Hello everyone, welcome to the 101st International Relations Capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. Today our topic is the recent meetings of the G20 in New Delhi. G20 as you know has two separate streams. One is called the finance stream and the other is called the Sherpa stream. So the finance ministers consider various aspects of world economy etc. And the Sherpa stream puts it together at the end for the summit. So the summit is still only at the end of this year, September onwards. But these two foreign ministers meetings were held in Delhi at the end of February and early March. As you all know, the G20 was formed in 1999 to deal with economic issues. It was in fact set up by G7, in other words G7 which was controlling the entire world economy, felt inadequate to deal with these issues without the participation of the developing countries and other major countries. So that is why in 1999 the G7 set up what is called the G20, somewhat casually put together, but with some concern about the geographical representation etc. But not very well thought of, but these two 20 countries are really the countries that should be involved in any kind of decisions on the global economy. It was recognized at that time. But G20 came to force in the summit level only in 2007 when there was a global economic crisis. So G7 which appeared to be in control of the whole global situation felt that they needed the participation of other countries, significant countries also in it. And that is how G20 was elevated to the heads of state level, summit level. And that group G20 helped in a big way the resolution of the problems of 2007-2008. And India as a participant made a big contribution as Dr. Manmohan Singh was able to give some guidance, which even the US President acknowledged because Barack Obama kept calling Dr. Manmohan Singh his guru because of the wise advice he thought at that time. And since then G20 has been meeting every year on political order, chairmanship, Indonesia and now India and discussing various economic and commercial issues. But this year and also last year when the summit was held under the presidency of Indonesia, the situation became such because of the Russia-Ukraine war that it was realized that unless the war ends, it would be very difficult for the economic issues to be resolved. So everybody was looking at G20 to find a suggestion for ending the war, cessation of hostilities and perhaps an agreement to end the war. And therefore G20 being a body which was entrusted with economic issues. But it was felt that war and peace should also be discussed because without peace, you cannot have resolution of economic issues. And therefore everybody was looking at G20 for one of the reasons. One G20 is a fairly representative body, though it's not an elected body. If you look at these 20 countries, you will find there are the permanent members there, there are the permanent members, candidates there, the big powers are all there. It was from all regions, Latin America, Arab world, West, East, everything is there. And so it looked like a body which is competent enough to discuss political issues together with the economic issues. And therefore in Bali, when the summit was held, there was much expectation that countries like India, China and so on exert some influence in order to bring the war to an end. And there was certain sympathy for this that G20 can do certain things that the Security Council cannot do because of the veto. Russia can veto anything in the Security Council, but they cannot veto it in G20.  They have to come to a consensus and therefore people felt that G20 may be able to find some solution, at least help find some solution. And in fact it did in a way because the solutions which were all vetoed by Russia had certain elements which were consensus elements, like for example ending the war, even Russia would like to end the war, I presume. Or this is not the time for war but for peace, etc., the idea that Mr. Modi put across and so on. So these were very much in the Bali summit. And in fact G20 was able to come out with a statement in which there are two paragraphs relating to the Russia Great War. And general principles, no specific proposals, but it was considered a major response because G20 countries, since there is no veto, Russia and its friends like China had also to negotiate it, you cannot just throw it away. And therefore some negotiations took place. And very cautious language about non-violability of borders and principles of non-aggression, all these common principles, but put in that context it appeared to be some progress that G20 would make. And then there was this big expectation that now that India is going to be the chairman of G20 in 2023, we could carry the decisions of the Bali summit and bring it into some kind of a political decision in Delhi. Of course Delhi summit has not taken place till several months to go. But the debate started very early as to whether the G20 should actually be dealing with political issues. It should matters like war and peace. It was not meant to be so. But the counter argument was that there is no point in trying to solve issues of these major kinds like energy, trade, oil, poverty, the requirements of winter in Europe, all these were thrown into this. And so there was natural expectation that G20 will do even more under India. And India took this responsibility quite seriously. And apart from G20 discussions which normally take place on economic issues, they encourage some kind of discussion among the states whether it can find a way where Security Council has failed because of the veto and whether China, Russia, etc. will sit together with Americans and others with the help of India, China, etc. come to some kind of a conclusion. Because if the war doesn't end, there is no point declaring, making declarations on economic issues. Whether it is climate change or supply chains, all these major issues, pandemic, all these cannot be discussed in a vacuum. It has to be discussed in the context of the issues raised in the Bali Summit. So that's when, first in the end of February, the foreign ministers, sorry, the finance ministers met in India and tried to discuss these things. And they tried to put into the communique some paragraphs, two paragraphs from the Bali Declaration, which was agreed even earlier. But then in India, in Bangalore when repeating myself, then these two countries, China and Russia, objected to these paragraphs being mentioned in the communique in the declaration of Bangalore. So, as it happened, then there could be no agreement on a joint declaration. And therefore, the finance minister has to bring out a summary of the discussions, which was considered a failure of the meeting. Foreign Ministers, Finance Ministers were not able to agree on the consensus. And therefore, our Minister, Finance Minister issued a statement giving all the issues on which there was agreement because most of those issues, there was agreement on the pandemic or on the trade issues or on economic issues or on various other economic and social aspects. There was agreement. But the two paragraphs relating to Russia, Ukraine conflict could not be introduced. This was a big failure because as to the Finance Minister's meeting and next in the Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting, there was no meeting point. Of course, India did not press it very hard because we knew that this was not easy to accomplish. But a lot of effort was made. And finally, in the case of the Foreign Ministers meeting also, there was no joint statement, there was no photo opportunity. There was no dinner. All this indicated that there was no agreement. So now people who are looking at the outcome, there was an outcome document in both cases, I mean studying it. It has been interpreted in two ways. Those who believe that the most important issue in the world today is the Gulf War, thought that these two meetings were a total failure. Because there was no agreement on any language relating to the guilt of Russia or guilt of Ukraine or whatever and what the future is. There was no reference in the communication. Since there was no communication at all. So that was negative at the Finance Minister's time. And then extra effort was made to see whether it can be saved in the Foreign Ministers meeting. That also did not happen. But those who think that GIF 20 mandate is basically economic issues say that it was a big success. Even India claimed that it was a success because there were very appropriate statements on very many major issues on which all the G20 countries agreed. But to have an agreement like that on major issues without the enabling possibility of the war indeed was considered a total disaster by other countries. So two interpretation whether G20 was successful. Some people say it's successful because all the economic issues have been resolved or there are documents to relate to that. People are going to work together against the pandemic, working against all the economic problems that have arisen. But since the war was not even mentioned in the communique, that was also considered a failure. The Indian Foreign Minister, for example, said that it was a successful success because what are the issues that G20 had to deal with? In fact, the Foreign Minister of Russia argued that there was no point or there was no question of G20 discussing these issues. He said, 1999, G20 came into being. So far you have not discussed any political issues that are several wars after that. But then why now? The Russian said it was not to be discussed. He didn't agree with that and therefore he found it was quite satisfactory. But those who wanted to see, particularly the western countries, wanted to see an end of the war or at least a ceasefire, etc., they said this was a total failure. But on the Indian side, on the Indian Foreign Minister's side, he mentioned what are the things on which there was agreement in the meeting. So India was inclined to consider the meeting of the Foreign Minister as a resounding success with the outcome document reflecting the concern of developing countries and global souths. And the G20 countries talking about other issues of global impact, including terrorism and reliable supply chains. So those who, India particularly as the host, found the outcome very satisfactory from that perspective. So we are not denying that the war issue was not discussed. So G20 countries condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations as they noted the growing threat from the misuse of new and emerging technologies for terrorist purposes and pitched for a more inclusive and reinvigorated multilateralism and reform. So reform multilateralism in all these issues was stressed in the foreign ministers, not to communicate, but the statement issued by the chairman. So the chairman was not able to get everybody's agreement. Therefore that communique was issued saying that all the paragraphs in the communique except number three and number four or whatever, two paragraphs relating to war, there is no agreement. So it goes back to Bali rather than after the Bali because in Bali there was an agreement that such paragraph could be given. Since these two paragraphs could not be included, it was considered a big setback for G20 by the West and others while the developing countries in general were not taking a strong position either way. Felt that this was all that we could have accomplished. So and this was interesting because this is G20 foreign ministers meeting which was held in Delhi was one of the largest such gatherings hosted by any G20 president. You know, so many people were never invited, not only the G20 countries, but also some significant other countries, people who are party to the problems. So the outcome document at the end of the G20 foreign ministers meeting held in Delhi said supply chains of both food and agricultural products including fertilizers should be kept open and transparent. So this multi-dimensional challenges of the world were actually considered according to India and of several others which considered the meeting successful. But at the same time, they recognized that foreign ministers had met and discussed all these issues, multi-dimensional challenges, ranging from insufficient progress towards SDGs, climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss, to economic slowdown, debt distress, all these issues were mentioned in the document. And therefore it did its, and it also talked about debt distress and even pandemic recovery, growing poverty and inequality, food and energy insecurity and global supply chain disruptions aggravated by geopolitical tensions and conflicts. So you all know that the world is gripped by this uncertainty as to where it is going and who will play a bigger role etc. So by covering all these areas, they have done a lot of work, but it failed into insignificance because people felt that as a summit without a statement, but without a joint statement, just a summary by the chairman is not acceptable to them. So the meeting ended rather sadly. India had attempted to get all the issues discussed in some form because as you may know, the theme was Vasuthayiva Kudumbakam. That is one earth, one family, one future. And this was the India, India had provided this theme to G20. And under this rubric, all these issues could have been brought together and that is what they tried to do. But even though these were included, since there was no reference to the Russia, Ukraine in conflict, it was not considered adequate. But there are some very interesting statements in the outcome document. It said that the global order has undergone dramatic changes since the Second World War due to economic growth and prosperity, decolonization, demographic dividends, technological achievements, emergence of new economic powers and deeper international cooperation. So all this was noted and was welcomed by those other than the parties involved in the party. So the agreement also said, not agreement, but the statement also said that the United Nations must be responsive to the entire membership with faithful to its founding purposes and principles of its doctrine. And therefore, they could not have discussed any more, but we recall the declaration on the commemoration of the 70th anniversary, which confirmed that our challenges are interconnected and can only address through re-invigorated multilateralism. So all this was found satisfactorily by the countries that signed. Foreign Minister said the need for revitalized multilateralism, which is a point that we are making, to adequately address contemporary global challenges of the 20th century and to make global governance more representative, effective, transparent, etc. So India and several other countries felt that this was the best that we could get in the circumstances. And since all these issues were mentioned and the importance of reform of multilateralism was also included, this would be a very good outcome. But in the Bali declaration, there were statements about rule-based, non-discriminatory, free, fair, open, inclusive, equitable, sustainable, transparent, multilateral trading systems. And none of this came into the final declaration of the foreign ministers. So the document was silent about the way these can be accomplished by simply saying that they should be accomplished. At a time when there is a war going on and all the major countries are involved, to say that this would be a success was considered illogical, even climate change and biodiversity. All commitments were all established, but everybody knew that nothing would be done unless the war is over. That was the feeling that was there. The same thing about the pandemic. So foreign ministers, we have attention to that, to deal with the present and future dangers of a pandemic. The helplessness of the humanity to work together in the face of a permanent member of China being suspected of creating the virus. So all these came into focus, but it could not be included as discussions. So the Minister of External Affairs of India, he said that on bulk of the issues which concerned the global south, that is the developing countries, the developing countries, there was considerable meeting of minds between the developing countries and developed countries. The issues which are of particular concern to global south, as though the war was not of concern to them. He added that if we had a perfect meeting of minds of all issues and captured it fully then obviously it would have been a collective statement. So he said this was not a collective statement, but he said that it is just on two paragraphs that were not able to get everybody on the same page. But those two paragraphs were the most crucial according to the rest of the world. Some countries were quite happy without it, but everybody else was saying that there is no point in all saying all this unless the war, some formula to end the war could be a problem. Since that could not be done, many people feel that it was not a success. And the Indian Foreign Minister was asked about the Russia-Ukraine War, why it was not mentioned. He said that it is impacting the global south, adding that for a year India was stressing the need to end the war. He quoted Prime Minister Narendra Modi as having said the world was sinking and a lot of countries are dressing on their sustainable development goals. But the fact that G20 could not collectively demand an end to the war as a matter of regrets, he admitted that. The G20 failed to rise to the occasion to deal with the most pressing issue of the moment. So a moral question has arisen, whether this was a success or not. Number one we have to remember is that after this, when the September summit starts and the heads of governments and states arrive in Delhi, they will probably come up with a new formula. But this since the meetings, ministerial meetings fail, it is difficult to imagine that the leaders, the summit level leaders, presidents and prime minister will be able to accomplish anything more. So there is a feeling that G20, since there is no veto in it, could try harder in order to find some kind of a solution. Reform Security Council will never materialize because of the five permanent vetoing. But since there are 20 countries of the world, the most powerful countries of the world are together, they could put some moral power, moral pressure on Russia and Ukraine, Russia and the United States or NATO and the Americans. So Reform Security Council never materialize in the framework of the present charter. And all that G20 can do is to assert the rights to demand the end of the war for the sake of humanity. So that is what did not happen. So the gain was gotten in Bali, was lost in Delhi. So we are all now looking forward to the meeting in Delhi again and other parts of India of the summit meeting of G20. We will act as a force for peace later in the year and demand the end of the war. That is the best expectation that we have that having failed to accomplish this and even lost the consensus which was already obtained in Bali. Now we have to redouble our efforts in order to make the summit a success. So most commentators are saying that if India could not do this in the summer in Delhi, then how are they going to get it done in the winter in Delhi? And so the possibility of G20 taking decisive action on the Russia train conflict is very slim. They will all pass their examinations and all that. They will not be able to assert their position with regard to the conflict. So now we have to wait and see how this matter is handled by the heads of state. Many meetings are taking place in different areas and the heads of state have to come to a decision as to whether they want to ask the war to be ended. Americans are saying that we are not even interested in the ceasefire at this moment because if they get a ceasefire, the Russians will be able to relocate the soldiers and maybe they will reassemble and make even a bigger damage to Ukraine. That fear is also there. So it is a mixed bag that we have after the Delhi meetings. On the one hand, we have progress on very many economic and social issues. On the other hand, on the question of war, nothing was obtained, nothing was attained. Of course, lots of discussions took place. They will all go back and report to their presidents and prime ministers and they will probably devise something which meets the requirements of the United Nations to pronounce itself on the Russia-Ukraine war through the G-24. Because Security Council will not be able to accomplish anything. Security Council will not be reformed in a hurry. Then if it goes to the General Assembly, that may be a vote, but then it may not be very different from what it is today. So again, the UN Paralysis continues. But if G-20 at the level of the summit is able to send a signal that without the war ending, we cannot do much in this country. And therefore we must take notice of the fact that this must not be resolved. So that is the present situation. Now all eyes are on the September summit in Delhi. The Chinese have made a peace proposal which the Russians have welcomed. But the peace proposal is basically saying that don't do anything, just stay at home and watch the war. When the war is finished, we can do something about it. So that is the kind of agreement. But that as you can imagine is not a practical agreement and everybody would have had his own problems. But again, in multilateral conferences, you hold up some hope at the end. So that the world doesn't need to go into the darkness. So it's a matter of the world collecting enough strength and courage to deal with these countries concerned and do better than that. In the sense that the participation should be better. It is near column, so it is very favorable. But unless all of you register and start writing the examination, we will not be able to make a judgment as to whether it was right for us to have managed it without any law and order situation being considered. Thank you very much.