Syllabus: Important International institutions, agencies and fora — their structure, mandate.
Context
- The 2025 Johannesburg G20 Summit exposed deep geopolitical fractures, with the U.S., China, and Russia absent.
- South Africa, despite opposition from the U.S., succeeded in pushing through the Leaders’ Declaration, highlighting a divide between middle-power activism and great-power disengagement.
Evolution of the G20
- Formed post the Asian Financial Crisis (1997–98) as a Finance Ministers forum.
- Upgraded to Leaders’ Summit in 2008 after the global financial crisis.
- Expanded from G8 dominance to a broader G20 core, including China, India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia.
- Mandate has broadened to include climate, food security, digital governance, trade, health, and energy transition.
- For emerging economies, it became a key platform amid slow UN reforms and stalled UNSC expansion.
Key Outcomes of the Johannesburg Leaders’ Declaration
- 122-paragraph Declaration covering climate finance, global governance reform, debt, gender, youth and critical minerals.
- UNSC reform push: Representation for Africa, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific highlighted.
- Climate finance: Commitment to scale funds from “billions to trillions”, supporting just transitions and vulnerable economies.
- Debt relief: Launch of a Cost of Capital Commission to address high risk premia and Africa’s $1.8 trillion debt burden.
- Social inclusion:
- Nelson Mandela Bay Target: Reduce NEET youth by 5% by 2030.
- 25% gender parity in labour-force participation by 2030.
- Critical Minerals Framework: Promote diversified, sustainable mineral value chains with local beneficiation.
- Mission 300: Provide electricity access to 300 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.
Strategic Opportunities for G20
- Stronger Global South leadership with AU membership and African priorities at the centre.
- Potential to reform IMF–World Bank systems, lending norms, and debt restructuring.
- Platform for shaping AI governance, data rules, digital public infrastructure, and critical minerals.
- Coordination on terror financing, narcotics (e.g., fentanyl), cyber threats.
- India’s expanding role through initiatives on skills, healthcare, traditional knowledge and space-data sharing.
Geopolitical Tensions Weakening G20
- Absence of the Big Three reduced the forum’s strategic weight.
- U.S.–South Africa clash over climate and debt language disrupted consensus tradition.
- Argentina’s withdrawal on Middle East references exposed internal ideological divides.
- Europe foregrounded Ukraine, while Global South prioritised Gaza and humanitarian concerns, deepening narrative differences.
- Trump-era scepticism towards multilateralism further eroded G20 cohesion.
Way Forward
- Refocus on macro-financial stability, trade, debt and climate finance, where G20 influence is strongest.
- Build North–South bridges between European security needs and Global South development demands.
- Restore U.S., China and Russia engagement to retain global relevance.
- Prioritise deliverables over declarations, with tangible climate finance, debt swaps, SDR rechanneling and infrastructure outcomes.
- Align G20 decisions with UN processes (COP, SDGs); complement BRICS, AU, EAS frameworks.
- Institutionalise Global South and civil society participation to enhance legitimacy.
Conclusion
- Johannesburg produced substantive Africa-centric outcomes, but great-power absenteeism undermined strategic credibility.
- The G20’s future depends on renewed big-power participation, strong Global South leadership, and implementation-driven outcomes.