The G7 Without America

Xi, Trump, and the shape of the coming world order

By: Khanh Vu Duc

Behold the G-6. Official photo

The image from Kananaskis, Canada, on June 17 may become iconic: leaders of the world’s major democracies standing together without the President of the United States. Donald Trump had departed just hours after the G7 Summit opened, citing the Iran–Israel crisis. But his absence was more than logistical. It was symbolic.

That same day, Chinese President Xi Jinping published a cryptic message on X: “History doesn’t just repeat itself, it accelerates.” The night before, he had posted another: “The world can move on without the United States.” Together, these two statements — brief, deliberate, and strategically timed — capture a growing perception: the world is learning to operate without American leadership, not in hostility but in adaptation.

A Summit Redefined by Absence

This year’s G7 was meant to mark a turning point. Under the stewardship of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the summit focused on rebuilding multilateral trust, strengthening global supply chains, coordinating green investment, and reaffirming support for Ukraine. Carney’s ambition was clear: to lay the groundwork for a new economic architecture rooted in democratic resilience.

But Trump’s early exit upended the narrative. While White House officials pointed to tensions in the Middle East and Trump downplayed any direct link to Israel or Iran behind the scenes, he appeared increasingly frustrated with the summit’s push for global tax coordination — particularly the OECD-backed plan for a global minimum corporate tax rate — as well as climate financing commitments and long-term military aid for Ukraine. These multilateral frameworks, central to G7 ambitions under Prime Minister Carney, clashed with Trump’s unilateral approach, including his recent revival of “reciprocal tariffs” against US trading partners. For Trump, such initiatives represent not cooperation, but constraint, reinforcing his belief that America should chart its own course, free from multilateral obligations.

Whatever the motive, Trump’s withdrawal left a vacuum, one that the remaining leaders chose not to lament, but to fill. They pushed ahead, joined by leaders from India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Australia, and Ukraine. This “G7+” reflects a shifting reality: global legitimacy is no longer synonymous with American presence.

Xi’s Posts: Short, Sharp, Strategic

Xi Jinping’s social media interventions weren’t random musings. The June 16 post, comparing the US to past empires — Britain, France, Spain — read like a eulogy in waiting. Empires fade, Xi seemed to say, and the U.S. is no exception.

Xi’s follow-up on June 17 – “History doesn’t just repeat itself, it accelerates” – was even more pointed. It implies not just decline, but rapid decline. As America steps back, China positions itself not merely as an alternative, but as the inevitable heir to global centrality. While Washington debates, Beijing narrates. With just a few words, Xi reframed the G7’s drama into a broader historical arc: the end of US dominance as a fait accompli.

The contrast is stark. The G7, in both form and function, represents a rules-based order grounded in liberal values, multilateralism, and shared prosperity. The “G7+” initiative gestures toward a more inclusive version of this vision, one that integrates key emerging democracies and avoids old North–South binaries. Trump, by contrast, projects a realist worldview: transactional, sovereigntist, and deeply skeptical of institutions. His foreign policy, if one can call it that, echoes the priorities of Xi and Putin: strongmen politics, bilateral deals, and disdain for global frameworks.

Thus, what we see is not merely the U.S. versus China, or the West versus the Rest, but a deeper clash of organizing principles. One camp prioritizes cooperation, governance, and long-term sustainability. The other embraces sovereignty, strength, and short-term strategic advantage.

Vietnam in the Middle

For countries like Vietnam, this fracture presents both risk and opportunity. Vietnam has historically mastered the art of strategic balance — cooperating with multiple powers without aligning too closely with any. But as the global order polarizes, that middle path narrows. The stakes are rising. Align too closely with China, and Vietnam risks falling into its orbit. Depend too much on the US and it may face instability every four years. The G7+ framework offers a third way: a coalition of democracies and responsible middle powers, united by shared norms, not hegemonic dictates.

Vietnam could, in theory, play a constructive role — as a diplomatic bridge, a regional stabilizer, and a pragmatic voice from the Global South. But such a role will require more than strategic neutrality. If Vietnam aspires to align meaningfully with democratic coalitions, it must also embark on long-overdue political reforms. As long as it remains a one-party communist state, governed without political competition or meaningful accountability, its place in a rules-based democratic order will remain limited — or conditional at best. Choosing a future grounded in democratic legitimacy, even gradually, could position Vietnam not just as a balancing actor, but as a truly respected stakeholder in shaping the world to come.

A World in Motion

The true significance of Trump’s departure and Xi’s posts is not in their individual symbolism, but in how they mirror a changing world. Global power is not what it used to be. It is less about domination and more about legitimacy. America’s global leadership was built not only on economic and military strength, but on the belief that it represented a better way — freedom, rule of law, and opportunity. That belief has frayed.

The G7 proceeding without Trump is not a snub, it’s a signal. The world is reorganizing itself around networks, not empires, around partnerships, not patrons. Xi’s digital parables reveal how adept China has become at seizing these moments to tell its story. But the story isn’t over — and it’s not China’s alone to write. Kananaskis 2025 may come to be remembered not for the speeches made, but for the silence — and what filled it.

Xi offered one version of the future: a world where power migrates from the careless to the prepared. Trump, perhaps unintentionally, reinforced that narrative. But Carney, the G7+, and the broader community of democratic nations offered another path: a recalibrated, post-American leadership model, rooted in shared purpose and mutual respect. The world is moving. The only question that remains is: who has the vision, credibility, and courage to shape where it goes?

Khanh Vu Duc is an Ottawa-based lawyer and essayist specializing in Vietnamese and Canadian politics, international relations, and international law. He is a frequent contributor to Asia Sentinel.