Does the G20 leaders’ summit in Brazil matter?
The golden age of supranational organizations is diminishing as a multipolar world emerges; the upcoming G20 summit in Brazil will achieve little.
In a nutshell
- The G20’s influence is waning amid disagreement and a broadening agenda
- Practical outcomes from the Brazil summit will be limited in scope
- The G20 is likely to avoid controversy and focus on palatable issues
Dozens of international organizations have been established over the years to address political, regulatory, security and economic issues between nations. Understanding the focus and mission of individual organizations can be difficult, and is made still more challenging by overlapping objectives and a lack of creativity in naming. Who can blame people for being unsure about the differences between the Group of Seven (G7), Group of 15 (G15), Group of 20 (G20), Group of 24 (G24), Group of 77 (G77) or any other “group” of nations?
So, what, if anything, makes the G20 stand out from the crowd, and why should anyone care about the upcoming meeting in Brazil? In the not-so-recent past, the G20 was highly regarded for its role in coordinating the international response to the 2008 global financial crisis. Yet since then, it has been plagued by dissension and differing priorities among its members. That has undermined the group’s consensus-driven process on matters related to the security interests of major powers. What does that dissension signal for the group’s upcoming leader’s summit on November 18-19?
What is the G20?
The G20 was established in 1999 after the Asian financial crisis roiled international markets. Its purpose was to convene finance ministers and central bank governors from major economies to discuss concerns that might impact the global economy and coordinate policies to bolster stability. Since the primary mission of the G20 is international financial stability, an essential requisite for membership is economic size and engagement with the global economy.
Together, the G20 nations comprise “around 85 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), more than 75 percent of world trade and around two-thirds of the world’s population.”
The G20’s permanent membership, since 1999, has included the European Union plus 19 individual countries. The African Union joined as a permanent member in 2023. In addition, each meeting also includes non-member states and major international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.
The G20 does not adopt binding agreements or resolutions.
Unlike most international organizations, the G20 has no permanent headquarters, staff or secretariat. The presidency rotates among the member states who then host the annual meeting. The host government is responsible for proposing the agenda and standing up the support structure and staff to coordinate and organize the meetings for that year’s summit. For continuity, the current president is assisted by their immediate predecessor and successor. This “troika” helps ensure smooth transitions from one summit to the next.
The G20 does not adopt binding agreements or resolutions. Instead, it issues communiques from ministerial meetings leading up to the summit and a “Leaders’ Declaration” at the conclusion of the gathering summarizing the discussions and matters agreed to by the participants. Implementation is left to the individual states. Even then, it is subject to reversal when new governments are elected with policy preferences that diverge from that of their predecessors.
Rise and fall of the G20’s reputation
The G20’s response to the 2008 financial crisis led some to observe that it “has become the most important forum of global governance and cooperation, largely replacing the once powerful G7.” The stature of the G20 grew and meetings became “summits” that included heads of state and government. The agenda expanded beyond economic matters to include international health, climate change and other issues beyond the group’s original economic focus.
Read more from international regulatory affairs expert Brett Schaefer
- UN peacekeeping in retreat
- What role should the G20 play?
- A narrow path to reforming the UN Security Council
With both developed and developing country members from all regions of the world, the G20 is more representative than the Group of 7. However, with only 21 members and without permanent bureaucracy, the G20 is able to adapt to pressing concerns and theoretically is more nimble than other international organizations like the UN, where quick and decisive action is rare. With these advantages, many have hoped the G20 might effectively and representatively address the growing scope of problems placed on its docket. The group, however, has not lived up to these expectations.
Par for the course
The G20 often reiterates earlier commitments summit after summit, indicating that they remain unfulfilled. Indeed, compliance with annual commitments has varied significantly over the years. But this has not prevented a bloating of the agenda. According to the University of Toronto, G20 commitments have tripled from 95 at the 2008 summit to 290 in 2023. The 2024 “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet” summit in Brazil likewise looks to further expand the agenda to include combating racism, violence against women, hunger, extreme poverty and inequality.
In addition to the traditional Sherpa and a Finance tracks, which document and follow up on commitments from previous summits, the 2024 confab is adding new working groups. A new eponymous Task Force for a Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty will focus on gathering the funds and knowledge to reduce global hunger and poverty. Another new Task Force for the Global Mobilization Against Climate Change will promote intergovernmental dialogue to “enhance global macroeconomic and financial alignment to implement the goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement.” Yet, how these efforts will complement and not duplicate similar initiatives at the UN and in other international organizations remains unclear.
This expanding agenda and opaque expectations for execution are why some see the G20 less as an effective, outcome-oriented forum, and more as an opportunity to posture. Indeed, because G20 decisions depend entirely on subsequent voluntary follow-through by governments, it has always had a talk-shop undertone. In effect, the G20 does not really drive action as much as it reflects a consensus, should one emerge among its members.
In recent years, the G20 has been criticized for division and inaction – a critical weakness for an organization based on agreement and cooperation. Disagreement prevented consensus statements on Russia’s initial incursions into Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014 as well as on climate change in 2018. In 2023, the G20 Leaders’ Declaration failed to deliver consensus language condemning Russia’s full-scale invasion and war on Ukraine.
What to expect from the leaders’ summit in Brazil?
In recent years, rising geopolitical tensions between China, Russia and the United States have hindered the ability of international organizations to reach consensus on many issues. This has been particularly evident on major questions of peace and security, such as the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, where the UN Security Council has been unable to act decisively.
It is not just tensions between China, Russia and the U.S. that are causing obstruction. The BRICS group of nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) aspires to greater influence over the global economy and geopolitics to, in part, counterbalance the influence of the U.S. and the EU.
Despite this motivation, unity among the BRICS members is far from assured. For instance, China and India are regional rivals, and Beijing is wary of awarding India more influence by, for example, supporting its bid for permanent membership in the UN Security Council.
India is reluctant to fully embrace plans by China and Russia to create an international payment system free of U.S. oversight. At the same time, Brazil has followed India and declined membership in China’s flagship investment and development program, the Belt and Road Initiative, although that may change. Efforts to coalesce members around one issue can be undermined by fracturing on another.
Some observers have posited that organizations like the G20 might step up where the UN has fallen short. However, paralysis driven by divergent interests has, to some extent, curtailed the effectiveness of most international organizations’ activities. The G20, too, has been affected by this discord and struggles to stake out a clear position on matters that divide its member states. These problems are likely to get worse, not better, in the foreseeable future.
Scenarios
Even a G20 summit that exceeds expectations will be largely irrelevant. As with other international organizations, the G20 is subject to deep geopolitical disharmony that makes it increasingly unlikely that the Leaders’ Declaration will directly address the many crises in the world. Adding to this, the election of Donald Trump likely will see some U.S. commitments at the upcoming summit, such as those on climate change, reversed in short order.
This builds on a longer trajectory of the group’s gradually dissipating relevance and diffusion of focus due to an expanding docket of disparate issues. Barring a crisis that could reverse these trends and refocus the group, such as the 2008 financial crisis that springboarded the G20 to prominence, the group will continue to have little impact in the real world.
The Brazil summit is likely to end up being yet another annual excursion for government officials and international bureaucrats to meet, talk and sign onto lowest-denominator statements of little significance to regular people and questionable lasting impact. With expectations for results from the Brazil meeting low, a few scenarios emerge.
Unlikely: Directly addressing ongoing conflicts
It is highly improbable that members will consent to including language in the Leaders’ Declaration bluntly addressing the situations in Ukraine or the Middle East. However, the G20 could address such points tangentially.
Possible: Punt fraught issues to a subsequent summit
The 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi produced a Leaders’ Declaration with consensus language on many issues, but it punted on topics where there was disagreement. Specifically, the declaration did not condemn Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and, instead, included a vague call to “uphold the principles of international law including territorial integrity and sovereignty, international humanitarian law, and the multilateral system that safeguards peace and stability.”
While more challenging than avoiding controversy entirely, this choice would tread a path taken previously and, therefore, could serve as a default option to satisfy nations who wish to address controversial matters, even if indirectly.
Possible: Members confirm reform goals and may agree to next steps
It is also possible the members may adopt an ambitious declaration that breaks new ground on reform of international institutions. Some members of the G20, including this year’s host country, want to use the summit to press for reform of the UN, the international financial architecture and the international trading system to give more power to developing countries.
The G20 foreign ministers have already agreed to some of these points, and so it is feasible to expect the upcoming Leaders’ Declaration to similarly endorse such reforms. However, the devil is in the detail. If the summit aims high, the G20 could flesh out these proposals, which has till now proven elusive in other forums. Even so, implementation is a higher hurdle.
Likely: Members avoid infighting and focus on low-hanging fruit
A likely possibility is for the summit to avoid controversial issues altogether and focus on softer and more palatable issues including development, debt relief, poverty, violence against women or climate change. On such points there is already consensus agreement among the membership – at least rhetorically. This is effectively the path of least resistance for delegates at the G20 in Brazil and made more likely by the election of Mr. Trump, which may lead G20 members to hesitate on major decisions until they assess the position of the incoming U.S. administration.
For industry-specific scenarios and bespoke geopolitical intelligence, contact us and we will provide you with more information about our advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
