Under the Indian Presidency, curtains will come down on the G20 leaders’ 18th meeting in Bharat Mandapam (Sanctum Sanctorum) on Sunday, September 10.
So far, 17 meetings have been held under different presidencies. “Our G20 Presidency strives to bridge divides, dismantle barriers, and sow seeds of collaboration that nourish a world where unity prevails over discord, where shared destiny eclipses isolation,” touted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his signed op-ed published in various Indian publications.
The G20 came into existence in end-2008 to address the worst financial crisis caused by the American Banks and its policymakers. It now includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. The grouping’s outcomes, though dominated by the so-called G7 countries led by the US, moved from one compromise to the other over the past 15 years.
Credit goes to the Narendra Modi government for organising the meetings of G20 Sherpas/negotiators (designated by the respective member countries) and sundry workshops in 200-odd places across the length and breadth of India. Using the Sanskrit phrase “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,” meaning One World, One Family, and One Future, India sought to bring about a paradigmatic shift in the global discourse. Surely, that is an unenviable task when nations, including India, seem to be drowned in multiple crises.
Amidst an unceasing flow of superlative headlines such as “Human-Centric Globalization: Taking G20 To the Last Mile, Leading None Behind” (The Times of India of September 7), “A G20 of Jan Bhagidari” (TOI), “G20 will reach the Last Mile, leave no one behind”, the real picture remains somewhat blurred. Little wonder that truth appears to be the major casualty.
Never in the history of the G20 meetings has one witnessed such pomp and splendor from a country that carries the highest disease burden in the world. It is also one of the nations with the largest number of people below poverty. In some ways, the G20 meetings in India over the past several months seemed somewhat like the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why the Indian prime minister’s images were displayed in such large-scale hoardings, banners and billboards almost everywhere.
Not transformative
The G20 meetings are never seen as transformative. After all, it is a premier forum for leaders to deliberate on the unfolding challenges and major crises across countries. The conclusions reached at each meeting on a range of issues concerning the global financial situation, unfulfilled promises of reforms of multilateral financial institutions/development banks and climate change, the multilateral trading system with WTO at its center, development, agriculture, and education are more incremental in nature. It needs to be stressed that the outcomes are neither binding on the G20 members nor on the international multilateral bodies.
But the hype and the high-pitched campaign witnessed since last December when India took the baton for holding the G20 Presidency from Indonesia seemed somewhat incongruous with the milestones it propagandised. At a time when the G20’s final meeting in Bharat Mandapam seems dented with the absence of leaders from China and Russia, and when a New Delhi communique/Declaration appears somewhat uncertain, there is little point in screaming from the rooftops about accomplishing transformative outcomes.
Consider, for example, the G20 outcome document on trade. The G20 trade ministers failed to include language on the restoration of the binding two-stage dispute settlement system, with the Appellate Body being the final adjudicator of global trade disputes. Reason: The United States which created the binding two-stage dispute settlement system has decided to make it dysfunctional. It appears determined to create a system based on “Might is Right”. Worse still, after repeatedly insisting that India is the Voice of the Global South, New Delhi is not able to insert strong language on the continuation of special and differential treatment, the consensus principle for deciding outcomes at the World Trade Organization, and so on.
The real threat for “human-centric Globalization” is not coming from China. In fact, China wants more globalization and strengthening of the WTO. The flood of security-driven trade policies being tossed across the world by a dying hegemon to preserve its importance is the real threat. The fragmentation of the global trading system through policies such as friend-shoring, reshoring, and de-risking among others by the US and several other western countries remains the biggest threat. Of course, the Modi government, because of its latest spate of purchases from nuclear technology to jet engines, may prefer to put a gloss on the disruptions caused by the Biden administration in the global supply chains.
Climate change
When it comes to addressing the existential climate change crisis, the G20 under the Indian Presidency, could not insert robust language against unilateral barriers, including those under the pretext of tackling climate change imposed by certain developed countries. The slew of carbon taxes by countries that created the problem of climate change over the past two centuries may not figure in any transformative language that India allegedly boasts time and time and again.
Finance
The Leaders of the Group of 20 industrialised and developing seem to face a major challenge in addressing the much-delayed reform of the multilateral financial institutions, particularly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the worsening debt problem that is being increasingly aggravated by the constant interest rate hikes of the US Federal Reserve.
India, the much-claimed voice of the Global South, could not even insert language on creating a Global Financial Safety Net with a quota-based and adequately resourced International Monetary Fund (IMF) at its center.
It remains moot if India can bring about a transformative language for the conclusion of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) 16th General Review of Quotas before 15 December 2023. Leaders of the expanded BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) Leaders called for “The review should restore the primary role of quotas in the IMF” and “any adjustment in quota shares should result in increases in the quota shares of emerging markets and developing economies (EMDCs), while protecting the voice and representation of the poorest members.”
The chances of including strong language in the G20 final Delhi declaration seem somewhat remote because Uncle Sam views such calls as a threat to its hegemony in international financial architecture. A close partner like India may not remotely attempt to rock the boat against its new seemingly permanent ally.
