The 2025 G7 Summit marked the first major international test for newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney, offering the world initial insights into his vision for Canada’s role on the global stage. Amid growing divisions within the G7, an increasingly complex Canada-U.S. relationship, and escalating Middle East tensions, the summit posed a delicate diplomatic challenge. Carney’s presidency offered both high stakes and high visibility.
This edition of the Strategic Foresight Brief, titled ‘Canada’s G7 Presidency: Renewing Leadership in a Fragile World Order‘ gathers a range of expert perspectives on what Carney’s summit presidency revealed about Canada’s foreign policy posture and how this moment of G7 leadership might translate into longer-term strategic gains.
The experts at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy (IPD)examine the summit from multiple angles. Some argue that Carney’s quiet pragmatism was a necessary response to an unpredictable U.S. and a divided G7. Others contend that Canada missed a critical opportunity to show moral clarity and independent leadership on urgent global challenges, including the Iran-Israel conflict, Gaza war, NATO, climate change, and AI, among others.
Below, find concise, policy-oriented summaries of each contributor’s insights. Together, they offer a timely and strategic assessment of Canada’s G7 presidency – and a broader reflection on the evolving nature of Canada’s international role amid an increasingly multipolar order.
Canada should beware the temptations of “leadership”. The G7 summit in Kananaskis was primarily an opportunity for Canada to reset its foreign policy, rather than embark on a new era of Canadian leadership in the world.
Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau may have been political opposites, but over their nearly two combined decades in office they exhibited a common tendency: the replacement of discreet engagement with megaphone diplomacy. It should be no surprise that Canada’s relations with major global players — Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia — were allowed to atrophy during this extended period.
There is no question that Prime Minister Carney’s wealth of experience, professionalism and gravitas offer a chasm-sized contrast with his immediate predecessor. But we should resist the temptation to declare, once again, that Canada “is back.” Recent years have witnessed the gradual decline of the West’s global hegemony — and Canada’s foreign policy slip-ups throughout this period have left Ottawa marginalized on the world stage, even in comparison to other Western states.
Violations of jus in bello in the Israel-Hamas war and jus ad bellum in the Israel-Iran war have completely obliterated any faith in the notion that the West stands up for a “rules-based international order.” The idea that Canada is capable of exercising “leadership” in defence of this order — primarily in partnership with “like-minded” states no less — has become laughable.
There are no doubt issues where Canada is well placed to play an important role, from critical mineral supply chains to financing for the Sustainable Development Goals. But these interventions should be targeted and, more importantly, be in service of a more fundamental goal: reversing our international isolation by strengthening our military, economic resilience, diplomatic capacity, and the broader foundations of our national power. In this vein, the moves made at the G7 summit to reset Canada’s relationship with India are most certainly welcome.
Canada’s 2025 G7 presidency rightly emphasized AI as a lever for inclusive prosperity. The Leaders’ Statement on AI for Prosperity signalled ambitious global intent that urges countries to apply AI in areas such as healthcare, energy, and public service delivery. For Canada, the greater challenge lies at home in translating that ambition into real domestic capability.
Canada has long been viewed as a hub of ethical AI research, but its federal application remains narrow and bureaucratic. As it stands, generative AI in government is mostly confined to drafting emails or summarizing documents. This is not innovation, but rather administrative convenience, whereas other countries are deploying AI to tackle real problems such as optimizing infrastructure, triaging healthcare needs, and improving national security forecasting. If Canada fails to do the same, it risks turning another G7 pledge into more performative policymaking.
To lead credibly on this portfolio, especially following its appointment of a Minister of AI, the Carney government should deliver a coherent national AI implementation framework that moves beyond pilot projects and convenings. That means:
Canada inarguably helped build this technology. It must now demonstrate the maturity to use it wisely. G7 leadership has opened the door. Accordingly, the next steps will define whether we remain architects of responsible AI, or spectators to its global acceleration.
Canada’s 2025 G7 presidency under Prime Minister Mark Carney landed at a rare convergence of urgency and opportunity. With global trade fragmenting, AI regulation unsettled, and geopolitical shocks mounting — from Russia’s war in Ukraine to the intensifying Iran–Israel conflict — this year’s summit wasn’t just symbolic. It was a credibility test. Canada showed up. Now it must follow through.
Carney’s invitation to select non-G7 states marked a needed shift from club diplomacy to coalition-building. Canada should now institutionalize this move by launching a permanent “G7+ Partnership Track” focused on shared priorities: resilient supply chains, ethical digital infrastructure, and climate-linked investment. Doing so would position Canada as a convener of like-minded and capable actors, beyond traditional alliances.
The G7’s unity on Ukraine was vital, but insufficient. Canada should lead on postwar economic reconstruction by proposing a Ukraine Recovery Investment Compact. Anchored by EDC and Canadian pension funds and structured to attract global capital, it would move support from pledges to pipelines.
On AI, Canada still punches above its weight, but not for long unless it acts. A Canadian-led G7 AI Standards Forum could drive consensus on cross-border AI governance, aligning innovation with democratic values and protecting our striving AI innovation ecosystem. This is where thought leadership becomes regulatory gravity.
And Trump’s early exit was a stark reminder: U.S. volatility isn’t a glitch — it’s a structural risk, even though this time it was not an emotionally triggered exit. Canada must use this window to deepen trilateral mechanisms with Europe and Japan, buffering against future policy whiplash.
This presidency gave Canada the stage. Turning presence into influence means building quickly — before the window closes.
Carney faced a much trickier juggling act this time around relative to previous Canadian G7 summits, particularly given a more unhinged Trump 2.0 administration. The PM, therefore, had to be most mindful of managing the White House’s provocative and explosive character and prepare an agenda and level of ambition that had a chance to survive Trump’s ire.
I believe Carney deserves credit for how he handled the mercurial U.S. President. It appears that Carney is slowly building a personal relationship, one that is certainly far healthier than his predecessor’s, which is good news for Canadian interests. Flowing from their bilateral session, the two leaders agreed to accelerate a trade and security agreement. This could turn out to be a major announcement, especially for Canada, as long as the deadline is respected and the final agreement is a balanced one.
Carney also deserves full marks for attracting an array of significant leaders beyond the regular G7 members. These countries and institutions are major players on the global stage, and their engagement made for a richer and more relevant discourse. I applaud the PM for including India. Regularizing our relationship can play a critical role in our strategy to build economic alliances beyond the U.S.
When it came to the consequential issues confronting the Summit, Carney played it calmly and conservatively. Unfortunately, there was no statement on Ukraine. One was being prepared, but the U.S. objected. Moreover, there was no statement on Gaza either, nor any collective soundings on the damage that American tariffs are having on individual economies and on the global marketplace. This represents an obvious and telling failure for the G7. Trump’s presence hampered the ambitions of the group to say and do more. He is clearly the outlier, and his contrarian views are a serious impediment.
Carney’s ‘soft’ approach was prudent. Best to bide your time, build your alliances, and live to fight another day. But this outcome came at a cost. Some will conclude that the Summit was more a matter of process over substance, avoiding any commentary of critical international issues, as dictated by the U.S.
Despite the mixed results, Carney displayed compelling leadership throughout. With his capable chairmanship, I am hopeful that he has begun Canada’s renewal on the global stage — something which is desperately needed.
In October of 2024, opposition leader Pierre Poilievre stated that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be, in his words, “a gift by the Jewish state to humanity.” Seven months later, leaders of the G7 appear to have drawn a similar conclusion, putting them in the same camp as the most hawkish members of the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress.
Mark Carney’s failure to speak honestly about this mess, beyond claiming that Iran must show “maximum restraint” and that Israel has the right to defend itself, reinforces the most fundamental of realities in Canadian foreign policy. With yet another major Middle East war on the horizon, Canada’s ability to influence an end to America’s forever wars remains non-existent.
The U.S. is addicted to intervention. Even Canada is to some degree. For example, instead of leading on diplomacy, Carney has committed over $8 billion more to Ukraine, a large sum that will only prolong the war. These lopsided financial commitments are a strain that Canada will struggle to bear, especially as Carney commits to ever more military spending obligations, amid broader foreign aid budget cuts.
In fact, Ukraine is consuming a disproportionate share of Western donor funding, leaving other crises significantly underaided, including those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Sudan, and Gaza. Canada’s credibility and global standing within the Global South are in deep trouble for a variety of reasons, but chief among them is Ottawa’s hypocritical position on the unremitting destruction of Gaza and its people.
Despite talk of a “strategic reset”, Mark Carney does not appear to be taking Canada towards self-assured and more autonomous statecraft. The blurred lines between Canada’s defence and security policies and those of its southern neighbour remain in place.
To hedge against our unreliable ally, Canada must pursue a dual strategy focused on economic diversification and even greater strategic autonomy in defence and diplomacy. A flexible foreign policy means engaging selectively in U.S.-led initiatives rather than committing to them unconditionally as Canada is now doing on Iran and Gaza.
Canada’s G7 presidency offered Prime Minister Mark Carney a challenging but timely opportunity to signal a more assertive and globally engaged Canada — an opportunity he only partially delivered on. While Carney managed a delicate balancing act in navigating an unpredictable, Trump-led United States, that caution came at the expense of bolder leadership.
That said, Carney’s choice of non-member invitees, particularly his diplomatic reconciliation with India, was a pivotal moment, signalling a shift toward a broader, more inclusive model of global engagement and diversification. In this respect, Carney laid important early groundwork for a new era of Canadian multilateral diplomacy.
The summit’s outcome, though far from groundbreaking, avoided controversy — a feat that is arguably commendable in today’s polarized political climate. The absence of a joint communiqué was unsurprising, reflecting the deepening fragmentation among G7 members. However, this very context could have provided justification for stronger moves, particularly in distancing Canada from the U.S. position on climate and the Israel-Palestine conflict. These are issues Carney has publicly advocated for, yet that conviction was noticeably absent at the summit.
In truth, this points to a deeper issue: a widening lack of consensus within the West on critical global priorities. Rather than issuing a vague chair summary, lacklustre in both clarity and ambition, Carney had an opportunity to define a bold, forward-leaning agenda for Canada – and somewhat fell short. While his efforts to appease President Trump were tactically understandable, today’s volatile global landscape demands more than careful diplomacy — it calls for principled and decisive leadership.
With Canada’s G7 presidency this year, Carney has a unique opportunity to project our leadership and independence by departing from years of blind alignment with American foreign policy positions including on the Israel-Iran war. This is especially vital given Canada’s recent experience with extraterritorial assassination, foreign interference, and threats of annexation — all of which require a more principled and consistent stance by the new government.
If Carney is serious about protecting this country’s sovereignty and the rules-based international order, as claimed in his recent foreign policy speech at the University of Toronto’s Munk School, his government must take independent positions on global crises based on Canadian interests, especially when the nature of such conflicts resembles the very same threats facing our nation.
In this high-level speech, Carney argued that Canada must help protect international law, stating that “when we stand up for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and of the West Bank and Gaza, we are also standing up for the territorial integrity of the Canadian Arctic.”
Yet, his government issued only one-sided condemnations of Iran’s retaliatory strikes, ignoring Israel’s continued attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, civilian infrastructure, and densely populated areas that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. Such strikes constitute clear violations of international law, including targeted attacks on nuclear facilities, which are prohibited under Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, to which Canada is a party.
In an already eroding global order, Canada’s silence — or worse, its support — for such unlawful actions risks normalizing this behaviour globally, setting dangerous precedents that embolden adventurous actors, as already seen with Russian invasion of Ukraine, to continue violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states in the name of self-defence and national security.
Carney’s Munk speech was aspirational, calling for a new era of Canadian foreign policy grounded in national interest and independence from US hegemony and its forceful unilateralism. So far, he’s failed to match his aspiration with action in his very first foreign policy test that began in the Middle East.
However, Carney still has the opportunity to project Canadian leadership and independence on the global stage by revising Canada’s stance on the ongoing war in the Middle East. This requires departing from the Trudeau-era pattern of automatic alignment with Washington on global crises. Only then can Carney’s ambition to make Canada a “superpower” be viewed as credible and achievable.
In today’s increasingly volatile international environment, an independent, principled, and interest-driven foreign policy is not only essential but a precondition for any meaningful nation-building agenda at home.
Canada’s G7 presidency concluded without any major disruptions, though the absence of a joint communiqué was notable and indicative of growing fragmentation within the West. Whether this quiet outcome reflects Carney’s diplomatic tact or a missed opportunity to assert Canada’s global stance remains open to interpretation. Nonetheless, most experts agree that his decision to invite key non-member states was a constructive step, signalling Canada’s renewed commitment to inclusive diplomacy and trade diversification.
Looking ahead, the contributors in this edition urge the Carney government to transform G7 symbolism into sustained strategic action — by providing credible leadership on AI, diversifying partnerships, rebuilding institutional capacity, and asserting a more principled and independent foreign policy.
The Western powers have failed to effectively manage the increasing threat of proliferation in the Middle East. While the international community is concerned with Iran’s nuclear program, Saudi Arabia has moved forward with developing its own nuclear program, and independent studies show that Israel has longed possessed dozens of nuclear warheads. The former is a member of the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), while the latter has refused to sign the international agreement.
On Middle East policy, the Biden campaign had staunchly criticized the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal and it has begun re-engaging Iran on the nuclear dossier since assuming office in January 2021. However, serious obstacles remain for responsible actors in expanding non-proliferation efforts toward a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
This panel will discuss how Western powers and multilateral institutions, such as the IAEA, can play a more effective role in managing non-proliferation efforts in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Peggy Mason: Canada’s former Ambassador to the UN for Disarmament
– Mark Fitzpatrick: Associate Fellow & Former Executive Director, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
– Ali Vaez: Iran Project Director, International Crisis Group
– Negar Mortazavi: Journalist and Political Analyst, Host of Iran Podcast
– David Albright: Founder and President of the Institute for Science and International Security
Closing (5:45 PM – 6:00 PM ET)
What is the current economic landscape in the Middle East? While global foreign direct investment is expected to fall drastically in the post-COVID era, the World Bank reported a 5% contraction in the economic output of the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries in 2020 due to the pandemic. While oil prices are expected to rebound with normalization in demand, political instability, regional and geopolitical tensions, domestic corruption, and a volatile regulatory and legal environment all threaten economic recovery in the Middle East. What is the prospect for economic growth and development in the region post-pandemic, and how could MENA nations promote sustainable growth and regional trade moving forward?
At the same time, Middle Eastern diaspora communities have become financially successful and can help promote trade between North America and the region. In this respect, the diaspora can become vital intermediaries for advancing U.S. and Canada’s business interests abroad. Promoting business diplomacy can both benefit the MENA region and be an effective and positive way to advance engagement and achieve foreign policy goals of the North Atlantic.
This panel will investigate the trade and investment opportunities in the Middle East, discuss how facilitating economic engagement with the region can benefit Canadian and American national interests, and explore relevant policy prescriptions.
Panelists:
– Hon. Sergio Marchi: Canada’s Former Minister of International Trade
– Scott Jolliffe: Chairperson, Canada Arab Business Council
– Esfandyar Batmanghelidj: Founder and Publisher of Bourse & Bazaar
– Nizar Ghanem: Director of Research and Co-founder at Triangle
– Nicki Siamaki: Researcher at Control Risks
The Middle East continues to grapple with violence and instability, particularly in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Fueled by government incompetence and foreign interventions, terrorist insurgencies have imposed severe humanitarian and economic costs on the region. Meanwhile, regional actors have engaged in an unprecedented pursuit of arms accumulation. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have imported billions of both Western and Russian-made weapons and funded militant groups across the region, intending to contain their regional adversaries, particularly Iran. Tehran has also provided sophisticated weaponry to various militia groups across the region to strengthen its geopolitical position against Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel.
On the other hand, with international terrorist networks and intense regional rivalry in the Middle East, it is impractical to discuss peace and security without addressing terrorism and the arms race in the region. This panel will primarily discuss the implications of the ongoing arms race in the region and the role of Western powers and multilateral organizations in facilitating trust-building security arrangements among regional stakeholders to limit the proliferation of arms across the Middle East.
Panelists:
Luciano Zaccara: Assistant Professor, Qatar University
Dania Thafer: Executive Director, Gulf International Forum
Kayhan Barzegar: Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Science and Research Branch of Azad University
Barbara Slavin: Director of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council
Sanam Shantyaei: Senior Journalist at France24 & host of Middle East Matters
The emerging regional order in West Asia will have wide-ranging implications for global security. The Biden administration has begun re-engaging Iran on the nuclear dossier, an initiative staunchly opposed by Israel, while also taking a harder line on Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. Meanwhile, key regional actors, including Qatar, Iraq, and Oman, have engaged in backchannel efforts to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table. From a broader geopolitical perspective, with the need to secure its energy imports, China is also expected to increase its footprint in the region and influence the mentioned challenges.
In this evolving landscape, Western powers will be compelled to redefine their strategic priorities and adjust their policies with the new realities in the region. In this panel, we will discuss how the West, including the United States and its allies, can utilize multilateral diplomacy with its adversaries to prevent military escalation in the region. Most importantly, the panel will discuss if a multilateral security dialogue in the Persian Gulf region, proposed by some regional actors, can help reduce tensions among regional foes and produce sustainable peace and development for the region.
Panelists:
– Abdullah Baabood: Academic Researcher and Former Director of the Centre for Gulf Studies, Qatar University
– Trita Parsi: Executive Vice-President, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
– Ebtesam Al-Ketbi: President, Emirates Policy Centre
– Jon Allen: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Israel
– Elizabeth Hagedorn: Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor
Military interventions, political and economic instabilities, and civil unrest in the Middle East have led to a global refugee crisis with an increasing wave of refugees and asylum seekers to Europe and Canada. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has, in myriad ways, exacerbated and contributed to the ongoing security threats and destabilization of the region.
While these challenges pose serious risks to Canadian security, Ottawa will also have the opportunity to limit such risks and prevent a spillover effect vis-à-vis effective humanitarian initiatives in the region. In this panel, we will primarily investigate Canada’s Middle East Strategy’s degree of success in providing humanitarian aid to the region. Secondly, the panel will discuss what programs and initiatives Canada can introduce to further build on the renewed strategy. and more specifically, how Canada can utilize its policy instruments to more effectively deal with the increasing influx of refugees from the Middle East.
Panelists:
Erica Di Ruggiero: Director of Centre for Global Health, University of Toronto
Reyhana Patel: Head of Communications & Government Relations, Islamic Relief Canada
Amir Barmaki: Former Head of UN OCHA in Iran
Catherine Gribbin: Senior Legal Advisor for International and Humanitarian Law, Canadian Red Cross
In 2016, Canada launched an ambitious five-year “Middle East Engagement Strategy” (2016-2021), committing to investing CA$3.5 billion over five years to help establish the necessary conditions for security and stability, alleviate human suffering and enable stabilization programs in the region. In the latest development, during the meeting of the Global Coalition against ISIS, Minister of Foreign Affairs Marc Garneau announced more than $43.6 million in Peace and Stabilization Operations Program funding for 11 projects in Syria and Iraq.
With Canada’s Middle East Engagement Strategy expiring this year, it is time to examine and evaluate this massive investment in the Middle East region in the past five years. More importantly, the panel will discuss a principled and strategic roadmap for the future of Canada’s short-term and long-term engagement in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Ferry de Kerckhove: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Egypt
– Dennis Horak: Canada’s Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
– Chris Kilford: Former Canadian Defence Attaché in Turkey, member of the national board of the Canadian International Council (CIC)
– David Dewitt: University Professor Emeritus, York University
While the United States continues to pull back from certain regional conflicts, reflected by the Biden administration’s decision to halt American backing for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen and the expected withdrawal from Afghanistan, US troops continue to be stationed across the region. Meanwhile, Russia and China have significantly maintained and even expanded their regional activities. On one hand, the Kremlin has maintained its military presence in Syria, and on the other hand, China has signed an unprecedented 25-year strategic agreement with Iran.
As the global power structure continues to shift, it is essential to analyze the future of the US regional presence under the Biden administration, explore the emerging global rivalry with Russia and China, and at last, investigate the implications of such competition for peace and security in the Middle East.
Panelists:
– Dmitri Trenin: Director of Carnegie Moscow Center
– Joost R. Hiltermann: Director of MENA Programme, International Crisis Group
– Roxane Farmanfarmaian: Affiliated Lecturer in International Relations of the Middle East and North Africa, University of Cambridge
– Andrew A. Michta: Dean of the College of International and Security Studies at Marshall Center
– Kelley Vlahos: Senior Advisor, Quincy Institute
The security architecture of the Middle East has undergone rapid transformations in an exceptionally short period. Notable developments include the United States gradual withdrawal from the region, rapprochement between Israel and some GCC states through the Abraham Accords and the rise of Chinese and Russian regional engagement.
With these new trends in the Middle East, it is timely to investigate the security implications of the Biden administration’s Middle East policy. In this respect, we will discuss the Biden team’s new approach vis-à-vis Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The panel will also discuss the role of other major powers, including China and Russia in shaping this new security environment in the region, and how the Biden administration will respond to these powers’ increasing regional presence.
Panelists:
– Sanam Vakil: Deputy Director of MENA Programme at Chatham House
– Denise Natali: Acting Director, Institute for National Strategic Studies & Director of the Center for Strategic Research, National Defense University
– Hassan Ahmadian: Professor of the Middle East and North Africa Studies, University of Tehran
– Abdulaziz Sagar: Chairman, Gulf Research Center
– Andrew Parasiliti: President, Al-Monitor
