Policy Alert #253 | March 16, 2023

While the G20 Summit in New Delhi is only set to take place in September, it was already in the spotlight as of March, and not in the way that host country India had hoped. The Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on March 1^st and 2^nd in Delhi succeeded a joint G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG), and a Finance & Central Bank Deputies (FCBD) Meeting in Bengaluru in late February, with an ambitious agenda focused on multilateralism. However, the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting especially showcased divergences among G20 members despite an introductory speech by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging unity. Indeed, after one year of fighting in Ukraine, Rising Powers are still entrenched in their positions despite the fluctuations of the war. In fact, there seems to be less consensus as the war has gone on, as Russia’s military setbacks no longer elicit the same reactions from observers than the expected onslaught and initially rapid gains. While in Bali emerging powers seemed to side with the US, in Delhi they seemed to expect more about “seeking peace” rather than “defending Ukraine”.

The end result was that the acrimonious talks over Ukraine and whether the G20 was the appropriate venue to discuss security concerns overshadowed attempts to find consensus on multilateralism and development. Overall, the Foreign Minister’s Meeting appeared as a first major test for India ahead of the Summit in September, with pressure mounting as Russian President Vladimir Putin may attend the Summit in New Delhi. Similar turmoil at the Summit this September would be a disappointment to Modi, and a “chair’s summary will not do” for Indian diplomacy vying for international recognition.

 

CHINA

China decried the lack of unity at the Foreign Minister’s Meeting as the result of the US and European countries “using geopolitics to hijack the development agenda that G20 is supposed to focus on”. At the same time, China was careful to not blame India for this, or even downplay the event. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning deflected such concerns by stating that it was “an important event”, and Chinese media reported on the side talks between the foreign ministers of China and India where both “expressed their firm attitude to support multilateralism, oppose confrontation”. Chinese media praised Indian preparations and accused US and Western media of exaggerating the “divergences” between China and India.

At the same time, “Chinese experts” were quoted by the Global Times as questioning “whether India could really play a leading role”. In describing the event as a “test for India”, and then deploring the lack of success of the event, Chinese media also indirectly considered that India failed to lead the discussions towards its stated goals.

• The China Daily, owned by the CPC, published an article by Swaran Singh, an Indian Professor of international relations, who shared an optimistic perspective about the meeting between China’s new foreign affairs minister Qin Gang and Indian minister of external affairs Jaishankar.
• The South China Morning Post also reported on the bilateral talks between India and China, but concluded  that while the event was symbolically important, it did not bring significant progress to the border dispute.
• The Global Times, a Chinese nationalist newspaper run under the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, featured the series of meetings in Delhi prominently. It anticipated the lack of consensus, considered the meetings to be a test for India, and deplored that US and some EU foreign ministers “instrumentalized and weaponized G20”.

 

INDIA

Indian media as a whole presented the meetings in a better light. Articles published before the Foreign Ministers Meeting  disputed the apparent international consensus that it would follow in the footsteps of the FMCBG and FCBD meetings. After the meeting, Indian media highlighted limited progress rather than characterizing the event as a failure. At most, Indian newspapers suggested the event was “derailed by Western countries, and Russia-China”, while noting that Indian leadership was praised by both Russia and the US.

When it comes to the negotiations themselves, India voted in favor of the inclusion of paragraphs mentioning Ukraine in the joint statement, even though it avoided the term “war” and used the terms “crisis” or “challenge” instead. Despite appealing to both sides, Indian diplomats were not able to obtain concessions from Russia and China which refused to vote for these inclusions, while appeals to focus on development went unheeded by US and European diplomats.

Another element that was noted by the Indian Press before the meeting was the announced absence of Japanese foreign minister Yoshimasa Hayashi. His absence at the G20 was deplored and may have “cast some shadows over New Delhi-Tokyo ties”, though Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra said he “understood” that Hayashi was “not able to come because of his domestic compulsions” and looked “forward to a very active participation”.  According to the Times of India, “Indian officials strongly denied that Hayashi’s likely absence was an intended snub”, adding that  “Japan is sending one of the largest delegations to the meeting”. Hayashi’s presence a day later for the Quad meeting and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit to Delhi on March 20 served to reaffirm Japan’s commitment to its relationship with India.

• The Economic Times noted Hayashi’s absence at the G20 meeting, in contrast to  his presence at the Quad meeting, which reinforced the notion that Japan was prioritizing its G7 presidency and more exclusive groups such as the Quad.
• The left-leaning The Hindu remarked that India had more success in finding consensus on Ukraine at the Quad meeting it hosted the day after the G20 Foreign Minister’s meeting, while also noting China’s “criticism of the Quad Grouping” objecting to its exclusivity.
• The Pioneer, a pro-BJP newspaper, voiced Jaishankar’s comments on the success of the meeting, as there was “a large number of issues where there was agreement”

 

JAPAN

Japan’s participation in the G20 meeting was eclipsed by the debate about Hayashi’s absence from the Foreign Ministers meeting. Japanese Liberal Democratic officials said the sessions attended by Hayashi instead of the G20 were “extremely important” and “many lawmakers and citizens want to hear directly from the foreign minister“. Even members of the opposition Constitutional Democrats said it would be “unthinkable for the foreign minister not to be there”.

Japanese newspapers were not all fully supportive though as some gave voice to Japanese critics from the Constitutional Party of Japan while others wrote their own critical editorials on the topic. However, critics took issue with the Diet’s pressure and scheduling rigidity rather than with Hayashi himself. Interestingly, newspapers from both countries amplified critical voices from the other. Indian media had cited harsher Japanese critics, while the few pessimistic Indian outlooks about Hayasahi’s absence were cited in stronger terms than in Indian media. While the content of the G20 meetings were not delved into deeply, Hayashi’s participation to the Quad meeting was noted, and his “rare direct reference” to China was noticed.

• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun published the strongest criticism of Hayashi’s absence, arguing that it had “undermined Japan’s standing” and that the Diet needed to adapt to allow ministers to travel rather than tying them up in parliamentary debates.
• The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, provided a balanced take citing both supporters and critics of Hayashi’s absence, while also voicing slightly out of context Indian concerns.
• The progressive-leaning Asahi covered the G20 meetings with a strong focus on the US-China relationship and also reported on Chinese criticism of the Quad.

 

RUSSIA

Russia stood firm against the recriminations of the rest of the G20 members, with the exception of China which backed Russia in voting against adopting language on Ukraine. Russian statements mirrored China’s, pinpointing the “bullying from US-led Western nations over the Ukraine situation” as the reason for the lack of consensus.

Russian media was careful with not blaming India for the G20’s deadlock, even praising India as  a “credible global leader”, though it did not fully consider India to be on Russia’s side either, instead considering India as “caught in a diplomatic balancing act”.

• Sputnik News, funded by the state, reached out to Indian observers who generally agreed that India is neutral before anything else, had divergent interests with the West, and blamed food and fuel shortages on sanctions rather than on the war itself.
• The Pravda Report, a nationalist newspaper, did not cover the G20 meetings at all except to mention that side discussions in which “Indian officials discussed anti-Russian sanctions with their colleagues from the G7” led to India deciding to comply with Western-imposed oil price caps, a loss for Russia as the article also noted that “oil deals between Russia and India have threatened the dominance of the US dollar”
• The Moscow Times, an independent publication, noted the meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of the G20 meeting, though the meeting was described as of little significance.

By Gabriel Savagner, M.A. candidate in Security Policy Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs at GW. Research Assistant, Rising Powers Initiative.