Without Great Powers on Board G-20 is adrift

Source: The post “Without Great Powers on Board G-20 is adrift” has been created, based on “Sanjaya Baru writes: Without great powers on board, G20 is adrift” published in “Indian Express” on 28th November 2025.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- International Relations

Context: The G20 was established during the 2008 global financial crisis as the premier platform for global economic coordination among major developed and emerging economies. Despite its significant early success, the grouping has increasingly struggled to remain effective due to geopolitical tensions, unilateralism, and institutional stagnation, leading to a decline in its relevance.

Origins and Early Strength of the G20

1. Crisis-Driven Formation: The G20 emerged in 2008 in response to the global financial crisis, with leaders from major economies meeting in Washington to devise a coordinated response.
2. Initial Effectiveness: Early summits such as London (2009) and Pittsburgh (2009) delivered strong outcomes, including global financial reforms and institutional strengthening.
3. Demonstrated Potential: The group showed the ability to act collectively during global economic instability.

Transition into a Low-Impact Platform

1. Reduced Deliverables: Over time, the G20 shifted from crisis management to broad thematic dialogue, often failing to produce binding or actionable commitments.
2. Symbolism Over Substance: Summit declarations increasingly became aspirational documents without strong follow-up mechanisms.
3. Inability to Address Core Issues: The G20 struggled to provide solutions for issues such as climate change, global debt, food security, and sustainable development.

Geopolitical Rivalries Undermining G20 Cohesion

1. Intensifying US–China Rivalry
   1. Unilateralism by the U.S.A.: Trade wars and tariffs under the Trump administration weakened trust and disrupted cooperative spirit within the G20
   2. G2 Concept Limiting Multilateralism: Discussions around a possible “G2” arrangement between the U.S.A. and China implied a preference for bilateral power management rather than multilateral institutions.
   3. Institutional Stagnation: U.S.A.’s hesitation to accommodate China’s rising power blocked reforms such as expanding the G8.
2. Deepening Russia–West Tensions
   1. Post-Crimea Polarisation: Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 created significant divides within the G20 framework.
   2. Ukraine Conflict Impact: The Russian invasion of Ukraine further disrupted consensus-building, weakening G20 statements and outcomes
   3. Leader-Level Absences: Putin’s absence from recent summits highlighted Russia’s growing isolation within the multilateral system.
3. Absence of Key Leaders Reducing Influence
   1. Major Power Disengagement: The absence of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin from major recent summits indicated reduced prioritisation of the G20 by key actors.
   2. Shift Toward Middle Power Dominance: Their absence shifted the balance of participation toward middle powers rather than major global players.
4. Increasing Dominance of Middle Powers and Global South
   1. Rise of Emerging Leaders: Countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa have increasingly shaped the G20 agenda due to great-power disengagement.
   2. Emphasis on Global South Issues: The 2023 Delhi summit foregrounded development, climate finance, food security, and digital public infrastructure.
   3. Expanded Representation: The inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member highlighted the shift toward inclusivity but also the retreat of major powers.
5. Alternative Groupings Eroding G20 Centrality
   1. Strategic Platforms Taking Precedence: The QUAD has emerged as a key forum for security and strategic issues in the Indo-Pacific, reducing reliance on the G20.
   2. Regional Forums Gaining Importance: The East Asia Summit has become a crucial venue for Asia-Pacific geopolitics, sometimes overshadowing the G20.
   3. Fragmentation of Global Governance: The rising number of minilateral and regional coalitions reflects disillusionment with large multilateral forums like the G20.

India’s Strategic Approach Amid G20’s Decline

1. Balanced Utilisation of the G20: India has used its presidency to highlight issues like climate action, digital transformation, and Global South priorities.
2. Diversified Engagement Strategy: India increasingly depends on platforms such as QUAD, Indo-Pacific strategies, and ASEAN partnerships for security and geopolitical coordination.
3. Recognition of Limitations: This shift indicates that even proactive emerging powers perceive the G20 as insufficient for addressing hard strategic issues.

Consequences of the Declining Relevance of the G20

1. Weakening of Global Crisis-Management Capacity: The decline in G20 cohesion has reduced its ability to provide coordinated responses to emerging economic and geopolitical crises.
2. Reduced Legitimacy and Credibility: The inability to produce strong communiqués, especially on the Ukraine crisis, has damaged the G20’s credibility as a global rule-making body.
3. Rise of Uncoordinated Plurilateralism: The proliferation of regional and issue-specific groupings has resulted in fragmented global governance structures, lacking consistent policy alignment.
4. Marginalisation of Developing Countries’ Interests: As major powers prioritise rivalry over cooperation, developing economies struggle to secure global solutions for debt relief, climate finance, and developmental needs.
5. Limited Progress on Global Public Goods: Issues such as climate action, supply-chain resilience, and global health governance stagnate due to the G20’s weakened collective decision-making capacity.

Way Forward for Revitalising the G20

1. Reaffirming Multilateral Commitment: Member states must reduce unilateral measures and recommit to constructive multilateral dialogue to rebuild trust.
2. Institutional Reforms for Stronger Outcomes: The G20 should introduce structured decision-making mechanisms and empower working groups with result-oriented mandates.
3. Enhancing Global South Integration: Greater participation of developing nations in agenda-setting and decision-making can strengthen the forum’s inclusiveness and legitimacy.
4. Prioritising High-Consensus Issues: The G20 should focus on areas where cooperation is feasible, such as climate finance, technology sharing, disaster resilience, and pandemic preparedness.
5. Establishing Channels to Manage Geopolitical Tensions: Dedicated diplomatic mechanisms within the G20 could help defuse geopolitical conflicts and ensure smoother negotiations.
6. Strengthening Coordination with Other Global Institutions: Closer collaboration with the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, and regional bodies can help bridge global governance gaps.

Conclusion: The G20’s declining relevance is rooted in geopolitical rivalries, unilateral actions, leader-level disengagement, and its inability to produce impactful outcomes. However, as the only forum that includes all major economies, the G20 retains immense potential to steer global governance. A renewed commitment to multilateralism, inclusive reform, and pragmatic cooperation is essential for restoring the G20’s central role in addressing 21st-century global challenges.

Question: The relevance of the G20 has been declining in recent years. Discuss.