So, it is as certain as one can possibly be that American President Joe Biden and the Chinese supremo Xi Jinping will meet on November 15 in California on the side lines of the APEC summit. The very fact that they are meeting may be considered as good news by some in a world where bad news abounds. Others will point out that the US wanted this bilateral powwow much more than China did. After all, no less than six American Cabinet Ministers paid preparatory visits to Beijing over the last several months. It would seem China played hard to get, though it is clear by now that it too needs the meeting for reasons of its own.

China’s main objectives from the talks are:

(1) To persuade the US to lift most, if not all, trade, technology and investment restrictions imposed by it. Two Working Groups dealing with Economic and Finance issues respectively have met. We will have to wait and see whether the US will tweak its de-risking strategy by changing the dimensions of the “small yard, high fence” to cater to Chinese demands. Looks unlikely but you never know.

(2) To convey to the US that forming alliances or blocs aimed at China will not contribute to better ties. China has in mind things like AUKUS, Camp David alliance (US, Japan and South Korea) as well as groupings like Quad.

(3) To reiterate to the US that the most core of its core interests is Taiwan and that this is non-negotiable from the Chinese perspective.

The US, on the other hand, believes the bilateral relationship with China has three aspects, namely, Cooperation, Competition and Confrontation. The US wishes to focus predominantly on the first, namely, cooperation which includes issues like Climate Change, Public Health, Nuclear Disarmament, Cybersecurity and Fentanyl. On Competition, the US is not likely to let up since there is national security consensus that China is the “pacing challenge” of the century. It is hard to see the US compromising on this issue. Lastly, on Confrontation, US will convey in the strongest terms possible its concern with regard to Chinese activities in the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea etc. It is hard to see a meeting point on this issue, so the American proposal will be to at least resume military-to-military talks (suspended since the Balloon Affair) for which Chinese approval will be sought.

So much for the bilateral dossier. On other issues, the US will ask China to press Iran so that the conflict in Gaza does not become a wider regional war. China too may not want to see the conflict spread. On Ukraine, China will feel the pressure of answering for the close ties it entertains with Russia. The bottom line however is that the Chinese are smart enough to realize that both the wars in Gaza and Ukraine put pressure on the strategic bandwidth of the US even while simultaneously providing more strategic space for China. It is therefore hard to see why the Chinese should change tack on these two fundamental issues. Indeed, there are a number of analysts who explain this as the main reason for current Chinese aggression in the South China sea. Whether this will spread to the Taiwan Strait is a trillion dollar question really.

It is no secret that Xi Jinping faces both political and economic headwinds back home. The visit to America and the talks with Joe Biden will help cement the domestic perception that China considers the US as its only equal and this meeting is evidence of that. Despite all this, it is a meeting that bears close watching.

If one goes right back to the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there were still some sane voices arguing for a diplomatic solution. India’s statements on the issue always harped on a peaceful resolution of the issue based on talks. After 620-odd days of raging conflict, thousands of lives lost and immense loss of property, it would appear that there are finally moves afoot by both the US and the EU to persuade Ukraine’s President Zelensky to seek a negotiated solution. It is too soon to predict if these will be successful. But whether Russia will be keen for a diplomatic solution at this time is far from clear. After all, the much-vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive has turned out to be a dud and frankly, the status quo suits the Russians more than it does Ukraine. As far back as March 2022, there was a serious possibility of a diplomatic solution on the table which was nipped in the bud by the West. Look at the cost being paid by all for that single act of folly.

The conflict in Gaza has done two things to the war in Ukraine: it has taken the headline focus away from the war in Ukraine even while accentuating the “Ukraine fatigue” already being felt in the EU and elsewhere. The US President who asked for combined humanitarian and defence assistance of some $106 billion for Ukraine and Israel, has predictably got the Congressional green light for the latter amounting to $15 billion, but not for Ukraine. As noted elsewhere by me, Ukraine cannot hold a candle to Israel in the American Congress.

With regard to the conflict that has erupted in Gaza, again sane voices are calling for a ceasefire followed by talks aimed at a two-state diplomatic solution. What Hamas did to Israel on October 7 was horrific and worthy of unconditional condemnation. Of course Israel has a right to defend itself by all means. But Israel is also a State in the comity of nations and as its PM Netanyahu said recently : “Israel and its military act according to the highest standards of international law in order to prevent harm to non-combatants, and we will continue to do so until victory”. This was in response to an Israeli Minister who said Gaza could be “nuked”. The Minister was dismissed by PM Netanyahu.

Israel is now under international scrutiny and will have to live up to the public statement made above by its PM. More importantly, Israel will have to determine what constitutes “victory” against Hamas and spell out what happens the day after. Israel still retains a lot of sympathy from its well wishers around the world, but it is in its own abiding interest to consider a negotiated, two-state diplomatic solution. There is simply no alternative to that. If it needs further convincing on this point, it need look no further than what is currently going on in Ukraine. War is never a long-term solution to problems; diplomacy is!

It is now highly likely that there will be a bilateral meeting between US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in California next month on the side lines of the APEC summit. It has taken numerous visits by American dignitaries ranging from Anthony Blinken to Gina Raimondo to John Kerry to Janet Yellen, not to mention meetings of Jake Sullivan, for the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi now to travel to the US to meet with American policy makers. Wang Yi, apart from meeting Blinken and Sullivan is widely expected to call on Biden himself. Not so long ago, the Chinese spokesperson said: communication for the sake of communication is not worth it and we ask the American side to be sincere. So, does this signify a change of heart from China? Not really. China is playing along in the full knowledge that America is currently distracted by the goings-on in West Asia. The Xi Jinping-Joe Biden meeting is worth watching, to keep a look out for “guardrails” so as to ensure that competition in Sino-American ties does not veer to conflict. There appears to be convergence between the two sides that a temporary truce suits both countries. Nothing more should be read into this development.

That said, the recent spat between China and Philippines in the South China Sea did evoke a strong reaction from the US which cited its treaty alliance with Philippines, warning China that it would not stand idly by. The American side will reportedly raise the incident with China when Biden and Xi meet. Expect China to respond by referring to the nine dash line. But China does not even have a Defence Minister at this time, so one will have to wait and see. But the departure of the former Chinese Defence Minister may be no bad thing; he was sanctioned by the US and the new Defence Minister whoever he may be (the only “she” in China is “Xi”) could make it easier for a meeting with US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The one thing on which both countries’ interests may align is in ensuring that there is no wider conflagration in the Middle East. Biden will not want things to spin out of control in the Middle East with elections looming large. And with the Chinese economy slowing down, Xi Jinping can do without oil prices going through the roof and a global recession taking root. But the US is concerned that China has not condemned Hamas and appears overtly pro-Palestinian. US would also want China to exercise influence on Iran. It is not evident China will readily oblige.

In a concrete development, two Working Groups have been set up between the US and China: one dealing with financial issues and the other dealing with economic issues. Sino-American engagement is well and truly under way. China’s objectives in this regard are clear: to ensure that there are no restrictions placed on China with regard to sensitive technologies, critical minerals and semi-conductors. The Americans have been talking about a “small yard and high fence”. The Chinese preferably want no yard and certainly no fence! India, which has signed up for a “US-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology” should follow these discussions closely.

The other thing to watch out for is an emerging axis between China, Russia and Iran. It is tentative at present, but indications are these countries will increasingly coordinate their positions on the Middle East and elsewhere. This cannot but be a matter of concern for the US and the West. Xi Jinping in his meeting with Biden would rather talk about the Middle East, Ukraine and the North Korea’s weapons program than about the thorny bilateral issues such as commercial espionage, cyber attacks and its own aggressive actions in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

China will gauge the strategic will and/or strength of the US in these bilateral conversations. After all, the US is stretched, militarily speaking, with Gaza and Ukraine. And to top it all this happens to be election season in the US. It is after making a detailed strategic assessment that China will decide whether to take forward the thaw in its ties with America or to continue its line of confrontation. Whether China chooses the former or the latter, has profound implications for India since it affects its margin for strategic manoeuvre. In an interesting move, the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress even as Wang Yi was in the US. The crux of the Pentagon Report is: China is rapidly modernising its armed forces, expanding its nuclear arsenal and hopes to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by 2049; it clearly states that China continues to be the “pacing challenge” for the US. The Chinese Defence Ministry has predictably blasted the Pentagon Report to Congress saying it distorts the country’s security policy and military strategy and over hypes the Chinese military threat. In light of this, it is better not to be too optimistic about what deliverables can be achieved in the Biden-Xi talks. Still, jaw-jaw in California is better than war-war in the Taiwan Strait.

There is little doubt that the Middle East is now hurtling towards a veritable catastrophe. It is hard to be certain, but the Hamas may have had the following objectives in mind when it committed the horrific attacks on Israeli citizens:

> To draw international attention to the Palestinian issue which was languishing;

> To reverse the rapprochement that was taking place between Saudi Arabia and Israel on the one hand and the normalization that was taking place due to the Abraham Accords;

> To avoid Hamas (itself) becoming irrelevant to the political dynamics of the Middle East; and

> To provoke a massive Israeli response which will most certainly lead to large civilian casualties taking the focus away from atrocities committed by Hamas and drawing attention right back to Israel and its nefarious policies.

If the above was indeed the original aim of Hamas, then it has certainly achieved it in substantial measure. While there has been understandable sympathy for Israel, there have also been pro-Palestinian protests and increased spotlight on Israel’s polices in the West. And while Bahrain and UAE may have been critical of Hamas, other States have either been careful (Saudi Arabia) or openly supportive of Hamas and critical of Israel (Qatar). The rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been halted in its tracks and the Abraham Accords are under severe stress. It is also sadly true that Hamas has really not elicited the kind of opprobrium that one might have expected after the horrific attacks they unleashed on Israel. What is more, Israel appears on the brink of launching a massive retaliatory strike on what it believes are Hamas targets in the North of Gaza. Israeli Defence Forces asking a million Palestinians to shift to the South of Gaza has already been characterised as a “humanitarian disaster” by the UN. It is all but certain that Israel will carry out a ground invasion of Gaza. If it does, it will play precisely into the hands of Hamas. In such an eventuality, huge civilian casualties may be expected. Israel thus finds itself in a catch-22 situation from which there is no escape.

There is also the “Arab Street” factor. Following a ground invasion, if that happens, the street will react strongly to Palestinian civilian casualties and will force their leaders to take a more sympathetic line in favour of Palestinian aspirations. Arab countries may then solidly rally behind the Palestinian cause.

The question as to why some observers see a moral equivalence between Israel’s nefarious policies and the violent tactics used by Hamas, goes to the heart of what is referred to as the “root causes” of a conflict or as to who committed the original sin. This leads to a situation where supporters of the Palestinian cause will dwell on how Israel has deprived the Palestinians of all rights and created the conditions for a movement like Hamas to emerge and flourish. With equal vehemence, supporters of Israel will refer to the barbarity that characterises the actions of Hamas. There is no winning this argument. But there must be universal condemnation of actions such as the one resorted to by Hamas against innocent citizens along with serious attempts by the international community to resolve the underlying causes of a conflict as longstanding and as intractable as the Palestinian one.

The argument that Hamas does not represent the legitimate aspirations of all Palestinians will doubtless be countered by the argument of some that Bibi Netanyahu does not represent all of the Israeli people. The fact remains however that Netanyahu is the legitimate Prime Minister of Israel and therefore carries the greater burden of accountability for his actions.

The other issue concerning Hamas and Israel is that one is a state entity and the other a non-state actor. States, by definition, are held to higher standards of behaviour than non-state actors especially since the latter have not subscribed to instruments like the Hague Convention, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention against Torture. There is nevertheless an increasing tendency to hold non-state actors to account and to higher standards. This is reflective of the general revulsion towards terrorism felt by the public in democratic countries. Yet, as the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said: We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard even when it is difficult and holding ourselves accountable when we fall short.” It is far from clear that Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister Netanyahu will heed this sensible advice given to him by the American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

At the time of writing this, Israel has unleashed the fiercest bombing ever in Gaza: a region with the densest population in the world. The air strikes are widely believed to be a precursor to a frightful ground invasion. It is hard not to have the presentiment of an impending calamity!

Just as the world was tiring of the war in Ukraine, the Middle East region turned to what it does best: produce more geopolitics than it can consume and create the basis for a horrendous conflict. It is hard to lose sight of the fact that the Middle East had been relatively peaceful. One has to go back to July/August 2014 when more than 2000 Palestinians and 73 Israelis were killed in a war that lasted seven weeks in the region. Hamas appears to have taken Israeli security forces and the world by surprise by the ghastly attacks it carried out inside Israel. The toll at present: 700 Israelis killed and several abducted by Hamas. In retaliation, 400 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli air strike so far in Gaza. Israelis are already terming this as their ” 9/11″ and have sworn massive retaliation with absolutely no mercy. This has all the signs of an unfolding catastrophe.

The immediate implications of this sudden eruption in the Middle East is hard to ignore:

(1) The detente that we began to see in the region, either the easing of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran or even the Abraham Accords arrived at in 2020 may well see some setbacks. This bears close watching.

(2) The war in Ukraine, already affected by “Ukraine fatigue” may well recede from the headlines. Could this give more breathing space to Russia?

(3) Given the special status of Israel in the US and its politics, it is possible that China takes even more of a backseat than it already has, due to the war in Ukraine. The implications for Indo-Pacific in general and countries of the region like India in particular, need careful scrutiny.

(4) The Middle East has erupted at a time when the US and China are trying to re-establish channels of communication which had broken down following the “balloon” affair. There appears to be every possibility now that Chinese President Xi Jinping will travel to California for the APEC Summit in November and meet with American President Joe Biden. Xi Jinping would love for this bilateral summit meeting with Joe Biden to be dominated by the conflagration in the Middle East, rather than about China’s own activities in the Taiwan Strait, East China Sea or the South China Sea.

(5) One must also examine if there are any implications for the much-vaunted India-Middle East-Europe-Corridor (IMEC) which was recently announced on the side lines of the New Delhi G20 Summit.

(6) The impact on global economic recovery, especially with the expected spike in oil prices is also something that needs to be reckoned with.

In International Relations and Geopolitics, no one can fully anticipate events like the one Hamas unleashed on Israel on October 7, 2023, the fiftieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur war and on the holiest day of Yom Kippur (the day of atonement) itself. Which is why it is said of world leaders that they cannot control the “in tray” and have to play the cards they are dealt. This war that has just erupted in the Middle East will have repercussions well beyond the region.

Analysts and observers had always underscored two things about the War in Ukraine. One, this will not be a short duration war in which one side will demolish the other and claim victory. Two, the longer the war goes on, “Ukraine fatigue” could set in, handing Russia an important strategic advantage.

There is now hard evidence that both those predictions are coming true. Everyone now realizes this war is far from over and is becoming one of attrition. The other “Ukraine fatigue” factor has perhaps kicked in sooner than one expected. The first warning signals came from Poland which was ironic because it started out as a staunch supporter of Ukraine. In a surprise move, Poland sought to extend the ban on import of food grains from Ukraine to protect its farmers. Indeed, Poland was not the only one. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia joined Poland in banning outright Ukrainian food grains from April to September so that their countries are not flooded with grain imports, to the detriment of their farmers. So much for European solidarity! The Polish change of heart was strongest, may be because it is heading for polls in October. The Polish PM said it would not open up its borders to Ukrainian food grains, regardless of the decisions by the “clerks in Brussels”, a derisive reference to the European Commission in Brussels. Ukraine’s President Zelensky may have overplayed his card when in a speech at the UN General Assembly he said, in an oblique reference to Poland and others, that some countries were only pretending to support Ukraine while the latter was waging war against Russia. This prompted an angry reaction from the Polish PM who told President Zelensky “never to insult the Polish people” as he did in his speech at the UN. And soon thereafter, Poland announced that it was no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine and that Poland needed them for its own defence. The Polish President Duda walked back some of the above remarks, but the damage had been done. Poland is heading to the polls and one will have to wait and see how much of a factor Ukraine is for the electorate.

Meanwhile, the poll results in Slovakia may be a hint of things to come. In results just in, Slovak politician Robert Fico has won and will try and form a coalition government. Normally, what happens in Slovakia stays in Slovakia. But Robert Fico is clearly anti-Ukraine and may definitely be considered pro-Russia, which these days is equivalent to verbal abuse in the Western world. Hungary’s Victor Orban suddenly does not seem as lonely a politician as he was just a few months ago. He has company in Europe.

As if all this were not alarming enough, the US has managed to embarrass itself, as is its wont these days. The American Congress just voted last minute which will keep the Government from shutting down completely, but at least $ 24 Billions in aid to Ukraine will hang fire till mid-November. This at a time when the Ukrainian counter-offensive is neither an offensive nor is it able to counter Russia on the battlefield. If this is the situation with Biden, imagine what it would be with Trump in the White House.

President Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee!

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the United Nations’ death may be greatly exaggerated, but they nonetheless deserve careful scrutiny. The flagship event of the UN is undoubtedly the UN General Assembly, a jamboree no doubt, but one that important world leaders hate to love! It gives them a pulpit, bully or not, and what leader does not love a captive audience even if it is back home on TV, while the UN General Assembly Hall itself is embarrassingly empty.

Well, the UNGA began on 18 September with customary fanfare but guess what? Out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council who arguably have the highest stakes in this archaic organization, only the American President Joe Biden made it. This is easily explained: Biden had to travel only 200-odd miles and is standing for re-election. The latter means anything which will buttress his image as an elderly statesman (less elderly and more statesman you might say, but let us not be churlish) is welcome.

Other than Biden, the focus in Delhi where journalists continue their obsession with India’s western neighbour, was the interim, caretaker PM from Pakistan, one Mr Anwaar ul Haq Kakar, a name whose length rivals the inconsequentiality of the post that he holds. Since Mr Kakar will never, never get the opportunity again to speak at the UNGA, he took full advantage of the pulpit, offered to him by way of providence, to speak against India. He may well have used the draft speech used by previous PMs over the last few years, but that is really beside the point. The Permanent Mission of India in New York, as is its wont, chose a smart and young female diplomat (Petal Gehlot) to issue the rejoinder. It is fair to say that her rejoinder got more traction than the original speech made by the stand-in Pak Premier.

The key point is that out of the P-5(permanent members of the Security Council), only President Biden is attending and as pointed out earlier, this does not count since he was merely undertaking local travel. Indeed out of the entire cast of G20 leaders, at best 5 leaders were attending this year’s UNGA. Among emerging countries, Brazil and South Africa alone were attending at the highest level. So, what does all this tell you about the importance of UN? As if this were not concerning, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in an interview with Christian Amanpour frankly admitted that he neither has the clout nor indeed the money to make a difference. He added, however, that he will make himself heard loud and clear at every opportunity. It is abundantly clear what criteria need to be emphasized when the next Secretary General is chosen: lung-power rather than geopolitics should clinch it!

Something is wrong about the main geopolitical event of the year when its main attractions are Roger Federer, Priyanka Chopra and Princess Kate Middleton.

The UN has been in terminal decline for sometime now. The UN Security Council is supposed to deal with matters relating to war and peace, but it is hard to avoid the impression that the P5 is at war with itself and seeks peace with the rest of the world when it suits them. The UN General Assembly has become too general for its own good and is now a vast assembly of a motley group of putative world leaders. The other organs of the UN are: the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Secretariat and the ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council). The ICJ is hugely hobbled by the fact that it requires the explicit consent of the States before it can rule on anything. The UN Secretariat, despite a multitude of reforms, is still bloated and appointments are made more on geographical origin, rather than on discernible merit. John Bolton was a much hated American Ambassador to the UN; but in retrospect, it is hard to disagree with some of the things he said about the UN.

The ECOSOC claims to conduct cutting-edge analysis, agree on global norms and advocate sustainable development. Indeed, it just held the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development and released a glossy Sustainable Development Report 2023 which stated that half the world has been left behind and that the world is “off-track” on all the SDGs. To think you need “cutting-edge analysis”, thousands of US Dollars and half the amazon rainforest to come to this obvious conclusion. A simple Pew research survey of low income developing countries would have told you the same thing.

The UN does have some agencies which do great work. UN High Commission for Refugees or the World Food Programme, for instance. Or the World Health Organization when the Chinese, on rare occasions, allow it to advance the cause of public health.

There was a time not so long ago when diplomats would say with conviction: if the UN did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. The trouble today is that the UN does exist and no one quite knows what to do about it.

G20 Presidency may be rotational in character. But India has demonstrated two things: one, the Presidency has convening power; and two, the Presidency can make a difference in crucial areas.

It is easy to forget that there are still something like 75 days remaining in India’s Presidency. That is a lot of time or too little time, depending on your perspective. Either way, some things can and should be done. The following is an illustrative list.

(1) As I have argued elsewhere, the PM must convene another “Voice of the Global South Summit” on the same virtual basis as it did in January 2023. The participants can hear first hand from the PM and the EAM the priorities emphasized by India as G20 President, the challenges faced in this regard and how it overcame them to produce a consensus document of such substance. They can also get valuable feedback on how the Global South views the New Delhi G20 Leaders’ Declaration.

(2) The Sustainable Development Report 2023 which will be formally launched on September18, 2023 makes terrible reading. Some excerpts:

> At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda all of the SDGs are seriously off track.

>At their core SDGs are an investment agenda. It is critical that UN Member States implement the SDG stimulus and support a comprehensive reform of the global financial architecture.

>The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SSDN) which is a global network of more than 1,900 member organizations, mainly universities, organized in 53 national and regional chapters will double down on efforts to implement SDGs beyond 2030.

 > Need to increase funding to national and subnational governments and private businesses, especially in lower income countries, to carry out needed SDG investments.

> Need to revise the credit rating system and debt sustainability metrics to facilitate long-term sustainable development.

> Need to revise liquidity structures for lower income countries, especially regarding sovereign debts, to forestall self-fulfilling banking and balance-of-payments crises;

> Need to create ambitious, internationally-agreed upon criteria for sustainable finance that are mandatory for all public financial institutions.

> Need to align private business investment flows with the SDGs, through improved national planning, regulation, reporting, and oversight.

> Need to reform current institutional frameworks and develop new mechanisms to improve the quality and speed of deployment of international cooperation, and monitor progress in an open and timely manner.

The above agenda is vast and is not easy to implement. But India is best positioned to at least initiate work in this regard. The second part of the road map proposed by the NK Singh/Larry Summers will be out by October, when India will still be G20 President. Work can and should begin on implementation of key recommendations of the NK Singh/Larry Summers roadmap reforming Multilateral Development Banks. India and key emerging countries of the G20 must have tough conversations with G7 countries on this, if necessary.

The New Delhi G20 Summit was a resounding success. India must now build on it and must truly make the transition from a rule-taker to a rule-shaper. And what better place to start than a comprehensive reform of the global financial architecture which will provide substantial financial resources to poor countries enabling them to make concrete progress in their 2030 SDG agenda.

Lastly, India came up with a remarkable number of norm setting “principles” in the New Delhi G20 Leaders’ Declaration: High-Level Principles on Green Hydrogen, Global Bio-Fuels Alliance, Deccan High-Level Principles on Food Security and Nutrition, Chennai High-Level principles for a sustainable and resilient blue ocean-based economy, Goa roadmap on Tourism and the Jaipur Call for Action on SMSEs, to name a few.

The Prime Minister’s Office would do well to form an inter-ministerial task force for reviewing progress on the above High-Level Principles. India, which has received legitimate kudos for the New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration must ensure that it is just as efficient when it comes to full implementation. Indeed, India must work with Brazil and South Africa (the next two Presidents) so that a balance sheet can be provided on all of the above critical issues in the forthcoming G20 Summits. The virtual G20 Summit proposed by PM Modi to conclude India’s Presidency can provide an excellent opportunity for such stock taking.

There is no question that the recently concluded G20 Summit is a testament to India’s rising geopolitical clout as well as a tribute to its brilliant diplomats. But beyond that it is worth examining the geostrategic implications flowing from it.

The External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar was asked an interesting question about which country/group of countries helped India the most in arriving at a consensus Leaders’ Declaration. The Minister did not bat an eyelid before responding that every G20 member helped but it was the group of “emerging countries” which supported India decisively. While he did not spell out the individual members, it is a reasonable guess that countries like Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa acted in close concert with India. So, the very first geopolitical question is: Is this the coming out party for the Global South under India’s decisive leadership?

Second, as many analysts have pointed out there is no doubt that the G7 countries which got away with murder in Bali (where Russia agreed to scathing self-criticism in the Leaders’ Declaration without so much as uttering a word in protest), had to seriously compromise in New Delhi when it came to the language on Ukraine. Why? Well, the G7 wanted to win back the Global South, after realizing it was losing influence in this important grouping. The second thing that weighed heavily within the G7 was the recent BRICS meeting which decided to expand under China’s influence. If the Delhi summit had been allowed to collapse on account of lack of consensus on Ukraine, the G20 as a forum could have suffered from irreversible damage at the expense of fora like the BRICS. Hence the compromise by G7 which invested in G20’s continued success. Indian PM’s meetings with Joe Biden (at a meal they had together before the summit began) and the telephonic conversation Modi had with Putin deserve mention in this regard. India’s ties with EU also helped. A little noticed meeting on the side lines was between the leaders of India, Brazil, South Africa and the US. These are the leaders who are going to handle G20 till 2026. This is hugely significant given US decision to court the Global South and to preserve the G20 as the premier forum for global economic cooperation.

Third, Xi Jinping (and thus China) was the dragon in the room! A number of initiatives which the G20 outlined in the New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration were actually aimed at providing alternatives to Chinese lending and/or countering Chinese infrastructure initiatives. So, the drive to make multilateral development banks better, bigger and more effective is to make sure lower income countries have a viable alternative to debt diplomacy. Similarly, the co-chairing by US and India of a special event on “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” and “India-Middle East Europe Economic Corridor” on the side lines of the G20 Summit was aimed at China’s BRI, no question about it.

Fourth, the Indian External Affairs Minister made it a point to say that China was being cooperative and supportive at the meetings in Delhi. It is again important to ask why? I think any move by China to disrupt and block decisions at the G20 summit would have incurred the wrath of not just India, but the Global South including Africa. And even China could not have afforded this considering its ambitions to be a leader of the Global South.

Fifth, the admission of African Union is a seminal event. None of the world’s problems, be it SDGs, climate change, food security or public health can henceforth be solved without Africa’s involvement. And Africa will eventually determine whether the World meets with success or not in solving difficult problems. From now on, it is impossible to ignore Africa in key multilateral fora.

Last, no question that Russia had a tactical victory at the New Delhi summit. But Russia would be making a huge mistake if its leaders believe the world, especially the Global South, is buying their line on the war in Ukraine. The fact is that the Global South is sick and tired of the war in Ukraine and wants it to end asap. Ukraine is not faultless, but Russia started this war and it thus has a greater responsibility to bring the war in Ukraine to an end. The New Delhi G20 Summit has given a lifeline to Russia and it would be suicidal on its part not to take it and make a difference to world peace. Putin owes Modi one, and it may be worthwhile for India to consider cashing it at an appropriate time in the future.

No matter what happens at the New Delhi G20 Summit on September 9 and 10, you have to give it to India. Indian officials went to a lot of trouble, left no stone unturned and by taking G20 to every corner of the country, truly made it a people-centric mega event.

The Sherpas of G20 will meet from tomorrow in the Indian state of Haryana for a last-ditch attempt to find consensus on a Leaders’ Declaration, failing which it will be kicked up to the Leaders so that they can resolve the differences at the Summit meeting on September 9 and 10 in New Delhi.

Some pointers as to what one should expect from the final declaration. The SDGs are at a crucial half way mark. The Global Sustainable Development Report 2023 which will be released by the UN Secretary General at a high profile event in New York in the third week of this month makes sombre reading. The Report proclaims that the world is “off course” when it comes to SDGs and more than half the world has simply been left behind. The G20 Leaders’ Declaration will obviously dwell on this issue, but the question is can it come up with a financial commitment to support the lower income countries help achieve the SDGs? Climate Change will evidently be an important focus. But here again, the focus will be on climate finance. Can the G20 ensure that the 100 Billion dollar a year commitment made in Paris in 2015 will be kept and a much higher amount agreed for the future. After all, as the Indian G20 Sherpa says the requirement for SDGs and Climate Change for poor and emerging countries is of the order of 5 to 6 Trillion Dollars.

India’s presidency may well be remembered for the work it did in Digital Public Infrastructure. The meetings of the Digital Economy Working Group have been substantive and the fact that there is agreement among all G20 countries on the definition, scope and challenges facing the digital economy is in itself notable. There may be agreement on the “One Future Alliance” which will be an open and inclusive forum for further discussion and action-oriented steps in this vital area. India’s role has been pivotal on this subject.

India will have broadly succeeded in achieving three overarching objectives. One, it has successfully showcased itself from the view point of tourism, investment and trade by taking the G20 delegates to the far corners of India. Second, India has sincerely strived to be the voice of the Global South. The main priorities of the Global South will doubtless figure in the final Leaders’ Declaration. For instance, the kind of reforms being proposed by the G20 Finance Track for the Multilateral Development Banks is precisely to help lower income countries meet their developmental challenges. Third, and perhaps most importantly, India has valiantly tried to be a bridge between the North and the South, especially on issues like the war in Ukraine. The final Leaders’ Declaration may be assessed against the above backdrop.

Russian President Putin was expected to give the Delhi G20 Summit a miss. Internal preoccupations with the war in Ukraine provide him with a legitimate excuse. And he made it a point to call PM Modi and explain his absence ahead of the summit meeting.

China’s Xi Jinping reportedly giving the Delhi Summit a miss cannot be explained away that easily. Three broad categories of reasons suggest themselves. One is geopolitical and this has to do with the lack of importance that China attaches to what it considers “Western” structures, of which G20 is certainly one. China appears more at ease in fora like the BRICS where it can lead and it is not under any international scrutiny. The New Delhi G20 Summit would have definitely put the spotlight on China, which Xi Jinping may have wanted to avoid. Indeed, the Chinese Communist Party may not have wished for their supreme leader to be “exposed”. Second, China’s bilateral ties with the US are delicately poised and Xi Jinping may have wanted to wait for more progress to be made in bilateral ties before he ran into US President Biden. November APEC summit meeting in California seems preferable from this perspective. Third, there is the issue of China’s bilateral ties with India. It is difficult to say with certitude whether China wanted to snub India or whether Xi Jinping was simply not ready for the negative press coverage in India given the state of the bilateral relationship. Either way, it is hard to avoid the impression that Sino-Indian ties are sinking further and a solution to the border imbroglio now looks more and more unlikely in the short run. To the extent past G20 Summits have also had countries represented by Prime Ministers/ Foreign Ministers etc, India need not take to heart the absence of the Russian and Chinese Presidents. But the joint absence of both Russia and China at the New Delhi G20 Summit does smack of geopolitics more than anything else.