G20: the weekend that will shape the world

Welcome back – and get ready: will we look back on this weekend when the shape of the next world order and Europe’s place in it becomes clear? That’s a pretty dramatic argument, I accept. . . Some of you may be wondering if I’ve been out in the sun too much this week. There was indeed a lingering festive atmosphere about the debate in London. But this is not the case in Asia.

Exhibit A: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is hosting a summit of the Group of 20 major economies—the leader of the second largest economy, Xi Jinping, is absent, an unfortunate event that I will return to later. Regrettably, the Delhi meeting may end in disappointment, accelerating the possibility of the world falling into hostile blocs led by the United States and China. But it could also reinvigorate the G20 and regain its sense of purpose from 15 years ago, when it played a key role in mitigating the impact of the financial crisis.

Exhibit B: If you want to know why another global summit really matters, look further east and experience an alternative world order. Tomorrow, as described in our Newsmaker profile, the elusive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is expected to meet Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Vladivostok. The idea on the agenda is that Kim Jong Un can replenish Russia’s depleted ammunition. This is worrying enough, but the biggest nightmare is that this is the first meeting of the “Axis of Authoritarianism”.

I’m Alec Russell, foreign editor of the Financial Times. I’m excited to be filling in for Tony Barber this week. My mission is to focus on the rapidly changing world order, particularly the rise of ambitious new powers, a phenomenon I call the “a la carte world.”

These two peaks seem far removed from the regular terrain of the Euro Express. But it was a very good weekend for Europe. The future of global governance is constantly changing, but for the EU and European leaders, there is an opportunity this weekend to shape it.

everything in one name

The summit was a nightmare for journalists. I remember when I was covering the G7 summit in the early 2000s, I would often flip through the communiqués, looking for tiny breakthroughs, disagreements or just a story.

That said, it’s very different. The era of the unipolar world is over. Our journalists have highlighted in recent days what is at stake, particularly whether there can be any meaningful agreement between the “West” and the “South” on tackling climate change and the war in Ukraine.

These regional labels are unsatisfactory, but they do reflect the distinction between traditional G7 members and allies and emerging powers, whether large developing economies such as India and Indonesia, or the Gulf oil states. (Any better shorthand ideas are welcome. Please email me, alec.russell@ft.com.)

This is an important moment for India.Samir Saran, director of the Observer Research Foundation, a well-known Indian think tank, recently published a powerful report in the Indian Express What does India’s G20 presidency mean to developing countries?. But ahead of the summit, the Sherpas appear to be struggling to find consensus on major issues.

Modi himself is divided. On the one hand, he leads a future technological and economic superpower. On the other hand, his government has authoritarian tendencies. I liked Delhi bureau chief John Reed’s column on whether we should now call India ‘Bharat’. We haven’t heard the last yet.

That being said, for those of you eager to see Modi drop a point or two this weekend, here’s a thought experiment: Imagine what Vladivostok’s leaders would do if the G20 summit ended in chaos What a joy.

Habit or no habit

The news that Xi Jinping will not attend dominates the countdown to the talks. This was widely seen as a major blow to the G20 and accelerated the shift towards a world in which the China-led bloc faces off against the US-led bloc, with many countries hovering in the middle.

Xi’s absence was undoubtedly disappointing, especially for European leaders, including British Prime Minister Sunak, who had hoped for a rare meeting with the Chinese president. But the assumption among Western officials who watch China closely — and I emphasize the assumption — is that his decision reflects China’s reluctance to participate in a possible victory for its great Asian rival, India, rather than a decisive rejection of the West. Although both India and China are flag-bearers for the cause of the Global South, they are at loggerheads on many issues.

As for the pessimistic idea that China is inching closer to a full contract with Russia and North Korea, that seems unlikely. More likely, China will flirt with them when the time comes. As one former senior U.S. policymaker reflects, North Korea’s relationship with China is very much a marriage of convenience built on distrust — just like Russia’s relationship with China.

So, is there a glimmer of hope in Xi Jinping’s absence? It just might be. If, if, if, Europe and the United States can come up with proposals that will help ease the dissatisfaction of countries in the Global South with the Western-dominated world architecture, then this may be where the G20 summit regains its magic.

As for Putin’s absence, the specific reason is his invasion of Ukraine, which is a tragedy. But his absence at least spared summit participants the nightmare of the 2006 G8 summit in St. Petersburg, when he made reporters wait until 2 a.m. for a news conference. Early signs of arrogance. . .

european moment

So what should all these European leaders and officials say in Delhi? We should remember that this is a great opportunity. Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel may not have the easiest relationship, but the EU has two seats at the negotiating table, along with a range of European leaders.

This is, of course, the West’s first opportunity to respond to the challenge posed by emerging powers such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa at last month’s BRICS summit. The theme of the conference was to end Western control of the global financial system.

Former Finnish Prime Minister Alex Stubb, who is running for president, said a new tone and new policies were crucial. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU has never been “more united, effective and committed”. But, he added, Europe “won’t be in this unified utopia forever” and needs to think quickly about its place in the world.

He stressed that a carbon border tax is seen as a protectionist measure in countries in the Global South. “We can close the door, or we can keep the door open. We live in a world where things like trade, technology or currency that are supposed to bring us together can be used to divide us.”

I recommend a paper from the European Council on Foreign Relations What the continent can do to “really get along” with the Global South. It was published in June but has stood the test of time. The author particularly supports the African Union’s call to join the G20. They also made strong arguments for fundamental reform of the Bretton Woods institutions. I think both are essential.

This week was the first time I met with Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, since I commissioned him to write an op-ed for the Financial Times during the eurozone debt crisis. Remember, he noted, that while almost everyone in the EU supports multilateralism, it is not top of mind given the war in Ukraine and concerns about EU enlargement.

Nonetheless, he stressed that there is growing recognition of the need to rethink the continent’s relationship with the global South, including moving away from talk of human rights, reflecting a perceived need to move away from the contrast between democracies and authoritarian states. “Even more than a year ago, people were saying we need to give them (the Southern Hemisphere) more of what they want: more visas, student exchanges and more investment in infrastructure…” he wondered, “Global Gateway “? In theory, this is the EU’s response to China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, but its stance is very low-key.

As for the Bretton Woods institutions, he also believes that it is long past time to abandon the “ridiculous rule that Europeans must run the International Monetary Fund.” I couldn’t agree more. Of course, now is the time.

A final word on surviving the summit

I have an unconventional advice for journalists in Delhi: Don’t spend all your time in the press room, but get out and see India’s capital. Arguably my wisest summit decision came in 2004, when two colleagues and I broke the mold and escaped the White House bubble in Istanbul to visit Hagia Sophia and the Blue Mosque. I remember these monuments better than the details of the summit’s closing statement.

More information on this topic

“The West has failed to deliver on its aid promises” – Adam Tooze on Europe’s failure in the Sahel and wider sub-Saharan Africa.

Alec’s Picks of the Week

• Eleanor Olcott tells the story of how a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests escaped and went on to make a fortune in the United States. Beautifully written and deeply moving, it captures a moment when China’s political future hung in the balance—a time I remember well because coverage of the massacre inspired my dream of becoming a foreign correspondent.

• “Spy War”, the latest episode of The Empire Podcast with Anita Anand and Willie Dalrymple. It appropriately focuses on Napoleon’s desire to strike a deal with the then Russian Czar to jointly invade India and overthrow the British Empire. Yes, this weekend is just the latest installment in a long-running story that hangs over the global order.