G20: The leaders who showed they weren’t

After months of complete disarray in the international community, the leaders of the G-20 met last week in a virtual summit, ostensibly to ensure a coordinated response to the global crisis emanating out of the coronavirus pandemic. There have been demands that the G-20 step up their level of support for the world’s poorest nations as they tackle the large-scale disruptions caused by the pandemic, with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund calling for immediate bilateral debt relief for the world’s most impoverished nations upon their request, and the United Nations calling for a humanitarian response fund. But given that the world’s powerful and richest nations have been focused on managing domestic turmoil, little was expected of the emergency video-conference summit of last week. And it lived up to the low expectations.

The G-20 member-states decided to inject over $5 trillion into the global economy, “as part of targeted fiscal policy, economic measures, and guarantee schemes to counteract the social, economic and financial impacts of the pandemic.” They also agreed to work with multilateral bodies such as the IMF, the World Health Organisation and regional banks to deploy a “robust” financial package to support developing nations. More specifically pertaining to the present crisis, the leaders agreed to assess gaps in pandemic preparedness and increase funding for research and development in vaccines and medicines.

But these were generalities as the focus of most nations was on their own priorities and little attempt was made to move towards developing a common framework, let alone global coordination.

In his remarks, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed tariff cuts and removal of trade barriers to prevent the global economy slipping into recession. This should not have been surprising as China’s economy, after grinding to a halt in February, is seeking a revival. But for that, it is imperative that the rest of the world, and especially the West, comes back on track. The Sino-US contestation continues unabated, shaping the wider global response or lack thereof. The G-7 foreign ministers meeting, also held last week, was unable to issue a joint communique after the US insisted that COVID-19 be described as the ‘Wuhan virus’, in a reference to the city where it originated. At the meeting, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had insisted on identifying the COVID-19 virus as the “Wuhan virus” even though this was resisted by others.

Despite this, Pompeo made it clear that “every one of the nations that was at that meeting this morning was deeply aware of the disinformation campaign that the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in to try and deflect from what has really taken place there. Chinese leadership is trying to shift the blame on the US by blaming the US military for this viral contagion in China. One of the Chinese foreign ministry spokesmen, Zhao Lijian, has alleged that US army might have brought the COVID-19 to Wuhan. Referring to the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Robert Redfield’s comments, he tweeted “CDC was caught on the spot. When did patient zero begin in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!”

The other issue plaguing the G-20 was the crude oil prices, which have been severely impacted by the price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia as well by the pandemic’s impact on global demand. Though Riyadh had publicly underlined its reluctance to yield to any pressure, Washington has been asking its Middle Eastern ally to behave responsibly.

Unlike the 2008 financial crisis, when the grouping reacted with alacrity to mobilise assistance for vulnerable countries, it has been found wanting this time round, with hardly any attempt to come up with any meaningful response. Coordination among the G-20 members would have infused a sense of confidence among the wider international community but the lack of global leadership is quite striking. In place of an effective coordinated response by the world’s richest powers, there have been moves toward greater isolation.

And there have even been differences with countries like the US and Brazil refusing to take the lockdown approach to control the pandemic like most other major countries. Trump had been keen for American businesses to resume normal operations, arguing that the “cure cannot be worse than the problem itself.” Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has gone to another extreme by not only denying the severity of the COVID-19 crisis but also clearly prioritising the economy over isolation measures. "People are going to die, I'm sorry,” Bolsonaro has said. “But we can't stop a car factory because there are traffic accidents.”

So, even in this time of a pandemic, global coordination remains a commodity in short supply as political considerations continue to shape national responses. It’s futile to blame the G-20. Such is the nature of global politics that national priorities will continue to overwhelm global imperatives. Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly underscored, in his own intervention at the G-20 summit, that the world needs to “redefine” its conversations on globalisation to include social and humanitarian issues like terrorism, climate change and pandemics along with financial and economic discussions. But the G-20’s response so far tells us that such a “re-definition” is clearly not a priority for the world’s major powers at this juncture.

(The writer is Director, Studies, at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi and Professor of International Relations, King’s College, London)