingly protectionist trade views at the table, and the rise of India and China's economic power. When and where is it? Leaders will start arriving in Kanansaskis, Alta., nestled in the foothills of the Canadian Rockies on Sunday with meetings planned for Monday and Tuesday. There's often closing news conferences on the final day. Kanansaskis is not new to this kind of hubbub; it was the site of the 2002 G8 summit. Canada has hosted the summit seven times, the last one being Charlevoix, Que., in 2018. Who's going? Following a bout of elections since last summer's meeting, many of the G7 leaders are new to the big table. That includes host Prime Minister Mark Carney, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. U.S. President Donald Trump makes his closely watched return. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has a few G7 gatherings under her belt and hosted the summit last year. At this point France's Emmanuel Macron, first elected in 2017, could be considered the dean of the G7. The European Union will be represented by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and António Costa, president of the European Council. It's also tradition to invite other global leaders. This year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (this year's G20 chair), South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and World Bank President Ajay Banga are attending, according to the Prime Minister's Office. Government sources said Canada has also invited Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but the Prime Minister's Office confirmed Wednesday he is not attending. How can Trump, a convicted felon, get into Canada? Just over a year ago, Trump was found guilty of all 34 counts in a criminal "hush money" trial involving adult actress Stormy Daniels, spurring questions if the now re-elected U.S. president would be granted access to the summit. While Canada is among dozens of countries who refuse entry to felons, Ottawa laid out in an order-in-council that representatives of foreign states are granted certain privileges and immunities while in Canada for the G7. The short of it: there are international agreements protecting foreign leaders, their officials and diplomatic envoys. In this case that includes exemptions from immigration restrictions to "facilitate travel to Canada to the extent required for attendance at the G7 meetings." "This does not replace the need for a visa, where one is required, but it can facilitate admission to Canada of an individual who may otherwise be inadmissible," the order reads. A spokesperson from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada declined to comment on Trump's upcoming trip for "privacy" reasons, only adding that "inadmissibility decisions are made on a case-by-case basis." What's on the agenda? Carney said Canada is looking for action on three core missions. The first theme is "protecting our communities and the world," which calls for leaders to promote peace and security, counter foreign interference and transnational crime, address global pressures driving migration and improve the global responses to wildfires. The second is "building energy security and accelerating the digital transition," including collaboration around fortifying critical mineral supply chains and using artificial intelligence and quantum technology to boost economic growth. Finally, Carney said he will push to secure "partnerships of the future," like attracting private investment to build infrastructure and create higher-paying jobs. Canadian sources have said they are hoping for some sort of Canada-U.S. trade deal by the time Trump and Carney meet at the summit. Support for Ukraine will also be on the agenda as Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion drags on at immense human cost. Ukrainian officials have said they are preparing for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump as the Ukrainian president continues to press for a ceasefire deal. The Israel-Gaza conflict will also undoubtedly be discussed. Earlier this week, Canada joined allies including the U.K. in sanctioning two far-right Israeli ministers for "their repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities." Canada and its G7 partners France and the U.K. have been increasing pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to end the blockade of aid into Gaza, where international experts warn of famine. In response to the sanctions, Israel's government said it will meet next week to decide how to respond to the "unacceptable decision." Can I travel to Kananaskis to see the leaders? Hard no. The G7 summit is being described as the " largest domestic security operation" a country can take on, and the site will be locked down and packed with police. These types of gatherings are already tightly controlled but last year's assassination attempts on Trump further adds to the security posture. The RCMP has prepared for this sort of high-stakes operation before but said technological threats have advanced since 2018, including the "weaponization of drones" and increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks. WATCH | RCMP highlight security measures: RCMP highlight security measures for upcoming G7 summit 9 days ago Duration 11:35 Calgary RCMP provide an update on the security measures needed for the 51st G7 summit from June 15-17 in Kananaskis, Alta. Officials say strict security measures are in place, including a restricted airspace and designated demonstration zones. Canada hosts the summit every seven years. Even journalists, who will be stationed in Banff and Calgary, will have limited access to the summit site. There are also natural threats that security forces have to deal with: wildlife and wildfires. With Kananaskis located in the Bow Valley's forests, officials say they're monitoring for any possible wildfire outbreaks and keeping tabs on bears and cougars. What if I want to protest? Organizers are expecting large protests. Those crowds will be sent to designated G7 demonstration zones: one in Banff and three in Calgary. In a 2025 twist, the protests will be livestreamed to the restricted area where the leaders are gathered. "People who want to express themselves, as is their right, can't get close to the leaders," said RCMP Chief Supt. David Hall during a recent media briefing. "So by establishing that video link, we are helping facilitate that Charter access." Will anything actually be achieved? That remains to be seen. The G7 leaders work toward reaching consensus on issues or agreeing to certain commitments, but relations between certain leaders have become fractured in recent years. The last time Canada hosted the G7, it fell into name-calling and disarray. Tump refused to endorse the communique and called then prime minister and the summit's host Justin Trudeau "very dishonest and weak." In the fallout, Trump adviser Peter Navarro, who still remains close to the president, went on Fox News to say there was a "special place in hell" for Trudeau. With the G7 marking its 50th anniversary amid economic uncertainty and deadly conflicts, there's more pressure than ever for the seven leaders to find common ground.
Globe and Mail
09-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Annual G7 summits are important. So why aren't Canadian summits a thing?
Alasdair Roberts is a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is author of The Adaptable Country: How Canada Can Survive the Twenty-First Century. Leaders of the G7 – a group of the world's richest democracies – will meet in Kananaskis, Alta., between June 15 and 17. The meeting will be an important demonstration of the G7's determination to hang together in difficult times. And it raises the question: if annual summits are good for G7 leaders, why aren't they good for Canadian leaders as well? The first G6 summit was held in Rambouillet, France, in 1975, as Western countries struggled through a period of economic and political turmoil much like today's. It became the G7 when Canada was added the following year. Meetings have been held annually ever since. G7 leaders never ask: Do we really need to meet this year? The importance of convening regularly is taken for granted. G7 summits are also expensive affairs. The 2010 meeting in Huntsville, Ont., cost the Canadian government about $300-million; the 2018 meeting in Charlevoix, Que., cost $600-million. Still, Canadian prime ministers insist that the money is well spent. They say that regular meetings allow G7 leaders to identify long-term challenges, build the personal ties that are essential during crises and show solidarity among like-minded democracies. The G7 summit is being held just outside Calgary. Here's who will be there and what these meetings achieve Canadian leaders used to think about governance within Canada in exactly the same way. Prime ministers and premiers held 60 first-ministers' conferences between 1945 and 1995 – a little more than one a year. One royal commission observed in that era that the need for regular meetings in Canada's federal system was 'obvious.' Journalist Don McGillivray said in 1965 that annual conferences were practically 'built into Canada's constitution.' But then the tradition of regular first ministers' conferences fell apart. Meetings became infrequent, often slapdash affairs. Since January, the Trudeau and Carney governments have improvised two meetings on the U.S.-Canada trade dispute – one in person, one virtually – and another in-person meeting was held on June 2. But the need for annual summits remains unacknowledged. Although the federal government appears to have given up on annual meetings, premiers have gone the other way, invoking the same reasons as G7 leaders. Calling themselves the Council of the Federation, premiers have met annually since 2003. The Council is a misnomer, however – because it does not include the prime minister. Recent prime ministers have avoided first ministers' conferences on the grounds that premiers are sometimes balky and unpleasant. Of course, the same might be said about U.S. President Donald Trump – yet the G7 summit carries on. Critics of recent federal practice complain that the demise of first ministers' conferences has 'weakened our ability to forge a national consensus on important issues.' These critics are right. Since Mr. Trump's inauguration in January, Canadians have been reminded that the world is a dangerous place. There has been lots of talk about the need for a Team Canada approach. Annual 'Canada Summits' would make that approach real. Like G7 summits, they would show solidarity among our country's leaders, provide a model of civil discourse, and build public understanding about long-term challenges. Canada Summits would have three features. First, they would not be hurried business meetings; like G7 summits, they would be major events, designed to hold the public's attention and convey a sense of gravitas. Imagine a two-day conference opened by the Governor-General, guided by an agenda published well in advance and closed with a communiqué negotiated by participants. The summit might even be combined with a high-profile cultural event, such as a concert or a national awards ceremony. Second, the purpose of Canada Summits should not be hashing out federal-provincial agreements. That can be done at another time. Instead, summits would focus on the big picture and the long run. A well-publicized agenda would focus national conversation on priorities identified by leaders, and research would be published to support the dialogue. In the final communiqué, leaders would be free to make their differences clear. Finally, Canada Summits would include Indigenous leaders. The principle that Indigenous peoples are partners in the Canadian experiment is now generally acknowledged, but Indigenous leaders were excluded from the two first ministers' meetings held since January. In moments of crisis, it seems that Team Canada is defined just as it was a half-century ago. That's not good enough. The Carney government says the 2025 G7 meeting provides an opportunity to promote 'meaningful dialogue' on global challenges. In fact, that dialogue has already started. Groups across the G7 countries have been anticipating the summit for months. The meeting itself will garner massive publicity. Annual summits of Canadian leaders could perform a similar function – providing a much-needed focal point for conversation about Canada's future.
The Independent
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Democracies appear greener by outsourcing pollution to autocratic nations, study finds
Democratic countries are often viewed as climate leaders but new research suggests their greener records may come from shifting pollution overseas rather than cutting it outright. Democracies tend to outsource the environmental damage of their consumption to other nations more than autocratic states do, a study published in PLOS Climate on Wednesday found. This 'pollution offshoring' allows them to lower greenhouse gas emissions within their borders while the global environmental burden remains. 'We provide one of the first systematic studies on how much 'pollution offshoring' is associated with domestic (territorial) emission levels in democracies,' said the authors. 'The main result is that pollution offshoring is linked significantly and substantively with lower greenhouse gas emissions 'at home' in democracies'. The study analysed 161 countries from 1990 to 2015, using greenhouse gas data, trade records and democracy scores to explore how environmental impacts are redistributed through global trade. The findings show that democratic nations not only outsource more pollution than others, but that this is strongly linked to lower per capita emissions domestically. On average, greenhouse gas emissions were over one metric ton per person lower in democracies that offshore more pollution, compared to their less democratic counterparts. Pollution offshoring refers to when countries stop producing polluting goods themselves and instead import them, shifting the environmental damage to producing countries. This is common in global trade, particularly between wealthier democracies and lower-income nations with weaker environmental regulations. The researchers cited earlier UN reports that documented how countries such as Japan and Germany reduced their emissions at home while increasing the emissions they were effectively responsible for abroad, mainly through imports from countries like China. While previous studies suggested democracies perform better on environmental metrics due to greater public accountability and stronger regulations, this new analysis raises questions about what those metrics really capture. Cleaner domestic air and reduced local emissions may reflect better public demand and policy. but also a global redistribution of pollution through trade. 'This calls into question the moral high ground of democracies versus autocracies in terms of environmental protection,' the authors said in their press release. The findings arrive amid growing debates about environmental justice and responsibility, particularly as richer democracies negotiate international climate agreements like the Global Plastics Treaty and COP29. These forums often emphasise national targets, while overlooking the global impacts of consumption. The paper contributes to a growing body of research challenging territorial-based climate accounting, which can understate the true environmental cost of wealthy nations' lifestyles. The authors argue that high-income democracies in particular should reorient their environmental policies to account not just for emissions within their borders, but for the full impact of their consumption abroad.
The Guardian
11-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump will destroy world trade, but democracies can defend themselves – and each other
The postwar global economic order, with the United States at its centre, has created more prosperity than any other period in human history. Yet as Donald Trump takes a sledgehammer to that economic order, America's democratic allies face a choice. We can accept the new cost of doing business with the US. We can follow the US down a path of mutually assured economic destruction with an ever-escalating trade war. Or we can find new avenues to keep free trade alive. My proposition? I believe we need a new platform for economic cooperation between the world's seven leading democracies. Call it the 'Democratic 7', or 'D7'. The EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea represent roughly 25% of global GDP and account for about 35% of global trade volume. Together, these democracies can help to shield each other from the threats of economic nationalism and coercion – while also championing democracy, the rule of law, and market economics. The building blocks for this are already in place. The D7 would draw on an existing web of bilateral and regional trade agreements and could serve as an incentive to sign new ones. Already, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP, includes Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The EU maintains comprehensive agreements with Japan, South Korea and Canada. An outstanding agreement between the EU and Australia could be put back on track, and the UK chancellor, Rachel Reeves, recently stressed an improvement in the UK-EU trading relationship as 'imperative'. The cornerstone of a D7 economic alliance would be the economic equivalent of Nato's foundational principle, article 5, which holds that an attack on one is an attack on all. When economic powers threaten critical supply chains, engage in economic blackmail, or use access to their markets as leverage, they're counting on isolating vulnerable countries. After Canada honoured its extradition treaty with the US and detained a Huawei executive, for example, Canadian exports of pork and canola were banned from China. Australia's trade with its Pacific neighbour was frozen after Canberra suggested an inquiry into the origins of the Covid pandemic, and South Korean companies have paid the price for decisions made in Seoul that displeased Beijing. The D7's article 5 would ensure that coercion against one D7 member triggers an immediate, proportional response from all. This would fundamentally alter the calculus of those who wield their economic might as a weapon. The D7's mandate could also extend beyond defensive measures. It could create new frameworks for secure supply chains in critical sectors like semiconductors, rare earth minerals, medical supplies and green technologies. When one member faces shortages, others could provide priority access. Joint investment in production could ensure resilience against future disruptions of the kind we saw during the pandemic, and following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Together, D7 members could build a coherent, streamlined trading zone: reducing tariffs, removing bureaucratic hurdles, and establishing new standards based on shared values. Doing so would enhance our collective negotiating power when dealing with the US and China. When setting collective standards on emerging technologies like AI, for example, a D7's collective economic weight would help prevent global rules being dictated by autocrats or tech oligarchs. But no alliance is made stronger by becoming a closed club. While seven could serve as a starting point, the door should remain open to those who share these democratic values and are willing to support rules-based trade and prevent economic coercion, be they from Asia, Africa, Latin America, or elsewhere. True, a D7 would be an undoubtedly complex undertaking. Any number of politicians and vested interests could raise concerns about agricultural policies or regulatory approaches. Europe can seldom find unanimity, and there is also the fact of Brexit to contend with. But the global economic order that has benefited the world's democracies is today facing an existential threat. If this order continues to fragment, democracies will be left at the whims of Trump and Xi Jinping. That's why democracies need to stand together. Even while we grapple with this painful new reality, we must not forget: we still maintain the power to shape it. Anders Fogh Rasmussen was Nato secretary general from 2009-2014 and prime minister of Denmark from 2001-2009
