By Anjali Sharma
WASHINGTON – US administration deliberate and unprecedented boycott of the G20 leaders’ summit created a negotiating vacuum that allowed emerging powers such as China, India, and even a constrained European Union, to exert far greater influence than usual over the outcome, stated experts on Monday.
G20 summit was held in South Africa to spotlight climate justice, debt relief, and a more inclusive model of global governance.
G20 in a way shaped far more by who was absent than by who attended.
Johannesburg Declaration was adopted on the very first day, an unusual step meant to pre-empt potential political disruptions because of the challenge to the summit’s legitimacy.
The adoption also raised questions about whether these outcomes can be implemented if the world’s largest economy does not accept the outcomes declaration from the G20 summit at Johannesburg.
The document avoided detailed references to conflict zones such as Ukraine and Gaza, framed the G20’s purpose around climate justice, adaptation financing, disaster resilience and debt relief for vulnerable economies.
The ambitious emphasis was made possible to a great extent because the world’s largest power, US was not present to dilute or reinterpret the language.
India championed the G20 Critical Minerals Framework, which seeks to build sustainable and transparent critical mineral value chains, enhance local beneficiation and reduce the long-standing pattern of exporting raw materials only to import high-value finished goods.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi also used the summit to focus on the fight against terror, having been a victim of cross-border terrorism in the recent past as well as introduce six new initiatives, including a global traditional knowledge repository and a G20 health emergency response team, embedded a human-centric vision of development that dovetails with the summit’s broader focus on just energy transitions.
Beijing without President Xi Jinping at the table took pains to try and shape key parts of the agenda, something which the US would have watched closely from the side-lines.
Chinese team, led by Premier Li Qiang worked closely with developing countries to warn against unilateral climate-related trade measures such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms, which it sees as discriminatory against developing economies.
Chinese interventions ensured that the final language on climate retained an emphasis on equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, and opposition to policies perceived as cloaked protectionism. One has to see how the US President Donald
Trump responds to the broadside Xi Qiang managed to launch in his absence.
It strengthened the Global South coalition’s hand, the more powerful West was certainly discomfited.
European Union did attempt to preserve its influence by advancing critical mineral partnerships, especially with South Africa, and by retaining a strong focus on investment in the green transition.
EU found itself on the defensive without the US to boost Western positions.
It faced coordinated pressure from India, China and other developing states to soften its stance on trade-linked climate measures and to address long-standing grievances about delayed or insufficient climate finance.
The victory is ambiguous, the experts noted.
A declaration that the S does not recognize cannot function as a universally accepted roadmap for global economic policy.
The world will watch whether the US re-engages, as also whether emerging powers choose to treat the G20 as a platform for shared governance or merely another arena to contest influence.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.