The 18th G20 Summit was held in New Delhi last week, on the 9th and 10th of September. The G20 is always an intriguing event to witness; more inclusive than the democracy-centric, western-focused G7, the G20 includes nations from across the geographic and political spectrum, including all 5 of the BRICS nations, as well as Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Argentina.
Notably absent from the summit were 2 of the world’s most powerful leaders; Xi Jinping of China, and Vladimir Putin of Russia, their places taken by Premier Li Qiang and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, respectively. Their absences gave nations like the US much more elbow room, and President Biden was visible, shaking hands and talking at meetings with allies and adversaries, whilst the Russian and Chinese representatives flew mostly under the radar.
Putin’s absence was a given. The man, in his state of constant paranoia, barely leaves Russia these days. To expect him to leave his chemotherapy throne made from the bones of journalists to attend a summit including NATO leaders when the International Criminal Court has an arrest warrant out on him is wishful thinking.
Xi’s absence however, is more difficult to explain. China has not explained why he wasn’t there, neither did they explain when he missed his speech at the most recent BRICS summit in South Africa earlier this year. China is currently engaged in more diplomatic disagreements than you could shake a stick at, including an escalating border dispute with India, the host nation. Some have suggested the Xi may have wanted to avoid any uncomfortable confrontations on such a public stage, whilst others have said he has more important domestic matters to see to. Some are speculating that he, like (allegedly) Putin, is in bad health, but this can’t be proven. In any case, Premier Li was a much less commanding presence to represent China at this meeting, and China’s presence was felt much less keenly this year.
A new attendee was welcomed at this summit; the African Union became the second Continental Union to gain membership of the G20, the European Union already being a member of the bloc. This addition has given Africa, the world’s second-most populous continent, greater representation on the world stage, and is emblematic of the developmental pivot the international community is making towards the Global South. The AU’s inclusion also technically makes the forum the G21, but that doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily, I suppose.
Under India’s stewardship, this is exactly the type of image Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to project for his country. India has experienced growth at an unprecedented scale in recent years, and finds itself increasingly at the head of the charge for developing countries, seldom excluded from strategic conversations in those traditionally most powerful nations in the west and east Asia.
India has recently overtaken China as the world’s most populous nation, and the UK as the world’s fifth-largest economy, not to mention landing an unmanned craft on the Moon, an incredible feat for any nation to achieve. The pomp and circumstance of the G20 gathering is another such example of India’s new place in the diverse, multipolar 21st Century world order, and a way for Modi to capitalise on this recent spat of good press.
Modi has seized upon his country’s budding hegemony and the opportunity given to him by this G20 summit, presenting himself a gracious host of world leaders, with whom they’d all clamour for an audience. Modi sought to project this image not only internationally, but internally within India. The streets of Delhi were lined with advertising for the summit; you could scarce walk a few hundred meters in that city without seeing a billboard or a poster with Modi’s face printed on it.
The timing, for Modi, is perfect; a general election is expected in Spring 2024, and he has been facing intense criticism from his increasingly organised opposition. The G20 has given him a national stage from which to sing his own praises and up his profile amongst voting Indians.
However, whilst Modi might be enjoying a larger platform after the G20, it does not wipe away everything that makes him worthy of criticism.
His Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, has been responsible for policies designed to repress minorities within India, especially Muslim communities. Indian Muslims have been subject to increasing sectarian violence by Hindu extremists in recent years, with Modi and the BJP turning a blind eye to beatings and extra-judicial killings. The BJP, at the very least, are aloof to this prejudice, and at most, complicit. They are playing more and more by the right-wing populist playbook; widen divisions and reap the votes from the fired up masses. That’s how Brexit happened, that’s how Trump happened.
Also, India may have lifted thousands of its citizens out of extreme poverty, but at the cost of being one of the most unequal societies in the world.
Over three quarters of India’s national wealth is held by the top 10% of citizens, the top 1% holding 40% of all the money in the country. There were 9 billionaires in India in 2000. There are now 169. The overall percentage of those in poverty may have decreased in the pass few decades, but India’s horrifically unequal healthcare system forces 63 million of them a year back down there to cover associated costs. Those with vast wealth live in luxury, whilst those in the slums can barely afford to eat. Modi, whilst he talks a big game on this issue, has done little real work to combat it.
In fact, it’s something he seems keen for people to ignore. A few weeks before the G20 got underway, the slums of Delhi were covered up, literally covered up, by sheets of green tarpaulin, upon which were plastered still more posters with Modi’s vacant smiling face. He may profess pride in his nation, but his actions tell a starkly different story.
The tone of this G20 was decidedly different to last year’s summit in Indonesia. Commentators agree that much less progress was made in Delhi than in Bali, especially on Ukraine, the language used in the declaration on the war much softer than 2022.
The official declaration stated: “In line with the UN Charter, all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”
No mention of Ukraine, no mention of Russia, no mention of the war. If this statement was an ice cream, it wouldn’t even be vanilla; just unflavoured frozen milk.
It should be understood why the language here was so watered down. Declarations at forums like the G20 often mirror the sentiment of the host nation, and India is striving to be as non-aligned on Ukraine as possible to keep both sides happy. Well, maybe not happy, but willing to invest, at the very least.
The statement was of course criticised by Ukraine, whose Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, called the agreement “nothing to be proud of.” This is also measured language from Ukraine, who are usually vocal critics of anything less than absolute support for their cause, but conscious of the fact that the US, UK, EU, and other allies co-signed this agreement, as well as Russia.
The western G7 nations present in Delhi had been pushing for a harder line on Ukraine than the outcome we got. Russia, obviously, pushed back on this campaign, supported more vociferously than usual by China, who seemed to ramp up their verbal support for Russia at this meeting.
US President Joe Biden tried to rationalise the agreement by saying it “built on” what the US and allies have already said about the war. Scraping away the politician’s veneer, what he meant was he and other western nations have already condemned Russia’s invasion in the strongest possible terms, and pissing off India by pushing for equally hard-line rhetoric wouldn’t help anyone. The US, NATO, and the west are still, for the time being, behind Ukraine.
Outside of the statement on Ukraine, a few notable developments were achieved at this G20. The Global Biofuel Alliance was established, an agreement between 5 G20 member states (USA, India, Italy, Argentina, and Brazil) and 3 non-members (UAE, Mauritius, and Bangladesh) to promote development and use of sustainable biofuels like biodiesel. It is too early to say if this agreement will effect any meaningful change, but the inclusion of heavy-hitters USA and India in this agreement will hopefully persuade more nations to make more meaningful investments into renewable energy sources.
Another milestone reached in Delhi was the the announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC), a planned maritime and overland shipping route linking these three regions. Aimed at boosting economic development in the regions it passes through, as well as improving trading relationships, diplomatic ties, and green energy connectivity, the IMEEC was perhaps the most significant agreement finalised at the sidelines of this summit.
The route would leave the Indian west coast, travelling over the ocean to reach the UAE, then through the Saudi Arabian desert into Jordan and Israel, and finally over the Mediterranean into Southern Europe. Modi no doubt saw this as another opportunity for him to lead on the advancement of Global South agendas whilst also improving connectivity and relations between his nation, the oil-rich Gulf States, and the west.
Infrastructure deals were also reached with the finalisation of this deal, as ports, rail lines, highways, and more would be needed for it to become a success. Debt restructuring, a hot button issue for the Global South, was also on the agenda, with Modi once again at the forefront of discussions.
Biden was very present at these discussions, despite the route not involving the US. The IMEEC is a clear rival to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a continents-spanning series of huge infrastructure projects and shady economic shenanigans that requires its own article to describe. This is a way for the west (especially the US after the foreign policy hurricane of the Trump years) to strengthen ties and rebuild bridges in the Global South, in the Asia-Pacific, in China’s backyard, by investing in these infrastructure projects, whilst also connecting Europe and the west with some of the fastest-growing regions in the world.
India led the “non-aligned” bloc at this summit, trying to claim most of the central ground between Russia and the US. India, with the likes of Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina, etc., did not take as hard a line on security issues as Russia, the US, the UK, or China did. They aren’t as involved in the war in Ukraine as we are, and are more focused on their own growth and expanding their own influence. Fatigue from the war in Ukraine was evident, and the attitude to security cooperation from those outside the G7 was somewhat laissez-faire. President Lula de Silva said that Brazil would not enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant on Putin if he were to visit.
“India” was interesting replaced with “Bharat” on the card in front of Modi at the meeting tables. Bharat is an ancient Sanskrit word for India, which has colonial roots, and therefore connotations for some Indians, or Bharati. Some have argued that this name change is less to do with pride in India’s ancient past, but because the BJP’s main opposition in the upcoming election is a coalition of opposition parties under the name, the “Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance”, or INDIA. INDIA is catching up to the BJP in the polls, this has been seen as a distraction aimed at removing some credibility from Modi’s rivals.
Re-naming his country will do little to address India’s horrible inequalities and slipping democratic standards and respect for human rights. As one Indian woman put it during an interview, “Will renaming the slum ‘Bharat’ make them not want to cover it up at the next G20?”. A rhetorical question.
stay safe
/e