On September 9-10, 2023, New Delhi hosted the eighteenth G20 summit with significant discussions on a wide range of economic, trade, financial, technological, climate, and migration topics. Discussions also focused on controversial security and political matters, such as the impact of the Ukraine war on food and energy security, among others. The level of representation at the summit by some members was also questioned, and the list of countries invited to attend had ramifications. This is in addition to having the African Union as a new member and announcing the economic corridor aimed at connecting India and Europe across the Middle East.
As a result, how can what happened during the New Delhi summit be understood? What was different from the previous summit in Bali, and could things change at the upcoming 2024 summit in Brazil?
From Bali to New Delhi
The world witnessed the continuation of some prevailing trends at the international level in less than ten months between the Bali and New Delhi summits, the first of which was held on November 15-16, 2022. On top of these considerations is the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war, its complexity, and the worsening of its consequences. This stems primarily from the cessation of the grain export agreement, also known as the Black Sea initiative, given Russia's belief that only one part of the agreement, relating to Ukrainian grains, was being implemented, while the part relating to its grain and fertilizer exports was overlooked. This resulted in a spike in grain prices and fears of worsening situations in many countries that suffer despite steady grain prices.
Prior to last year's Bali Summit, there were discussions about excluding Russia's presence due to the United States' tendency to isolate it in international gatherings and forums, as Moscow's membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council had already been terminated in April 2022. The calls have progressed to the point of depriving Moscow's participation in the United Nations Security Council, even though this is nearly impossible. This is simply because it requires Russia's consent, and as is well known, the Security Council was unable to issue any resolution about the Ukrainian war due to Russia's opposition. Such conversations are no longer a topic of discussion at the New Delhi summit for a variety of reasons. These include the nature of Indian-Russian relations, the Chinese position, and a decrease in the momentum to condemn Moscow, even at the United Nations, where resolutions are no longer issued as they were at the start of the current war. This explains why the New Delhi summit's response to the Ukraine war deviated from the Bali summit, as its statement denounced the "use of force" in Ukraine to achieve military advances but did not expressly reference Russia. In this regard, Amitabh Kant, an Indian official who was a key organizer of the New Delhi summit, stated that the consensus statement on Ukraine in the final declaration took "more than 200 hours of continuous negotiations, 300 bilateral meetings, and 15 draft texts."
The second, more ferocious trend is related to climate change, the consequences of which have touched many countries around the world, including G20 members. The World Meteorological Organization predicted an unprecedented spike in temperature in the summer of 2023. Floods, hurricanes, torrential rains, and landslides that accompanied them affected tens of millions of people worldwide. Fires have created record incidents in some circumstances, such as in the United States. The effects of the fires stretched across national borders, as was the case with Canada, damaging sections of the United States. However, French President Emmanuel Macron deemed the G20 summit's climate-related findings "insufficient."
There is also a third trend on the rise. It is reflected by trade disputes at many levels, including the implementation of trade and investment sanctions. If the sanctions on Russia are lifted owing to the uniqueness of the situation, we will see an interchange of sanctions imposed by the US and China. They are the world's two largest economies, after all.
This tendency cannot be separated from the ongoing strain on US-Chinese ties on numerous challenges. However, the state of relations between the two international powers may explain why Chinese President Xi Jinping did not attend the New Delhi summit so as not to meet his American counterpart, Joe Biden. Furthermore, given the differences and tensions between the two countries, as well as the increasing relationship between New Delhi and Washington, Xi could be sending a message to India. The absence of the Chinese President should not be overstated, as it falls within the framework of temporary symbolic messages. It was President Xi who was absent, rather than China, which was represented at a high level at the summit, namely by Premier Li Qiang. Beijing prioritizes its relations with Washington, New Delhi, and other major countries, but not at the price of its own interests, particularly crucial ones.
President Xi was not the only one who did not attend the summit. Russian President Vladimir Putin was also absent, continuing his pattern of not attending most summits, as he did at the BRICS summit in South Africa last August, which he attended via video conferencing.
India has invited nations with close relations, and two of them, Egypt and the UAE, are among the countries that will join the BRICS in early 2024. The African Union's President, Razali Othmani, was also among those invited. He announced the Union's official entrance to the G20, bringing the Group to two regional unions: the European Union and the African Union.
An Agreement despite the Differences
Anyone who believes the G20 countries' disagreements are solely about the Ukraine conflict is mistaken. If this has gained the most media attention, then most other concerns are also a source of dispute and sometimes disagreements that reach the point of contradiction. The potential for the New Delhi summit to withhold a conclusive statement was heightened if it adhered to the same format as the Bali summit in addressing the matter of conflict. This consideration played a role in crafting a statement that omitted any reference to Russia, prioritizing the affirmation of state sovereignty and advocating for the non-use of force. Perhaps this is what prompted Moscow to express satisfaction with the summit communiqué, but Ukraine was outraged, in contrast to what occurred at the Bali summit.
Aside from the Ukraine crisis, the recent summit statement detailed economic growth and its characteristics of sustainability, strength, balance, and inclusion. It also touched on the global economic situation, facilitating trade for growth, promoting financial inclusion, and combating corruption. The need to speed up the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with an emphasis on eliminating hunger and malnutrition, has also received much attention. The economic consequences of food and energy shortages, the provision of high-quality education, and culture as a transforming component for the SDGs were all discussed. Health concerns were also present.
It is an undisputed fact, recognized by the G20, that the road to achieving sustainable development goals is riddled with challenges. Equally undeniable is the stark contrast among countries in their development indicators. Moreover, some countries grapple with more acute issues, notably landlocked countries and small island states. However, is it enough to assert in the New Delhi Summit statement that no one would be left behind, that this group of countries' voices will be heard, or that they will participate in global decision-making? How will this happen in a society dominated by power equations on the one hand and increasingly focused on expanding military spending on the other? The summit advocated for moving from the category of billions to trillions in the framework of financing pressing challenges, including climate issues, as well as the necessity for affluent countries to meet their development aid responsibilities. Many questions remain unanswered, however. Other examples, such as the demand for a World Trade Organization-based fair, non-discriminatory, open, multilateral, sustainable, and transparent trade system, can be given. How can this be accomplished when certain G20 countries' policies are headed in the opposite direction? How can trade and environmental policies complement one another? If the G20 sees international financial institution reform need, what are they waiting for?
On the Sidelines of the Summit
Aside from India's attempts to support the movement to change its name to Bharat, the most significant announcement made on the margins of the G20 summit is the development of an economic corridor between India and Europe via the Middle East. This cannot be addressed without two critical considerations and a similar announcement during the Bali summit.
The first is the declaration's relevance to the G7 infrastructure investment initiative. The second relates to the level of competition or complementarity between the G7 project and China's Belt and Road project, which has been in place for about ten years. Many observers feel that the G7 initiative was created to pull the rug out from under the Chinese plan, which has received much American criticism. Italy is the only G7 country participating in the initiative and is pressured to leave.
A similar declaration was signing an agreement between Indonesia, the United States, and the European Union last year regarding global infrastructure and investment. Indonesia is heavily involved with the Belt and Road Initiative, as are the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. This increases the possibility of benefiting from all the initiatives offered and even of coordinating between them, but the disparities between those in charge of these initiatives and then the differences in their appraisals of the other cannot be overlooked.
One of the most notable statements made on the sidelines of the G20 summit was that attributed to Brazilian President Lula da Silva. He stated that he would invite President Putin to the next summit, which is scheduled to be held in his country in November 2024, especially since he will have traveled to Russia to attend the BRICS summit. On September 11, however, Da Silva backed down from ensuring that Putin would not be detained if he visited the Rio de Janeiro summit the following year, emphasizing that the decision was up to the judiciary, not the government. It is too early, however, to predict if Putin will attend the next summit and whether the current situation will persist next year.
As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized in his inaugural address at the G20 summit, the world is currently undergoing a profound crisis of confidence. This calls for unified and deliberate actions, especially given the numerous tensions persisting in vast regions. Some of these tensions are palpable, while others remain simmering beneath the surface, ready to erupt unexpectedly. If such tensions do not subside and the confidence crisis worsens, they risk undermining much of what the world's countries aim to achieve, much of which was declared in the New Delhi summit statement.
