HomeNewsOpinionG20: Under India's presidency, security issues will precede economic engagement

G20: Under India's presidency, security issues will precede economic engagement

In the recently concluded G20 Summit in Bali, issues related to Climate Change were discussed but the agenda was steered back to its core objective of fixing a faltering global economy

November 21, 2022 / 10:45 IST
Story continues below Advertisement
Prime Minister Narendra Modi (left) shook hands with Indonesia's President Joko Widodo (right) during the handover ceremony at the G20 Leaders' Summit. (Image: AP)
Prime Minister Narendra Modi (left) shook hands with Indonesia's President Joko Widodo (right) during the handover ceremony at the G20 Leaders' Summit. (Image: AP)

The Bali Summit of the Group of 20 (G20) has delivered a brave and reassuring outcome. Brave because Indonesian President Joko Widodo has not bent under the pressure of the West to eject the Russian Federation out of the G20. And reassuring because, after flirting with every issue under the pressure of activists, the Indonesian presidency has steered the G20 back to its core objective—fixing a faltering global economy.

The most honest line in the 17-page, 52-paragraph, 9,651-word G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration is situated in Para 3: “…the G20 is not the forum to resolve security issues.” The routine and expected condemnation “in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine” is mentioned as an echo of a March 2, 2022 Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, where 141 countries voted for and 5 against the resolution, with 35 abstentions and 12 absent. There were no new condemnations.

Story continues below Advertisement

This wise line is as much a statement as an introspection that finally lays clear the idea that the forum for global security issues is the United Nations in general and the UN Security Council (UNSC) in particular. Unfortunately, its capture by the P5 (the five permanent members of the UNSC) and the institution’s resultant failure is a blot of blood that has been spreading, from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine. Countries that comprise the General Assembly of the UN have been devalued into becoming bystanders, twiddling their thumbs around an alternative, wondering, “If not the UN, then who?” While a more equal, more inclusive new world order awaits its turn, it is the G20 that has been providing multilateral succour, creating spaces for more productive conversations and crafting cushions for soft landings.

But howsoever efficient the G20 might be for raising issues, having bilateral talks, and providing platforms for leaders of the world’s 19 largest economies plus the EU, it is at best a necessary condition for discussions. The lack of legitimacy and an enforcement mechanism ratified by the rest of the world prevents it from deriving institutional sufficiency to administer security. Can the powers of the G20 be expanded to counter the UN? Not in the visible future. On the other hand, can the arrogance of the P5 continue till eternity? Absolutely not. Institutionally, that’s the bridge the G20 represents; it is the middle ground, a platform for intergovernmental discussions. The G20 will be evaluated for its economic steering, not for ensuring security.