---

The G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, from June 15 to 17, and the NATO Summit in The Hague, from June 24 to 25, were two of the most important events in international politics in 2025. The two assemblies brought together important countries to deal with pressing issues in politics, economics, and security. The summits bolstered collaborative efforts among nations, established pragmatic agendas, and provided the groundwork for a more stable, prosperous, and secure global framework.

G7 Summit 2025 focused extensively on strengthening global economic stability and growth. The leaders prioritized technological innovation, energy security, and open trade regimes, also aimed to stimulate investment and sustainable growth. They also discussed a unified approach to global conflicts and peacebuilding, especially on the war in Ukraine and the Middle East tensions. The G7 showed a firm commitment to peace, security, and humanitarian assistance. By defending international law, they supported Ukraine's sovereignty and coordinated pressure on Russia through sanctions to demonstrate a united front. Likewise, calls for ceasefires and negotiated political solutions in Gaza and broader Middle East were also part of the G7’s discussion. The summit broadened its agenda beyond traditional economic and security issues, reflecting adaptability to 21st-century challenges like threats from transnational repression, misinformation, migrant smuggling, and climate-induced disasters like wildfires etc. G7 expanded its cooperative framework through partnerships and collective initiatives.

On the other hand, NATO Summit 2025 also focused on collective security and defense initiative amidst evolving threats, particularly from Russian aggression and regional instabilities. NATO acknowledged the need to address cyber threats, disinformation, and transnational crime, adjusting its strategic approach to confront emerging arenas of warfare and influence. Strengthening partnerships beyond the alliance were a part of deepened cooperative initiative with partners worldwide. This broad network strengthens regional stability and fosters shared security responsibilities. While acknowledging fiscal pressures, NATO encouraged sustainable defense spending growth, balancing economic realities with security imperatives. This approach supports long-term alliance stability and burden-sharing fairness.

The G7’s initiatives on supply chain diversification and innovation are expected to reduce global economic vulnerabilities, especially regarding critical minerals and technology sectors. This will foster more resilient manufacturing bases and accelerate clean energy transitions, with positive spillovers into global markets and climate goals. Again, NATO’s emphasis on defense modernization and increased spending signals greater security investments, which may stimulate defense industries but also necessitate careful fiscal management to avoid economic strain. Both summits reinforce multilateralism and collective action in a geopolitical landscape marked by rising authoritarianism and great power competition. The unified stance on conflicts, sanctions, and human rights bolsters international norms and deters unilateral aggression. The G7’s engagement with emerging economies and NATO’s outreach to partners reflect evolving global power balances and promote inclusive governance, potentially mitigating fragmentation.

In addition to these two, hundreds of other summits and conferences are held annually; some are highlighted more, some less, but they all have the same goal of promoting "Global Peace and Prosperity" throughout all spheres of the global order.  But take a look at the world!  Where is the prosperity and peace?  Dominance and power struggles are everywhere! 

Post-colonialism is firmly ingrained throughout the world, despite not being a colonial age like previous centuries.  It is standard practice to influence a nation's economics and governance in order to help or benefit other nations in the disguise of allies. Once more, people are promoting humanity while simultaneously producing and selling weapons in conflict-prone regions of the world, which will ultimately result in fatalities.  For instance, there is no ceasefire or peace treaty in place in Gaza, where people are dying.  The war is still going on despite the powerful nations' claims that they want it to stop. India and Pakistan are at odds over endless problems in Southeast Asia. The Rohingya crisis is one of the most talked-about issues of this moment, and Myanmar is experiencing a civil war if you look just a little way south to India.  Conflicts and proxy wars that destabilize areas like Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific are fueled by great power rivalry between the United States, China, and Russia.  Economic penalties, competition for vital resources, and territorial disputes exacerbate tensions and impede collaboration. Furthermore, new fields like disinformation campaigns and cyberwarfare threaten international trust and democratic institutions. Because power is frequently used through conflict and coercion rather than cooperation and diplomacy, these dynamics represent a failure to build enduring peace and shared prosperity. 

Another major topic of discussion at the summits is climate change and environmental preservation. The world's leaders convene annually to address issues pertaining to disaster management, the environment, and climate change. For instance, one of the largest summits is COP.  Despite a number of international initiatives, global efforts to address climate change have mostly fallen short of key benchmarks in recent years. Environmental disturbances such as severe wildfires, floods, droughts, and heat waves have gotten worse. As a result of these failures, the world's food and water supplies are under stress, vulnerable people are being uprooted more frequently, and biodiversity loss has accelerated. However, the summits cost billions of dollars annually! 

So, the question remains, are the summits worth the spending or they have become just “a yearly show” and a way to fool the world in the name of peace keeping and developmental initiatives? Despite international organizations like the United Nations claiming they want collective peace and prosperity, the veto power of the big 5 nations determines if a discussion will be taken by the UN or not. Surprisingly, the big 5 only approved the discussions if these did not violate their own interest. So, is there any use of summits or conferences? Alliances like NATO or G7 can take strict measures to end the disputes or crises of the world as they have the most powerful nations as members! Yet, when the question arises between self-beneficial decision or collective agreements, unfortunately most of the time self-benefit wins. Above all, isn’t it a high time to think about the efficiency and effectiveness of the summits?

Really Chakma is a Research Assistant at Centre for Governance Studies (CGS)

Disclaimer: Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy