With the clash of democratic and autocratic geopolitical forces still evident in this week’s EU election results and the ongoing US presidential campaign, representatives from both sides of that divide will be attending the G7 in Italy, June 13-15. During his career as a senior diplomat, Sen. Peter Boehm, who now chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, served as Canada’s Sherpa for six summits. Policy Editor Lisa Van Dusen conducted a Q&A with Senator Boehm by email ahead of the Puglia G7.

June 13, 2024

Lisa Van Dusen: There are so many angles, nuances, plots and subplots to this G7 — the venue; the political/ideological ‘chameleon’ of host Georgia Meloni; the expanded guest list; the persistence of Russia/Ukraine as a focus; Israel and Gaza….as a veteran Sherpa and former longtime diplomat, what are you really watching for through all those headlines?

Sen. Peter Boehm: There will certainly be a lot of activity when the leaders meet at Fasano this weekend. My understanding is that the Italians have worked hard to craft an inclusive agenda (with inclusion of some domestic interests: migration, African development) that has thus far included six ministerial meetings before the summit and with more to follow afterwards. Italy attaches great importance to a food security initiative for developing countries, partly to curb the flow of uncontrolled migration into Italy. Italy is also looking at greater infrastructure investment in Africa.

The inherited agenda from previous presidencies obviously includes Ukraine and pre-summit agreement has been struck on a new, $50 billion assistance package that would repurpose seized Russian assets (originally a Canadian initiative). The last few summits have also featured discussions on Artificial Intelligence amongst leaders and I note that Italy and Canada have signed a bilateral agreement on the occasion of the Prime Minister’s pre-summit bilateral visit (in return for Prime Minister Meloni’s visit to Canada earlier this year). Climate change, the clean energy transition (opportunities for Canadian critical minerals) and ocean pollution will continue to figure as topics among leaders.

With questions on foreign electoral interference, mis- and disinformation permeating political dialogue, and elections on the horizon in the United Kingdom, France and the United States, one can expect an enhanced focus on this subject that was initially broached at the Charlevoix Summit in 2018 when the G7 established a Rapid Response Mechanism. As for the “guest” leaders, where the invitation is always extended on the purview of the host, those joining a traditional broader discussion on the second day, Brazil in its capacity as G20 chair, Argentina (new leadership), Mauritania (representing the African Union), Algeria and Tunisia as significant Northern Africa countries, Turkey (significant in terms of the food security channel through the Black Sea), Kenya (key on development finance, climate change), Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (background discussions on solutions for Gaza), and, as per usual the heads of the multilateral agencies (UN, World Bank, IMF, OECD). India appears to be a stand-alone among the invitees, however it remains the world’s largest democracy and Narendra Modi is an experienced leader. To my knowledge, the Pope has never been invited to a G7 summit. But he will apparently open the discussion on Artificial Intelligence. And of course we can’t forget that Ukrainian President Zelensky will also be present.

In addition to forward movement on Ukraine, the other large international security issue for discussion will be bringing peace to Gaza, through a durable ceasefire, return of the Israeli hostages and the dire need for greatly increased and sustained humanitarian assistance and questions of future governance. A consensus among the G7 plus the European Union has proven to be elusive to this point.

LVD: What are, first-off, Canada’s role at this G7, and, second, Canada’s “deliverables” checklist — other than making sure the group survives for us to assume the presidency in 2025?

PB: For Canada, the Italian summit year, with all its ministerial and Sherpa meetings and of course the summit itself, is of greater importance. We follow Italy in the rotation, which means that legacy items from this year will flow into the next — ours, the fiftieth anniversary of the G7 summit and its process. Canada was not present at the first summit at Rambouillet, France, having joined the following year. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the summit veteran and comes into the discussions with significant experience. In terms of format of the Canadian presidency next year, I would expect that our government would downsize, with fewer ministerial meetings and perhaps a more intimate leaders format: that has been the pattern with our summits, perhaps in anticipation of the first question by media and political opposition which tend to focus on cost rather than summit results. The Italian summit will allow Mr. Trudeau to test run a few Canadian priorities (as he did when I was with him in Taormina in 2017) and offer an opportunity to announce the venue for the Canadian summit, assuming it has been selected. Expect that for Canada the focus on Ukraine, AI, the trio of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution to continue. Ditto on foreign interference, electoral or otherwise. Canada would (and should) raise the ongoing crisis in Haiti as it is hemispheric and Haiti is the only other French-speaking country in the hemisphere. With Kenya leading an international presence intending to stabilize Haiti, there may be an opportunity for leaders to discuss approaches this weekend.

LVD: In a great piece for Policy last year called ‘Whither the Gs? Summitry in a Time of Disruption’, you wrote that ‘assessing the G7 and the G20 is not a Beatles vs. Stones comparison’. But you’ve been to some pretty interesting G7s, notably at Charlevoix in 2018 when Trump lobbed that tweet-grenade over his shoulder from Air Force One and Taormina in 2017, which you compared to an episode of The Apprentice. Do you think the G7 could survive another Trump presidency?

PB: The G7 existential question arrives every year. The group has been together for almost 50 years, including during its iteration as the G8 from 1997 to 2014. There is no reason to forecast its demise. Next year will feature newly-elected leaders from at least two members and it is highly probable that the current “polycrisis” environment will persist if not proliferate. If there should be a disruptive factor, it would be a newly-elected President Trump. He has not proven himself to be a team player (i.e. he is the team), was difficult at Charlevoix, unsuccessfully tried to reject the summit documents. His senior Sherpa team was however helpful throughout. Since then, the G7 has proven itself as an influential deliberative body with respect to pandemic response and the resultant global economic downturn. It has been vital in the response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In terms of reputation, it may have suffered in the Global South with the positions its members have taken with respect to the conflict in Gaza.

Each G7 presidency has its own dynamic, issues and themes that are inherited as well as the unexpected ones that come along the way that might upend everything. Its informality is its strength; members’ democratic values its rock. It should be around for a long time.

Senator Peter M. Boehm, a regular contributor to Policy magazine, is a former senior diplomat and current chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Policy Magazine Editor Lisa Van Dusen was a senior writer at Maclean’s, Washington columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and Sun Media, international writer for Peter Jennings at ABC News and an editor at AP National in New York and UPI in Washington.