Seen from the perspective of a week after the November 19-20 Rio de Janeiro Summit, but before the event has completely receded into the mists, one is tempted to kick back and dismiss the entire Brazilian encounter as a long and emotional farewell event for U.S. President Joe Biden, who continued on after Rio to make a farewell tour around the continent, while the world proceeds with its anguished preparation for the return of former President Donald Trump. Yes much of that is true, but let us look a bit deeper.
The G20 is an organization of nineteen states and two regional organizations (the European Union and African Union), created in 1999, and it is seen by some as the top shelf of current planetary economic governance, which matured through annual leaders’ summits following the rollercoaster ride of the 2008 financial crisis. Welcome or not, it addresses the most significant global security issues during these summits and preparatory meetings as well.
The G20 had historically focused on the more macroeconomic aspects of world economic governance, generating long and unavoidably boring communiques for non-economists. In that respect, it is what it is. But through placing hunger and poverty squarely within the grouping’s agenda, this year Brazil was able to introduce a more clearly human dimension to the G20 that can only help the G20 gain increased credibility across the world, especially across the Global South.
Mixed results on key economic concerns
The final communique said the G20 would “seek to engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed,” but the leaders did not create a binding agreement on implementing a global wealth tax, another of Lula’s priorities.
The Rio Summit did ultimately produce a “G20 Roadmap” towards better, bigger and more effective Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) which has received relatively little attention so far but has been welcomed by the heads of the ten multilateral development banks.
Difficult timing: the climate cliffhanger (COP29) in Baku
President Lula used his summit hosting duties to rally support for the global campaign against hunger and try to spur on the then-stalled COP29 climate talks in Baku.
In his closing remarks, Lula suggested countries bring forward their targets to reach climate neutrality by 2040 or 2045, instead of 2050 as most countries have pledged.
“We cannot leave the task of Baku until Belem,” Lula said on November 19, referring to the Amazonian city that will host next year’s UN climate talks. However, the G20 statement on the matter fell short of the shot in the arm sought by climate negotiators gathered in Azerbaijan who barely managed to reach a compromise deal a week later. While acknowledging the need for trillions of dollars in climate finance for poorer nations, the leaders failed to explicitly mention the need to transition away from fossil fuels.
The usual global security concerns
Unlike the 2022 G20 summit, which explicitly condemned Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine, and the 2023 summit in New Delhi, India, which called on G20 members to shun the use of force, Brazil’s G20 declaration avoided direct blame, something numerous western leaders took note of. Instead, this year’s declaration vaguely referred to the “suffering” caused by the conflict — obviously compromise language needed to achieve consensus from all G20 members, especially those in close touch with Moscow. It is indeed curious that western leaders signed on.
President Biden’s decision to suddenly reverse core U.S. policy on Ukraine in his last weeks in office shifted away some attention from Brazil’s G20 agenda. On the eve of the gathering, Biden gave Kyiv approval to use American missiles to strike deep inside Russia for the first time, which happened almost immediately, in apparent response to Russia’s enlistment of North Korean soldiers to fight in Ukraine.
The decision allowed the Kremlin to announce that it was loosening its own rules on using nuclear weapons in situations where it had not/not been attacked by such weapons, creating concern among Kyiv’s backers in Washington, European capitals and elsewhere. Many also saw it as yet another Russian bluff.
The final communique lightly covered the Gaza war. But t was not forgotten – G20 leaders did reaffirm the urgent need to boost humanitarian aid to the region, called for the usual immediate cease-fires and emphasized support for a two-state formula as the solution in the Middle East.
