Introduction
The G20 emerged from the ashes of the 2008 crisis as the principal platform steering global financial stability, representing both advanced and rising powers. Over time, however, geopolitical rifts, protectionist shifts, and weakened multilateralism have steadily eroded its efficacy. The absence of great powers, divergent national priorities, and competing minilaterals now raise questions about the G20’s ability to act as an anchor for global economic coordination.
Why in the News
The G20 has entered a phase of visible fragmentation as major powers like the US, China, and Russia increasingly skip or downgrade their participation, marking a sharp contrast to its central role during the 2008 global financial crisis. Trump chose to boycott the 2025 G20 summit, which was hosted by South Africa in Johannesburg. The earlier summits, including Bali 2022 and New Delhi 2023, were marked by absence of key leaders such as Putin and Xi, signalling an unprecedented weakening of multilateral cooperation. The article highlights how the G20, once elevated to the “premier forum for international economic cooperation,” is now reduced to a middle-power platform with diminishing relevance. This drift, caused by unilateralism, great-power tensions, and rival blocs, is a major setback for global governance.
How Did the G20 Rise From Crisis to Centrality?
- Global Financial Crisis (2008): Elevated from a finance ministers’ forum to a leaders’ summit after the Lehman collapse, recognising the need for collective economic stabilisation.
- US-EU Leadership: President Bush convened the first summit; European leaders pushed to formalise it as the central platform for crisis response.
- Inclusive Membership: Plural representation of middle powers, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, gave the G20 legitimacy beyond the G7.
Why Is the G20 Losing Relevance Today?
- Great-Power Withdrawal: Absence of Xi and Putin (2023) indicates declining commitment by major actors.
- Shift to Bilateralism: 2022 Bali summit dominated by US-China bilateral diplomacy, overshadowing collective agenda.
- Competing Priorities: US focus on securitising trade; China’s rivalry; Russia’s Ukraine conflict, reducing appetite for multilateral compromise.
- Fragmentation: Emergence of parallel groups like G2 ideas, Quad, IPEF, diluting G20 centrality.
What Role Did Unilateralism Play in Weakening the G20?
- America First (Trump Era):
- Protectionist shift and retreat from multilateral commitments.
- Trade war with China and sanctions redirected US focus to bilateral power play.
- Undermined collective financial architecture, making G20 coordination difficult.
- Return of Great-Power Rivalry:
- US-China confrontation replaced cooperative economic agenda.
- Russia’s isolation post-Ukraine war created a split within member states.
How Did the Absence of the Big Three Impact Multilateral Decision-Making?
- Reduced Negotiating Power: Without the US, China, and Russia at full participation, G20 communiqués lost substance.
- Lowered Stakes: Middle powers alone cannot push structural financial reforms.
- Decline in Issue Ambition: Meetings shifted from global macroeconomic governance to modest incremental outcomes.
- Loss of Crisis-Time Authority: Unlike 2008-09 summits which produced coordinated fiscal and financial action, recent meetings lacked decisive outcomes.
What Does the G20 Drift Mean for India?
- Opportunity Shrinks: India’s earlier success, G20 admitting AU under its presidency, may not translate into sustained influence without great-power participation.
- Rise of Minilaterals: Quad, I2U2, IPEF may overshadow the G20’s relevance for India’s long-term strategic and economic diplomacy.
- Squeezed between Powers: India must balance ties with the US, China, and Russia while leading middle-power groupings.
- Reduced Global Economic Voice: Weak G20 undermines India’s push for reforms in global financial architecture and voice of Global South.
Conclusion
The G20’s drift reflects the broader fragmentation of global governance, marked by strategic rivalry, unilateral policies, and weakened collective will. Without full engagement of great powers, the forum risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. For India, the challenge is balancing leadership of the Global South with managing rival great-power agendas in an increasingly divided world.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2023] ‘Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the SCO’. In the light of the above statement point out the role of India in mitigating problems.
Linkage: Great-power rivalry within SCO mirrors the G20’s paralysis, where conflicting interests of major powers weaken collective decision-making. India’s balancing role in SCO highlights how middle powers attempt to preserve multilateral relevance amid widening geopolitical fractures.
