Geopolitical crises have dominated the global landscape, coupled with concerns about Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House, overshadowing the G20 summit held in Rio de Janeiro over two days, on November 18 and 19. Leaders maintained a neutral tone when discussing the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon. While the world is rife with wars, armed conflicts, and security and economic disturbances, G20 leaders focused on promoting climate financing, addressing poverty, and working towards imposing new taxes on the wealthy.
In contrast to the 2022 summit in Indonesia, which explicitly condemned Russia’s war on Ukraine, and last year’s summit in India, which called on G20 members to prevent the use of force in conflicts, this year’s final statement from Brazil avoided direct blame on the parties involved in the conflict. Instead, the statement vaguely referred to the suffering caused by regional and international conflicts, reflecting the clear division among group members regarding their positions and allies in light of current developments. This may reveal a priority on achieving consensus for a closing statement at the expense of international security and peace.
The Role of G20 in the Global Economy
Founded in 1999 amid multiple economic crises, particularly the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the G20 was established to rescue the global economy. This coalition includes 19 of the world’s largest economies, along with the European Union, and the African Union joined the group in 2023 to ensure better achievement of this goal. The group’s significance in the global economy lies in its contribution of around 85% of the global economic output. One of its major successes was managing the financial crisis of 2008 through an agreement on $4 trillion in stimulus measures, rejecting trade barriers, and implementing reforms in financial systems.
Conversely, one of the group’s main vulnerabilities currently relates to its broad representation—unlike the G7—which carries factors that undermine the group’s effectiveness and its ability to agree on decisions made by consensus. Consequently, the G20’s capacity to drive coordinated action has weakened in recent years, as evidenced by its handling of global crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and its resulting economic impacts.
An Analysis of the Final Statement from Brazil’s Summit
The final statement from the 2024 Brazil summit revealed three key areas representing the group’s priorities. The economic section included a call for members to impose progressive taxes on the ultra-wealthy to address rising global inequalities and fund climate initiatives, particularly in heavily indebted low-income countries. For the first time in the group’s history, the statement included a comprehensive social section through an extraordinary initiative to combat hunger, poverty, and inequality globally, emphasizing the urgent commitment required from all G20 nations to this global alliance, aligning with the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. This commitment would be achieved through enhanced cooperation between countries and international organizations to create a special fund to finance policies and public programs aimed at combating hunger and ensuring adequate food access for all.
Additionally, the G20 final statement urged world leaders to commit to reducing deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. It also discussed the establishment of a “Tropical Forest Fund,” supported by international resources, to ensure forest preservation and assist the populations living within them.
In contrast to the strength of the economic and social sections of the statement, the political section was notably weak and inadequate in addressing the ramifications of the troubled regional and international environment. The statement merely called for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, without mentioning Israeli aggression or condemning Tel Aviv. Instead, it expressed the group members’ concern for the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and the escalation in Lebanon while emphasizing the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian aid, enhance civilian protection, and remove all barriers preventing humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, this section underscored the importance of reforming the current global governance model to ensure an end to armed conflicts and called for a reform of the United Nations Security Council to enhance the participation of Global South countries.
Issues with the G20 Summit Outcomes
This year’s summit carried a special character, as Brazil initiated a global alliance against hunger, which includes social programs and financing mechanisms aimed at addressing the global food supply deficit amid extensive discussions on the latest global economic developments. However, this exceptional initiative from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did not escape several criticisms levied against the 2024 summit, including:
Absence of the Russian President: Vladimir Putin announced his non-attendance at the Brazil summit due to fears of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for committing war crimes in Ukraine. His announcement came after Ukraine urged Brazil, a member of the ICC, to arrest Putin if he attended the summit.
Ignoring Regional and International Wars: While the world witnesses a war approaching its fourth year between Russia and Ukraine, a widening regional war between Israel on one side and Gaza and Lebanon on the other, and an ongoing civil war in Sudan, the group did not take a decisive stance on these conflicts or condemn the aggressors. This led Turkey—a member of the group—to criticize the negative stance of the final statement, particularly regarding the condemnation of Israeli aggression with the same rigor it condemned Russia at the 2022 summit.
Ongoing Tensions Among Members: Relations between London and Beijing have soured over the past decade due to British concerns over national security threats stemming from Chinese investments and rising Chinese military and economic power. Additionally, there are disputes between Brazil and China due to Brasília’s refusal to join the Belt and Road Initiative, a critical axis of Beijing’s economic strategy.
Policies of the New U.S. President: There was significant concern at the summit over potential sharp shifts in Washington’s policy under Trump, particularly regarding his stance on increasing tariffs and phasing out U.S. support for the war in Ukraine, posing challenges to international agreements on these issues and creating fears of a repetition of this in U.S. commitments within the G20.
Disagreement Over the Final Statement: The items in the final statement of the Brazil summit did not garner consensus among group members; while Argentine President Javier Milei, known for his liberal views and skepticism of multilateral organizations, signed it, he quickly criticized the statement, reaffirming his rejection of many points within, especially concerning proposed taxes on the wealth of businessmen.
Neglect of Corruption Issues: Many international human rights organizations criticized the G20 leaders for not addressing corruption in the wealth tax plan, as the final statement sought to impose taxes on individuals with substantial wealth without signing a binding agreement to enforce those taxes, indicating an oversight in establishing an executive plan for one of this year’s summit’s main outputs.
Conclusion
The 2024 G20 summit in Brazil gained a third pillar, adding to the political and economic pillars: the social pillar, through the unique initiative launched by Brazil with the participation of actors and organizations representing various Brazilian and international civil society organizations. However, while these commitments were being framed, Ukraine used American long-range missiles against Russian territory for the first time, prompting Moscow to revise its nuclear doctrine and set new conditions for the use of nuclear weapons. Concurrently, Israel continues its aggression against Palestinian and Lebanese territories, without any actual or nominal response from G20 leaders.
