Introduction
As the G7 recalibrates its global priorities around economic resilience and geopolitical control, a new architecture of fragmentation is emerging, which is one that sidelines multilateral institutions. This piece examines how recent shifts in trade, security, and climate diplomacy reflect not a failure of global coordination, but a deliberate strategy of selective engagement. Drawing on the 51st G7 Summit (Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, 15-17 June 2025) as a focal point, the piece explores how these developments reshape the space for the United Nations (UN), challenge the integrity of the rules-based order, and test the ability of Global South actors to navigate a fractured geopolitical landscape. The author’s central argument is that fragmentation is no longer a byproduct of instability, it is a tactic. Therefore, in this evolving order, the UN risks being left behind unless it repositions itself as more than a passive arbiter between shifting blocs.
At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that the UN’s paralysis in critical areas is not due solely to institutional inertia or lack of adaptability. Rather, it is the direct consequence of rivalry and dysfunction among its most powerful member states, particularly within the Security Council. These internal fractures mirror global strategic tensions, meaning the UN is not outside the problem, but it is where the problem is most institutionalized.
Economic Resilience vs. Global Trade Fragmentation
The shift towards a new kind of protectionist resilience is a shift where the G7 no longer attempts to recreate Bretton Woods-type trade consensus. Instead, it is creating overlapping economic blocs in which economic security takes priority over the classical principles of open markets. Beneath the lexicon of “friend-shoring” and “strategic autonomy” lies a new faith, particularly in sectors like semiconductors, rare earths, and green tech, often at the expense of economic interdependence. It is, thus, a systemic reversal of West-led globalization from integration for efficiency to redundancy and control.
The G7’s failure to reach consensus on World Trade Organization (WTO) reform or digital trade deepens the global governance gap. The slide has broad ramifications outside the G7. For emerging economies, and especially middle-income countries that are increasingly getting drawn into the US–China economic crossfire, the Kananaskis summit conveyed one clear message: the rules-based order can no longer be guaranteed through existing geopolitical frameworks.
For the United Nations (UN) system and its specialized agencies, this fragmentation threatens threefold. First, higher costs of trade and export prohibitions risk derailing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) implementation by destroying low-cost access to technology, medicine, and food in the Global South. Second, restrictive strategic mineral alliances could exclude institutionally weaker states, even if they are resource-rich. Third, undermining multilateralism damages the UN’s capacity to broker trade-related development conflicts, especially when great powers bypass or hollow out institutions like the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the WTO.
This emerging system of global trade reflects how geopolitical rivalry is not just economically divergent, but is also shaping multilateral dysfunction. The inability to update WTO rules or strengthen UNCTAD’s mandate is not due to institutional ineffectiveness but a reflection of power politics. Large economies are increasingly using economic blocs as tools for strategic competition, and such competition stifles progress through the UN system. Unless the G7, China, and other powers subscribe to universal norms of development and channels of conflict resolution, the UN development apparatus will remain peripheral, credible only in humanitarian work, not in shaping structural reform.
Security Dilemma: Middle East & Ukraine
The 51st G7 Summit laid bare a growing disconnect: while the G7 champions economic resilience, its ability to act in unison on global security is slipping. The Israel–Iran crisis quickly hijacked the agenda, sidelining Ukraine and highlighting the fragility of G7 coordination when crises collide. While the summit was still ongoing, US President Trump abruptly departed to address rising tensions in the Middle East, essentially eliminating planned talks on Ukraine and scotching a planned meeting with President Zelenskiy.
European actors – Germany, France, and the UK – tried filling the gap by a joint pledge to reduce tensions in Gaza and strengthen support for Ukraine. Canada committed C$2 billion (US$1.47 billion) in military aid to Kyiv, but in the absence of coordinated US support, the momentum was lost. German policymakers, anticipating Washington’s reduced focus, began to explore “alternative security architectures” for Ukraine, ranging from NATO-backed regional defense pacts to hypothetical UN-sponsored peacekeeping mechanisms, should political conditions allow. The G7’s fragmented political coordination on security, the Group not being a military alliance like NATO, signals a broader inability among major liberal democracies to maintain consistent responses to global crises.
For the UN, this disconnect has operational consequences. Peacemaking in the Middle East and Ukraine is dependent on some strategic unity of the major democratic powers. Therefore, the disunited messages from G7 capitals and an unresolved G7 communiqué, especially one lacking an unambiguous united stance, is more than diplomatic failure, as it signals to friends and adversaries alike an eroding confidence that the world’s major Western powers can still march together. This will result in further paralysis for the UN.
Conclusion
In short, the G7’s current economic approach doesn’t rebuild confidence in globalization. On the contrary, it reshapes globalization into a defensive, interest-based system, generating volatility across global supply chains, risking cycles of retaliation, and ultimately serving to entrench inequality between those within and outside the circle of trusted partners. Coupled with the rising assertiveness of BRICS+, this reflects a deep systemic rivalry that prevents collective global action. From stagnation in the Security Council to inconsistent commitment to its development institutions, the UN has been an image of the divisions of the world. For common purpose not to be fully lost, with unforeseen consequences, the UN needs to remain relevant, and for that it has to rebrand itself proactively. It must strengthen and move beyond crisis management to positively offering flexible frameworks for collaboration in a multipolar world.
