What's new

THE HIJACKING OF G20

nahtanbob

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
14,105
Reaction score
-57
Country
United States
Location
United States
BY NAVEED HUSSAIN |


PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 17, 2023
KARACHI:
“This [G20] summit in Delhi has certainly been overshadowed by Prime Minister Modi and by India. We have talked about a lot of criticism he [Modi] has attracted from the opposition and generally from critics that he’s using this event as almost a way to start campaigning early for elections which are likely to be held in about eight or nine months,” CNBC’s Martin Soong summed up the G20 summit held in New Delhi earlier this month.

“He [Modi] has made a real spectacle of G20. We’ve been talking about how in the streets of Delhi, every few meters or so, there are posters, hundreds or thousands of them advertising G20 [summit] with Modi’s face on them,” Soong said while reporting live from the Indian capital. Soong wasn’t alone. Most independent media shared his opinion.

The summit, which capped India’s presidency of the Group of 20 richest economies of the world, was a moment of pride for Delhi. And Prime Minister Narendra Modi grabbed the opportunity with both hands. Flush from India’s successful lunar landing, Modi saw the G20 extravaganza as symbolic of his country’s profile as a rising geopolitical force. The Modi administration tried to cast India’s charm and dazzle the G20 leaders with the extravagant pageantry, making them feel like royalty.

The guests were served lavish feasts in gold and silver tableware at the G20 gala dinner. But behind this grandiosity lies the grim reality that India is ranked 107 out of 121 countries on Global Hunger Index. This drew scornful criticism from opposition leaders and rights activists. “Modi has got Trump disease - Silver plates and gold utensils for G20 dinner! Megalomaniac forgets India ranks 107th out of the 121 countries in Global Hunger Index, worse than Pakistan, Bangladesh & Nepal,” wrote Ashok Swain, Professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University. Congress leader Dr. Ragini Nayak also disparaged Modi. “‘Fakirs’ are serving G20 guests a feast in gold and silver utensils.” India is the world’s fifth largest economy with a GDP of $3.4 trillion, but in terms of GDP per capita, it is ranked 42. No wonder it is ranked 126th on the World Happiness Report.

Economic inequality in India is more pronounced than anywhere else in the world. Less than 5% of the population owns more than 60% of the wealth in a country which is still home to the world’s highest number of poor people (228.9 million). As many as 750 big and small slums in its capital city alone belie India’s portrayal as an affluent economic powerhouse which would soon overtake rival China. The Modi government did not want the G20 leaders to see these shanties in sharp contrast to the plush bungalows in the posh Delhi uptown. “At least 25 shantytowns and multiple night shelters for the homeless were razed to the ground, resulting in the displacement of nearly 300,000 people,” says a report by the Concerned Citizens Collective, a rights activist group. And the slums they couldn’t or didn’t tear down were covered with giant green curtains, hiding away hundreds of thousands of slum-dwellers from the rich guests. “Modi has virtually jailed Delhi’s poor people behind green curtains so the G20 leaders could not see them,” wrote Prof. Ashok Swain. Joining the chorus, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said: “There is no need to hide India’s reality from our guests.”

In the run-up to the summit, video clips also went viral on social media showing Delhi’s municipal workers rounding up stray dogs from the streets. “For G20, dogs are dragged by the neck, beaten, denied food and water, tied up and locked in cages,” wrote Supriya Shrinate, Chairperson Social Media and Digital Platforms of Congress. “Those who cruelly treat voiceless animals are cruel. Whom are we impressing by doing so?” The poor slum-dwellers said they were simply rubbed out, much like the stray dogs as part of the extravagant Delhi makeover project. A whopping ₹41,000 crore were spent on hosting the event. “Is there any data to show the G20 summit either directly or indirectly help reduce poverty, unemployment, hunger, malnutrition in India? If not, then why spend ₹4100 crore on an event,” writes Sujit Nair, Co-Founder & Managing Editor HW News Network.

According to critics, the event could have been held at a much lower cost because India faces a much more daunting struggle of ending endemic poverty. Opposition leaders claimed that Modi blatantly used the one-off occasion to boost his personal image and impress domestic audiences. Saket Gokhale, a prominent leader from Trinamool Congress, claimed that the original budget of ₹990 crore skyrocketed to ₹4,100 crore. And this rise was for the purpose of boosting Modi’s public image ahead of next year’s elections. The Associated Press news agency reported, “Life-size posters of Modi beaming from ear to ear have been put up across the city – at roundabouts, metro stations, roads, markets, and government buildings – welcoming the dignitaries. A billboard in New Delhi projects Modi as the most popular among world leaders.” The agency further stated that the “promotional blitzkrieg might seem over the top” given India is hosting the summit as part of a rotational presidency of G20. Modi sought to justify this self-aggrandizement, saying it is the moment for the world to experience the diversity of India.

But opposition leaders saw Modi’s personal ambitions behind the outsized advertising campaign because he has frequently used the optics of Delhi’s geopolitical influence and foreign policy triumphs to strengthen his power. Modi used this summit to market his image and elevate BJP’s prospects ahead of the elections. The G20 logo was also cleverly crafted by his PR team. Using the colours of India’s flag, the logo juxtaposed earth with lotus which, not so coincidently, happens to be the election symbol of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party.

The G20 summit has been hailed as a “diplomatic triumph” for India because it defied odds and sprang up a joint communiqué by brokering a consensus on “acceptable language” to refer to the war in Ukraine. However, the “summit could not produce any concrete and substantial decisions, commitments, pledges from G20 on any of the pressing global challenges, from climate change to debt,” says Patryk Kugiel, a senior analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs in Warsaw. “It makes the forum ineffective, even useless.” The gathering also failed to push Russia to revive the stalled Black Sea grain initiative.

But how did India manage to convince the US and its Western allies to acquiesce to the joint communiqué which their proxy in Ukraine called “nothing to be proud of” because it omitted words from last year’s statement that condemned “Russian aggression against Ukraine? Was it a “climbdown” on Ukraine or the Western nations did not want to deny a diplomatic win to India, a country they are propping up as a counterweight to China, which, they consider, as a threat to their “rules-based” world order? The second possibility sounds more plausible.

The Western nations conveniently ignored that Modi’s hardline Hindu nationalist government flagrantly violates the very values they champion and fiercely defend worldwide. The USCIRF, an independent, bipartisan US federal government commission, has declared India a “Country of Particular Concern” for religious freedom, while the country is ranked 150th among 180 nations on the World Press Freedom Index. The Western silence was profoundly loud because Amnesty International called on the G20 delegates before the summit to “speak out about the deteriorating human rights situation in India characterised by the persecution of minorities, a shrinking space for dissent and weakening of autonomous institutions and take effective measures to hold Indian authorities to account”.

But it was a quid pro quo. While the Western nations didn’t embarrass India on rights abuses and instead ensured the G20 summit is a success, Delhi reciprocated by bringing the US back into the Middle East’s geopolitics to undercut China’s growing clout in the oil-rich region. Together with President Joe Biden, Modi announced the launch of a “corridor” comprising a network of railways and sea routes to connect India, the European Union and the Middle Eastern countries of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Israel in a major connectivity project that apparently seeks to rival China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

President Biden touted it as a “real big deal” that would lead to a “more stable, more prosperous and integrated Middle East,” but it appears to be another US attempt to engage in bloc politics to stymie China’s rapid economic growth. Modi took full advantage of the absence of China’s President Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin to project himself as the voice of the “Global South” to the world, and as “Vishwaguru”, or leader of the world, to domestic audiences. A Chinese think tank said that this “sabotage of G20” by India for its own agenda would “further create differences and rifts… and will ultimately cause damage to its [India’s] own international image and global development interests”.
 
How many G20 topics are you going to create? Like we get it you’re all hyped up about G20 but nobody cares anymore. Move on.
 
How many G20 topics are you going to create? Like we get it you’re all hyped up about G20 but nobody cares anymore. Move on.
sorry I repost articles in Pakistani English language newspapers. Let me consolidate them in 1 thread going forward
 

G-20 or China containment?​

Multilateral diplomacy appears to be losing its practical value by the day. The absence of any concrete follow-up actions is exposing the effectiveness of hitherto important forums like SCO, BRICS and even G-20. Barring a few minor changes in the final declarations, and sending mixed signals to the world, such global eco-political platforms are now being utilised to only declare their ‘intentions’ on issues of global importance. Such events are also used to gauge, strengthen, or promote bilateral trajectories and showcase individual aspirations. Simultaneously, certain intended messages are also flashed in the context of major powers’ geo-political agenda. The recently concluded G-20 Summit in New Delhi was no exception either.
The Global South, with its healthy economies, is represented in all the above-mentioned multilateral fora. To begin with, why would several countries establish political and economic blocs, with similar stated objectives, when they have a readily available world forum to discuss all related matters, with representation from the entire planet earth; the United Nations. Moreover, if China, Russia, and India are members of BRICS, SCO, and G-20, whereby, they could meet, discuss, and agree on political and economic issues facing the world, at the summit level, why would they remain open to joining any such future arrangements?
One could argue that G-20, being a West-driven platform, has different aims than those of the Global South. Agreed, but then why do the outcomes of all meetings at these multilateral forums resonate with each other? Read the last three declarations of these three organisations and compare the texts, contents, subjects and even the language and see if you could find any major difference among the respective final documents.
It is then no surprise that the G-20 Delhi declaration was not examined in detail by the world commentators. Interestingly, the drafting committee of the declaration did not bother to translate the theme of the summit in English language. In the opening paragraphs, the summit’s theme has been described as ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’–‘the world is one family’.
Subjects such as sustainable growth, unlocking trade for growth, preparing for the future of work, advancing financial inclusion, fighting corruption, and delivering quality education are common for all such organisations. These topics were again discussed in Delhi, producing the same old results. Example: the G-20 ‘recommitted’ to achieving the SDGS? Haven’t we talked about the revered subject of sustainable development a bit too much already? Haven’t we resolved to achieve the goals of sustainable development multiple times already? The 1992 Rio Earth Summit? The Kyoto Protocol? The Paris Agreement? Was there anyone in the G-20 Summit who wondered why would they ‘recommit’ on the same issues repeatedly? Looking at the pattern, would anyone be surprised if the G-20 Summit scheduled to be held in Brazil next year ‘recommitted’ certain oft-repeated ‘resolves’ yet again?
Another example: Just like any other such organisation’s final document, the Delhi Declaration, after reaffirming, highlighting, emphasising, supporting, encouraging, reiterating, and appreciating several factors, committed to ‘urgently accelerate our actions to address environmental crises and challenges including climate change.’ Recognising the need for increased global investment to meet ‘our climate goals of the Paris Agreement, to rapidly and substantially scale up investment and climate finance from billions to trillions of dollars globally from all sources.’ Sounds familiar?
Similarly, the G-20 leaders once again urged ‘the international finance system’ to ‘deliver significantly more financing to help developing countries to fight poverty, tackle global challenges and maximise development impact.’ While addressing debt vulnerabilities in low and middle-income countries, the Declaration just ‘re-emphasised’ its importance without offering any concrete proposal to address this perennial issue. On the other hand, it did not forget to practically strengthen the World Bank and the IMF.
As usual, the leaders condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations while underscoring the importance of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and its efforts to curb terror financing and money laundering. However, they refrained from ‘condemning’ the Russian ‘special operation’ in Ukraine. In fact, in comparison to the Bali Declaration, the language used in the Delhi Declaration was much diluted and indirect. On the war in Ukraine, the leaders only ‘reiterated’ their respective positions taken at the United Nations.
Contrarily, several other non-G20 matters made headlines. India tried to announce its entry into the bigger powers’ elite group albeit unsuccessfully. President Biden’s reception at the airport at the ministerial level was considered a manifestation of India’s arrival at the world stage as a major global power. Perhaps, the worried look at Biden’s face was not because of his ‘low-level’ reception at the airport. In all probabilities, his mind was more on Kim Jong Un’s visit to Moscow than such ‘petty’ matters. Even the hosting of a routine rotatory meeting was projected as India’s grand diplomatic success thereby sending an unambiguously false message to the world. On the other hand, New Delhi tried to underplay its initial diplomatic embarrassment i.e., the conspicuous absence of President Xi Jinping and President Valdimir Putin.
Similarly, Türkiye’s favourable statement on India’s inclusion in the UN Security Council’s exclusive club was given more importance than Erdogan’s rebuff to the India-ME Transport Project. ‘We say that there is no corridor without Türkiye’. There goes the idea of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) that aims at establishing shipping and railway lines through the UAE, KSA, Jordon and Israel before reaching Europe. Objective analysts would have smiled when the IMEC was equated with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (B&RI).
In addition to providing all Member-States an opportunity to participate in a routine summit and take some ‘memorable’ pictures, the G-20 huddle seemed to have focused on only one point. India, conceived to be the other rising Asian giant, will be given additional responsibilities to contain China. The rest was business as usual.
 

India’s Potemkin reality​

By Raashid Wali Janjua
September 19, 2023


India hosted the G20 summit from September 9 to 10 in Delhi. But it was amusing to see the steps it took to make the city more appealing, skilfully hiding its shocking realities.

In keeping with the Potemkin spirit of concealing the unpleasant reality, Delhi’s shanty towns were erased and the surrounding areas spruced up, leaving no trace of the unfortunate reality of the poor who barely survive on less than $3 per day.

In 1787, in Russia, the ruler of the time Grigory Potemkin set up artificial pasteboard villages in Crimea, along with cheering crowds imported from Central Russia, to impress Empress Catherine. The decor was dismantled as soon as the empress left.
It is not clear whether the show put up in Delhi at the cost of 150,000 hapless people, depopulated to suburban ghettos, impressed the G20 participants, but it certainly annoyed human rights activists across the world.

Can India’s human rights violations and not-so-hidden minority apartheid be concealed through a successfully held event for members of the world’s elite club? Can the Potemkin unreality of the Delhi shanty towns be extended to the spirit of the G20 summit which challenged the concrete BRI reality with aspirations for the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC)? The idea of the IMEC that was floated with great fanfare is an improvement on still-born economic initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and the Build Better World (B3W).

The Chinese have carefully welcomed the IMEC as a complementary economic corridor reminding the world that the BRI with a financial spending of over $1 trillion has already signed agreements with 150 countries whereas the B3W has hardly committed less than $10 million since its inception in June 2021. The unrealized potential of six GCC countries’ decade-old railway connectivity project of 2,117 km should remind one of the utopian nature of the IMEC.

There are geopolitical landmines before the IMEC due to the inclusion of Israel and Jordan, and big financial commitments to this freshly minted corridor of peace and economic prosperity. Many EU countries have already signed the BRI, and projects like the Piraeus Port in Greece and the Budapest-Belgrade Railway attest to the inclusivity of the BRI.

Compared to the BRI, the IMEC appears to be a Potemkin village unless the world transits towards a Kantian worldview of economic interdependence and peace by doing away with confrontational bloc politics. The IMEC would have better chances of taking off the ground if it embraces the BRI instead of shunning it. The omission of Pakistan and Turkiye from the proposed corridor points to strategic naivete as both countries offer unique land and sea spaces for economic connectivity. It is hoped that the IMEC might connect with the BRI one day.

For now, one can only see how well the Potemkin reality of India’s affluence hides the ugliness of socio-economic discrimination reserved for minorities in India. The nexus of crime and politics, institutionalized corruption, corporate greed and assault on minorities is a lethal brew reserved for all those who are outside the gilded pale of Hindutva-driven politics.

While India tried to polish its credentials as a champion of the Global South through the G20 summit, it decided not to send its external affairs minister to Cuba for the G77 plus China meeting (September 15-16). India, under the BJP, has abandoned Nehruvian secular nationalism and has adopted Nathuram Godse’s religious nationalism. This atavistic affinity to religious revivalism is a product of RSS-driven politico-economic elitism that seeks to exclude minorities as well as under privileged castes.

The result of this exclusivism is an unequal India that attracts crime, communalism, corporate greed and conflicts – both at home and abroad. Despite impressive growth in the Indian economy, its dividends are not being passed to Indians. According to a CNN report, about 60 per cent of the Indian population lives on $3.10 a day while the UNDP’s latest report on multidimensional poverty places the number of people below the poverty line at 210 million (15 per cent of the population).

According to Oxfam figures, the top 1.0 per cent in India hold 77 per cent of the national wealth with 63 million Indians being pushed into poverty because of healthcare costs alone. While a large segment of population suffers a hardscrabble life, the rich and influential gather more wealth and privileges through political patronage.

Gautam Adani’s wealth rose from $8 billion to $288 billion between 2013 and 2022 through lucrative state contracts for ports, power plants, coal mines, highways, energy parks and airports gifted under Modi’s watch. Poor farmers in Punjab, the majority (68 per cent) of whom own less than one hectare of land, were put at the mercy of corporate sharks through new agriculture policy favouring big corporate farms with political links.

India is being culturally and politically sanitized of its pluralistic identity to establish a Hindu Rashtra. Minorities like Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and Buddhists are being subjected to discriminatory laws and practices to force them into the Hindu fold, a strategy known by its sobriquet ‘Ghar Wapsi’.

Discriminatory laws like the National Register of Citizen (NRC) and the Citizen Amendment Act have been promulgated to deny Muslims their citizenship. The NRC that violates Articles 2 (non- discrimination), 7 (freedom from inhuman treatment) and 14 (right to fair trial) of the International Covenant on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) led to the Delhi riots in 2020 in which 53 people were killed.
Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis constitute 55 per cent of the national prison population in India despite being 39 per cent of the country’s total population. In north-eastern state Manipur a reign of terror was let loose against the Kuki Christian community while laws like anti-cow slaughter routinely result in the mob lynching of Muslims. Anti-conversion laws, which are in force in six states, prohibit the preaching of Christian and Muslim faith and conversion of Hindus to other faiths.

This is the dystopian reality of India that is cleverly masked through Potemkin shows like the G20 summit.

The writer is director at the Islamabad Policy Research
Institute. He can be reached at:
rwjanj@hotmail.com
 

Undercurrents of a strategically vital Gulf at the G20​

From the IMEEC to Mohammed bin Salman’s state visit, the week of the G20 Summit in New Delhi saw the assertion of West Asian nations as ‘poles’ of power in a move towards a multipolar order

India’s hosting of the G20 Summit this month culminated in the successful release of a consensus-led ‘Delhi Declaration,’ despite fears that disagreements over Ukraine could lead to a stalemate. With an Indian wish to carry as many voices from the Global South as it could, West Asian (Middle East) representation was in full force with leaders from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Türkiye, and Oman in attendance. Beyond the G20 obligations, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), was also on a state visit. This coincided with the announcement of a India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC) along with the United States (US) as a major stakeholder.

While much attention was on India’s ability to salvage the G20’s position in the global multilateral order—as many questioned its relevance over a lack of deliverables on tackling poverty and climate—the representation from West Asia also showcased a rapidly increasing political and financial prominence of the Arab states in the region, The new economic corridor, which naturally got touted as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), acted as a potpourri for the common economic interests of the participating states. However, there is much more brewing within the geopolitics and geoeconomics of the Gulf states than what was presented in New Delhi.

The Gulf is arguably where the West versus China competition is most visible today. Events over the past decade, such as the conflict in Yemen, attack on Saudi energy facilities by Houthi militants that are known to have the backing of Tehran, and Western acceptance of the very idea of a nuclearised Iran, accelerated a shift in strategic thinking—one that was already underway. Amidst all this, the Gulf is increasingly seen as a beacon for global economics. While its prowess in hydrocarbons is well known, today, it is also home to 30 percent of overall container trade and 16 percent of all air cargo passage, with a geography that houses less than 6 percent of the global population.

The above trends feed into the Gulf’s growing importance, making their voice and partnership invaluable for New Delhi. Both the announcement of the IMEEC and visit of MbS increase the reliance of economic security between these two geographies. The challenge, however, remains an unstable global polity and a movement towards a bi-polar world order instead of a multipolar one that countries like India, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE seek. This challenge will be a defining one for all, with the very definition of globalisation as we have known being contested.

The arrival of IMEEC

The announcement of the IMEEC connectivity project, currently at a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) stage, expectedly grabbed headlines as a pound-for-pound answer to China’s BRI initiative. On paper, the economic and political might IMEEC wields is, indeed, impressive as it attempts to bring together countries that can or have a track record of successful collaboration. Perhaps, not surprisingly, despite being geographically distant, excitement from the administration of US President Joe Biden was the most palpable. In New Delhi, where China-led economic designs are today being openly challenged, this enthusiasm will be welcomed.
However, IMEEC will have two realities to it. A geopolitical one, and an economic one. Connectivity projects joining India to West Asia and beyond make sense, nonetheless, successful connectivity projects in general, around the world, remain few and far between. However, much of the analysis on IMEEC since its announcement also misses some crucial points, both on the opportunities and challenges it faces. First, wisdom would be to look at IMEEC as a project that primarily feeds into the diversification of global supply chains and is not only about moving trade from one point to another. This means that it can use the political base set up by the Abraham Accords—which normalised relations between the UAE (along with others like Bahrain) and Israel—and the I2U2, a pre-existing economic initiative between India, Israel, US, and the UAE. This would round up the IMEEC more wholesomely as an umbrella institution truly building new factories for the wider Global South. Its design should also look into feeding manufacturing capacities in places such as Africa and Latin America.
Perhaps, not surprisingly, despite being geographically distant, excitement from the administration of US President Joe Biden was the most palpable.
The challenges for IMEEC are also palpable. To begin with, the idea for the moment is academic at best. History is littered with blueprints of connectivity projects that led nowhere. An intense political push would be needed for the IMEEC to move towards logical conclusions, considering the number of cooks in its kitchen. The two easy capitals to manoeuvre will be Washington, D.C. and New Delhi, both having bipartisan support on a requirement to break Beijing’s hold on global manufacturing and, by association, supply chains. Others in the Gulf, such as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, come from different thinking. Both are members of China’s BRI initiative, and actively seek Chinese investments. The other factor when it comes to financing IMEEC is a consensus looking towards the US as a primary financial provider. However, the real wealth today lies in sovereign wealth funds in the Gulf itself, thanks to cash rich coffers due to an energy boom and maintenance of high oil prices by OPEC+, which includes Russia. These cash-rich funds look for good investments, and projects like the IMEEC, which can feed into infrastructure expertise and technologies of the West, can make itself available as a good option.
Finally, a lot of the infrastructure to kickstart this initiative is already in place. It is now up to the policy mavens and political powers to offer a consensus-led initiative to the free market as one that is attractive to global business.

MbS in New Delhi

MbS’s state visit to India is another moment of diplomacy highlighting the importance of India’s outreach to West Asia over the past decade. For the Saudi heir apparent, India holds an important place. During the height of the Khashoggi crisis, MbS looked towards India, Russia, and China for acceptance. While a bit hesitant, reading the tea leaves of the Saudi monarchy’s succession, India hosted MbS for a flying visit in January 2019 at a time when almost all Western capitals were closed to him. Despite the political risk, this created an opening that may serve New Delhi in the kingdom for decades to come.
The other factor when it comes to financing IMEEC is a consensus looking towards the US as a primary financial provider.
Today, both states chaired the first summit-level meet of the India–Saudi Arabia Strategic Partnership Council, discussing issues such as energy, defence etc. The Saudi 2030 vision, a personal project of MbS’s, opens up opportunity and has been covered widely, showcasing the slow but steady opening up of Saudi society, departing from its infamous conservatism. And these cultural, societal, and ideological changes are perhaps some of the most anticipated globally as an opportunity that has previously never presented itself. Saudi Arabia, known for a long time as home to radical Islamic ideologies such as Wahhabism, is prioritising economic development along with a carefully constructed move towards acceptance of certain liberal ideals. This change is critically important from a global security perspective, without which long-term economic progress for the future, that relies on globalism, would be difficult.
This is something that India also appreciates. Reigning in of extremist ideologies in the Middle East will have a direct impact on similar issues that continue to prevail and thrive in places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other parts of South Asia. A strong India–Saudi partnership, for example, can potentially influence or even pressure radical anti-India elements within the Pakistani political and military ecosystems to reorient their vision of their army and the state. While this may seem far-fetched, the Saudi monarchy’s position as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques remains a very powerful one.
The Saudi 2030 vision, a personal project of MbS’s, opens up opportunity and has been covered widely, showcasing the slow but steady opening up of Saudi society, departing from its infamous conservatism.

Conclusion

The geopolitics of West Asia is witnessing tectonic shifts, and countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE already see themselves as ‘poles’ of power in a move towards a multipolar order. From BRICS+ to SCO and now the G20, the Gulf representation is growing stronger as its economic footprint increases. Challenges, however, remain. While there is a change of season geopolitically, many of the fundamental crisis points remain unresolved—from the Palestine issue to tensions with Iran, from instability in Syria and Iraq to the economic collapse of Lebanon and so on. The trickle-down effect of stability at the top will crucially determine the success of these new economic and political projects in the long term.
 
G-20 Summit and Pakistan’s isolation


The 18th Summit of the Group of Twenty (G20) concluded on September 10 in New Delhi. The summit’s main focus was to prioritize inclusive development, address climate change, and find solutions for issues impacting the global South. The summit’s declaration reflected a consensus, particularly with regards to Ukraine, which received praise from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Despite the absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Russian President Vladimir Putin, their positions were filled by the Chinese Prime Minister and Russian Foreign Minister. The summit was attended by numerous world leaders, including the US President. The 2023 Presidency of both SCO and G20 in New Delhi marks a pivotal moment for Indian diplomacy, offering a prime opportunity for India to showcase itself as a representative of the global South. To maintain and expand its influence in international relations, however, India must strive to avoid internal political divisions, particularly in communal politics.

The upcoming G20 summit, themed “One Earth, One Family, One Future,” aims to promote unity in diversity, address global issues, and encourage international cooperation. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s innovative ideas were lauded during the summit, including inviting the African Union (AU) to join the G20 and signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and the European Union to establish a trade and communication corridor connecting India and Europe via the Middle East.

The European-Middle Eastern and Indian corridor is a proposed plan that offers an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Its aim is to provide economic and technological benefits to India, the Middle East, and Europe. The African Union’s recent inclusion in the G20’s membership has increased it to 21 nations, and with the addition of the EU’s 27 member states and the AU’s 55 members, the G20 will soon encompass roughly 100 nations. Brazil will take over the G20 presidency from India in December, ensuring continued leadership by the global South.

While non-G20 countries such as Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Mauritius, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, Spain, and UAE were invited to attend the Summit, India’s neighbor and the world’s fifth most populous state was not in attendance.

According to a report from the Christian Science Monitor, the 2023 summit was to commemorate India’s remarkable achievement in emerging as a global leader and promoting the interests of non-G20 nations. India organized the Voice of the Global South Summit in January. This two-day virtual conference provided developing countries a platform to articulate their perspectives on economic expansion, development objectives, and their aspirations for India’s presidency as the G20’s head.

Pakistan’s undeniable significance cannot be disregarded, as it holds a crucial geostrategic location in the region and ranks among the world’s most populous countries. Pakistani decision-makers must reflect on why Pakistan remains marginalized and isolated in the global arena. While Pakistan’s frail economic, political, and social circumstances may impede its ability to counter India’s strategy, and we must not overlook our foreign policy shortcomings.

As we analyze the recent G20 Summit, it’s crucial to take into account three essential elements. Firstly, the African Union, which consists of 55 member states and is the world’s largest regional organization, was welcomed into the group’s expanded membership. This results in the G20 representing around 100 nations, which account for 85 percent of the globe’s population and economy. With North and South countries represented, the G20 faces the challenge of enhancing its performance.

However, the Delhi Summit faced obstacles in agreeing on critical issues such as the climate crisis and Ukraine. India utilized its persuasive skills to create the impression of a unified voice in the Delhi Declaration. At one point, the French president threatened not to sign any G20 declaration unless Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was condemned. However, he had to accept a compromise formula regarding Ukraine, in which members pledged to safeguard the territorial integrity of a state and follow a non-intervention policy.

The decision to exclude Russia from the Delhi declaration regarding Ukraine was appreciated by the Russian foreign minister, but criticized by Kiev. The BRICS aimed to create an alternative to the US-dominated world order, while the G20 summit aimed to address the concerns of developing nations through compromise. The Indian Prime Minister and other world leaders, including Brazil’s President who will lead the group from December, deserve credit for ensuring that the G20 summit remained conflict-free. Their message was straightforward: the G20 will work towards improving humanity and will not be a divisive organization.

Secondly, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, a massive project characterized as a modern “Spice Route” designed to connect India to Europe via the Arabian Peninsula, was also an important announcement. The project is viewed as a competitor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which entails transcontinental transportation, energy, and data links. US President Joe Biden referred to it as a “real big deal”. Even though a few voices have questioned the economic viability of the proposed route, its geopolitical significance cannot be refuted.

The corridor will have regional and international consequences. According to the majority of experts, it is an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and, therefore, a significant success for the USA and India. Nevertheless, given the complexity of the new international geopolitics, it cannot be ruled out that the new economic corridor will converge with the BRI rather than supplant it. Currently, it appears that India has been able to keep both Russia and the USA satisfied, while also limiting China’s influence. The process has minimized the significance of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s decision not to attend the meeting.

Thirdly, the G20 summit has further strengthened India’s credibility in global affairs. In contrast, Pakistan’s non-participation in the event was not unexpected, given its absence from the list of non-G20 nations invited. Earlier this year, India voiced strong opposition to Pakistan’s participation in BRICS. Additionally, virtual meetings of SCO leaders have seemingly been utilized as a means for India to distance Pakistan from international events. India’s current efforts to isolate Pakistan from significant international events are noteworthy.

However, Pakistan’s undeniable significance cannot be disregarded, as it holds a crucial geostrategic location in the region and ranks among the world’s most populous countries. Pakistani decision-makers must reflect on why Pakistan remains marginalized and isolated in the global arena. While Pakistan’s frail economic, political, and social circumstances may impede its ability to counter India’s strategy, and we must not overlook our foreign policy shortcomings.
 

Pakistan’s G20 silence​



IMEC plan involves Pakistan’s allies, may have caught caretakers flat-footed

The G20 Summit in New Delhi saw the announcement of the India-Middle East Economic Corridor (IMEC), an ambitious programme clearly meant to rival China’s Brick and Road Initiative, of which the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is an important component. The announcement may have come on the sidelines of the Summit, but Pakistan should notice that apart from India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the EU, France, Italy, Germany and the USA have all signed on. These are all traditional allies, with the exception of India. Past experience should tell us that India has always done its best to use international forums against Pakistan. It is also worth remarking that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also involved in economic engagement with Pakistan in a big way, and if they were to distance themselves from Pakistan because of the Indian pull, that would be potentially disastrous. The same applies to EU members and the USA. And how has the Pakistan government reacted? With resounding silence.

Nothing illustrates more clearly the limitations under which a caretaker government labours. It is not so much that the members of the caretaker government will be long gone and buried when the IMEC and CPEC yield their full fruits. That also applies to whoever is elected PM whenever the election is held. However, the countries will still be around. It is the task of the government, and especially the Foreign Office, to take positions now that will stand the country in good stead in the future. The habit of living in the present, and of burying one’s head in the sand, ostrich-like, when the future comes up, has to stop. This was an occasion simply crying for Pakistan to show some activity, perhaps illustrate the fact that it is not friendless by involving China in some demonstration. China may have been left alone at the G20, but it should be shown that the gains it has made by brokering the Saudi-Iran peace deal are still very much there, and that Pakistan can be helpful there.

Pakistan has found itself in this situation because its government is that of caretakers, who are ill-suited to take an initiative because they lack the kind of popular support that comes only through elections. Even toeing the Chinese line, which was to make a statement of welcome despite its pointed exclusion, would have been preferable to the deafening silence that has been the country’s reaction to what is after all a major challenge.
 

Back
Top Bottom