Washington is narrowing a once-broader forum into a tool for its own priorities, sidelining development, climate and the Global South
The US presidency has shrunk the G20 agenda, which had been broadened under the earlier four presidencies of Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa, to reflect the priorities not only of the G7 but also the developing world.
If the G7 nations had felt that they could on their own handle the global fall-out of the 2008 financial crisis they would have not felt the need to elevate the G20, which includes key emerging economies, from a routine meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors to a summit of heads of states and governments. From that perspective, these powers were compelled to include the interests and priorities of those emerging economies in the G20 agenda.
The G20 concept is thus rooted in a more cooperative multilateral approach to address multiple global challenges. The G20 agenda cannot be aligned with US priorities alone.
The US State Department had announced beforehand its intention to assert its priorities – limiting regulatory barriers to investment and encouraging transparent governance to foster global competitiveness, focusing on energy independence, reliable energy access, resilient supply chains, and safe navigation through critical international waterways (such as the Straits of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab), accelerating digital advancement and artificial intelligence (AI) policies while protecting security, privacy, and intellectual property, refocusing the G20 on its core economic mandate, addressing global supply chain resilience, trade consensus, critical minerals, and geopolitical disruptions affecting markets.
These are no doubt important issues to address collectively, but they are not the only ones.
The contrast between the Chair’s statement on the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting issued by India in 2023 and the Chair’s statement issued under the US presidency is illuminating.
In 2023, the issues covered were insufficient progress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss, economic slowdown, debt distress, uneven pandemic recovery, growing poverty and inequality, food and energy insecurity, and global supply chain disruptions aggravated by geopolitical tensions and conflicts.
Strengthening multilateralism, making global governance more representative, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, global health, global skill mapping, as well as gender equality and women’s empowerment were among the other issues covered.
Importantly, there was an affirmation that the rules-based, non-discriminatory, multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, was indispensable to advancing shared objectives.
The steadfast commitments of the G20 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to tackle climate change though the full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement and its temperature goal, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was affirmed too. So was strengthening key aspects of global health architecture, with the leading and coordination role of the WHO. The Multilateral Development Banks were asked to mobilize and provide additional financing within their mandates to support the achievement of the SDGs.
The US Chair’s statement talks of taking the G20 “back to basics.” These “basics,” which the organization had ostensibly departed from, cannot be defined unilaterally by one member. The priorities of not only the developing countries but also of other G7 countries have been ignored.
The paragraph in the US statement referring to rising energy costs glosses over Washington’s own role in driving them higher. By sanctioning Russian oil and gas, and then worsening the situation through its attack on Iran, the US has contributed directly to disruptions in the flow of oil and LNG through the Strait of Hormuz. The threat to energy transit through the Bab al-Mandab is also a consequence of the instability created in West Asia.
The statement implicitly reflects Donald Trump’s “Drill baby drill” slogan, catering to the interests of the US oil lobby, his repudiation of climate change concerns and his scoffing at renewables. The phrase “far too often governments have placed barriers to energy production and punished their own people with higher costs” seems to be an indictment of the policies of some European countries such as Germany and the UK but does not apply to developing countries who have become hostage to Washington’s own policies of sanctions to exclude the flow of Russian and Iranian oil into the global market. If the US consumer is paying higher prices for gasoline and diesel, whose fault is it?
When the statement says that “it is also vital that countries build the infrastructure to develop and deploy the energy systems of the future,” the reference is to small modular reactors and micro reactors. This is a developing technology which does not address the current disruptions in the oil and gas market. The statement recognizes that, for some, nuclear energy may not be a desired option for their energy mix, no doubt referencing Germany’s position. With the worldwide move towards renewables and the US bent on increasing reliance on fossil fuels, by saying that every country is on its own energy path, the statement recognizes a lack of consensus on the issue.
If “energy is a foundational requirement for economic progress,” as the statement says, then why is the global energy market being disrupted by US and European actions? Why was the Nord Stream pipeline blown up? Why has India, a country highly dependent on energy imports, been pressured to cease buying Russian oil under threat of sanctions?
The focus on supply chain resilience in the Chair’s statement no doubt reflects widespread concerns amongst G20 countries.
The reference to “weaponization of normal food supply chains” by a government taking “targeted actions to slow, stop, or block the trade of food in order to exert coercive pressure over another sovereign country on an unrelated geopolitical issue” is directed at Russia. To say that “it is important the global community agree that trade in food and agricultural products should not be used as a tool for economic or political coercion” ignores that the fact that oil and financial sanctions as well as slapping tariffs at will has been part of US economic and political coercion.
Regarding health, only the fight against Ebola figures in the Chair’s statement.
The US has walked out of the WHO, the Paris Climate Change Agreement and has effectively gutted the WTO by imposing tariffs on countries arbitrarily. Its dismissive attitude towards the UN and ignoring its development agenda explains the absence of any reference to UN reforms, the raising of additional resources by MDBs, debt issues, SDGs, climate change issues, etc.
The G20 Foreign Ministers meeting at the end of October was marred by other arbitrary decisions and undiplomatic behavior. The US had no authority to exclude South Africa, a G20 member, from the meeting. South Africa in fact chaired the G20 in 2025. It had no authority to invite Poland to take South Africa’s place. The G20 can function only on the basis of consensus, and South Africa’s exclusion and Poland’s inclusion violated the consensus rule.
The refusal of some European foreign ministers to be photographed with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the traditional group photograph was not adult diplomacy. The European ministers had, however, no objection to being photographed in working sessions with Lavrov and even address him directly and aggressively. Some have questioned the propriety of inviting Russia at all to the G20 meeting. This kind of conduct casts doubt on whether a negotiated solution to the Ukraine conflict can be seriously explored unless fissures in the EU or the collapse of the Zelensky regime change the situation.
The UK will take over the presidency of the G20 in 2027. Unless something dramatic happens on the Ukraine front, Britain’s enmity towards Russia will become a huge problem for the consensual functioning of the group.
