Article content continued

It was no secret in the lead-up to last year’s G7 that the government fretted that Trump would be a disruptive force.

Trudeau is expected to attend this year’s leaders meeting later this month in France, and French officials are scrambling to have a successful summit — with or without Trump’s co-operation.

Boehm argues in his 11-page essay of the need for a successful G7 to tackle global problems with a united consensus among its member countries that includes Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy.

“The single greatest downside of using this method in a body like the G7 is that one unco-operative member can spoil desired outcomes worked toward and advocated for by the rest,” he writes.

Ordinarily, the final communique, a statement that sherpas carefully craft for their leaders, is the main way for the G7 to show “unity and leadership to the world,” says Boehm.

But Canada was taking nothing for granted at last year’s summit.

“The choice for the Canadian summit at Charlevoix was whether to undertake the effort of negotiating a communique at all,” says Boehm.

The Canadians did keep a 'back pocket' chair's statement on hand — just in case

That’s because there were “deep differences” between the Americans — Boehm never names Trump directly — the other six countries and the European Union (also a G7 member) on several issues, he says. Among the issues were climate change, the international rules-based order, protectionism in trade, and the nuclear deal between Iran and the Western powers, which Trump has since pulled the U.S. out of.