The visible sidelining of the US and trying to accommodate President Donald Trump’s preference of fossil fuel may be rendering the group of twenty pretty useless
This year’s G20 Summit held in Hamburg, Germany, exhibited something distinctly different from previous sessions. First, it was apparent to all that the US, with Donald Trump as the President, was isolated and merely tolerated as a member. In earlier years the dominance of the US on global issues was accepted as an undisputed reality.
The second reason why Hamburg was different was in the unusually large number of demonstrators, who made their presence felt in a big way with their protests, verging on violence. It would be easy to dismiss the demonstrations of such a large number as the routine expression of anger by a small minority, but it probably represents widespread dissatisfaction with the current economic system, which progressively makes the rich richer and leaves the poor in a state of deprivation and neglect.
It requires no reminder that global disparities both across nations and within nations are on the increase and that perhaps reflects a glaring and growing weakness of democratic institutions in most countries. The Oxfam report released earlier this year came up with the shocking finding that only eight of the richest persons in the world own as much wealth as half the population of this planet. Some, therefore, question whether the G20 has any sensitivity to the well-being of human society. Critics justifiably see this grouping as a club of those who control the strings of power in the world but carry no accountability to the billions who they represent and those they do not.
Be that as it may, significant for all to see in Hamburg was the decline of the US power as reflected in the discussions at the summit and its final communiqué. The Australian journalist Chris Uhlmann referred to President Trump as, “isolated and friendless” and stated that his disastrous foreign policy had “pressed fast-forward on the decline of the United States”. Further, in previous summits could Angela Merkel have stated, “Unfortunately — and I deplore this — the United States of America left the climate agreement, or rather announced their intention of doing this”IJ
It is also interesting to observe that President Vladimir Putin, who, as many expected, might follow the lead of the US in withdrawing from the Paris agreement seemed positive about staying within the fold of the 19 members which fully support the agreement, taking a clear stand on its non-negotiability and irreversibility. After the summit, it was reported that President Putin called climate change a “major issue”. This author participated in the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow in 2003, when the coming into existence of the Kyoto Protocol depended critically on Russia ratifying it. If at that stage there was no ratification by Russia, the Kyoto Protocol would have been as dead as a duck in the water. At that conference President Putin spoke first, and read out a prepared statement which gave no basis for optimism on Russian ratification.
His official speech was followed by that of the head of United Nations Environment Programme, Klaus Töpfer, and the head of the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the late Joke Waller-Hunter, and then by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a position then held by me.
In my speech, I elaborated on the impacts of climate change on the poorest of the poor across the globe. President Putin immediately responded by raising his hand and showing his desire to speak again. He impromptu remarks referred in jest to everybody believing that climate change was good for Russia because “we would not have to spend so much on fur coats, and Russian agriculture would prosper”. He added, however, that he had to worry about floods and droughts and the impacts of climate change on the rest of the world.
His body language clearly indicated that he took climate change as a serious global challenge, and, therefore, his siding with the other 18 members of the G20 in Hamburg is perhaps an expression of a conviction he subtly articulated in 2003.
The Hamburg G20 Summit discussed issues which are detailed in the final communiqué. The subjects covered deal with sharing the benefits of globalisation, building resilience — essentially pertaining to financial institutions and today’s financial architecture — as well as on health related issues that the world is facing and likely to face in the future. Under ‘improving sustainable livelihoods’ the communiqué deals with energy and climate, referring specifically to the withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement, but adding that it will endeavour to work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently.
This was obviously a concession made to accommodate the US, because Donald Trump has been highlighting the growth of fossil fuel based energy supply in the US, even referring to “good old clean coal”. Reference was also made to leading the way towards sustainable development. The final part of the communiqué carries the title ‘Assuming Responsibility’, where it refers to the G20 Africa Partnership, stepping up coordination and cooperation on displacement and migration, and fighting corruption.
As is generally the case with documents of this nature its coverage was extensive and broad, but with a notable omission of any commitment to specific actions or targets. However, given the sheer size and importance of the membership of the G20, a consensus on these key issues would perhaps have some influence in shaping policies that the G20 countries themselves follow, with others emulating them and perhaps even exerting some influence on the isolated position of the US, particularly in the field of climate change.
Yet, for the leaders who met in Hamburg it would be a mistake to ignore the voices of angst of the protesters outside who strongly demonstrated dissatisfaction with the existing system.
They are perhaps representing a common sentiment, which is growing globally, and which may be one reason why a rank outsider from a newly formed party like Emmanuel Macron was elected as President of France, why Bernie Sanders is a strong political voice even in the Conservative society of the US and why Jeremy Corbyn is a growing political threat to the Conservatives in the UK.
With these trends in several nations, would the club of the twenty most powerful and mighty nations of the world not be viewed in dismay and despair by the growing ranks of the disempowered and disillusionedIJ If so, then protests at the next Summit in Argentina would perhaps be even more tempestuous!
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)