Leaders attend a meeting at the G20 Summit 2024 in Rio de Janeiro. (AP photo)
Praskanva Sinharay
Nov 30, 2024 11:27 IST First published on: Nov 30, 2024 at 11:27 IST
As the fading graffiti on the streets of New Delhi archives the memory of India’s G20 presidency in 2023, the elite club concluded its 19th Leaders’ Summit on November 18-19 in Rio de Janeiro under Brazil’s leadership. The summit ended successfully with a joint declaration but left a bitter aftertaste. What was most surprising is that the “premier forum for international economic cooperation” continued to call itself G20 (19 countries and the European Union), and not G21, despite including the African Union as a permanent member last year. This act of not renaming the forum faced criticisms as it demonstrated the reluctance of the elite club to genuinely include Africa in global decision-making. However, the Brazilian presidency, under the theme “Building a just world and a sustainable planet”, raised some fundamental concerns and exposed some diplomatic cracks.
Firstly, the summit was not attended by the heads of Russia and Saudi Arabia. While Vladimir Putin said that his presence would “wreck” the summit because of the ICC arrest warrant issued against his name, the last-minute cancellation by the Saudi Crown Prince generated speculations. More importantly, the final declaration was not entirely endorsed by Argentina because of President Javier Milei’s ideological opposition to the sustainable development agenda, welfare spending, and regulation of hate speech on social media. Further, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, questioned the G20’s effectiveness in managing the current global crises and warned of possible trade wars as Donald Trump reenters the White House. Other Western powers such as Germany, the UK and Canada also criticised the communique for its weak language on the Ukraine war. On the other hand, the G20 affirmed Palestine’s right to self-determination and advocated for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Looking at this shaky consensus on geopolitics, one cannot help but ask if the G20 is on the verge of an implosion.
Secondly, the prime outcome of the summit was the launch of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty (GAAHP), supported by 148 signatories, which includes 82 countries, international organisations, financial institutions and philanthropic bodies. It is going to be an independent platform, open to broader membership. It aims to lift 500 million people globally out of hunger and poverty by 2030 through initiatives like cash transfers, school meals, improved access to microfinance, access to water, and similar targeted interventions for social protection. While the launch of this alliance is a welcome decision, NGOs like Oxfam have pointed out that transparency in governance, clear safeguards vis-a-vis private-sector control over policy-making and inclusion of voices of civil society are crucial for its success. How the GAAHP initiative unfolds remains to be seen.
Thirdly, the G20 declaration did not mince words. It acknowledged that “inequality within and among countries is at the root of most global challenges that we face.” It committed to addressing inequalities and called for “social, economic and political inclusion and empowerment of all” to achieve ethnic and racial equality. A crucial step in this direction is the endorsement of progressive taxation and cooperative engagement to effectively tax “ultra-high-net-worth individuals.” While the US, Germany and Argentina opposed the wealth tax proposal, anti-poverty activists globally lauded the move as “a historic decision” for responding to “people’s demands worldwide to tackle extreme inequality, hunger and climate breakdown.”
Fourthly, the call to bring “transformative reform” in the UNSC to ensure greater representation, particularly of countries from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, is noteworthy. In addition, the group also reiterated its earlier commitments to reform the international financial architecture and institutions like the World Bank, Multilateral Development Banks and WTO. Reform of the global governance institutions to ensure substantive representation has been a long-standing demand. Observers have persistently pointed out how conditionalities imposed by Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF have resulted in “social, environmental and economic catastrophes” in countries of the Global South.
Finally, the G20 leaders also pledged to increase climate finance from billions to trillions, without presenting a clear roadmap. They hoped that this commitment would boost the CoP29 negotiations in Baku and culminate into a successful New Collective Quantified Goal for Climate Finance. However, the outcome of CoP29 turned out to be an “optical illusion” as rich countries agreed to contribute only $300 billion by 2035 to help poor countries deal with the impact of climate change. On the related question of dealing with the debt crisis of low- and middle-income countries, the G20 reaffirmed faith in its existing Common Framework which, as the case of Zambia revealed, is a flawed one and furthers economic instability.
most read
As a contender for the voice of the Global South, Brazil has struck the right chord with the pressing concerns of the people and the planet. The launch of the GAAHP and the endorsement of taxing the rich are two crucial steps. Interestingly, while the Brazilian government hid its poor neighbourhoods or favelas behind colourful walls during the summit, it also held a Favelas20 to engage with voices from these marginal neighbourhoods. Unlike India, observers commended Brazil for engaging with civil society. However, the G20 in India was a diplomatic triumph as the chair could build a consensus, even though the final declaration was considered “compromised”, “uninspiring and underwhelming.”
Brazil exposed the crisis of the G20. The return of the Trump administration will impact the forum’s existing commitments towards tackling climate, multilateralism and trade, among other issues. In turn, diplomatic disruptors like Argentine president Milei who endorsed cuts in government spending are likely to thrive. Moreover, the position of the US and Germany on the wealth tax, and the CoP29 negotiations reveal the West’s unwillingness to deal with people’s just demands. The situation is the same when it comes to debt justice. The challenge from a growing BRICS is also a serious concern for a divided G20 today. In a world of multiple intersecting crises — wars, hunger, widening inequalities, unprecedented forced migration, health emergencies, debt and climate crisis — it is perhaps time to rethink the relevance of informal clubs dictating global governance.
The writer is assistant professor of Political Science at GITAM University, Bengaluru
