G20 Rio declaration balances compromise but lacks actionable specifics

Declaration did not capitalise on breakthrough commitment among countries at COP28 in Dubai last year to "transition away from fossil fuels" by setting phaseout targets for this transition

The G20 Rio de Janeiro Declaration, which leaders endorsed on Tuesday, has addressed most of the key issues that roil the world — war, climate change, poverty and hunger, equality, and global governance. In doing so, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula, President of host nation Brazil, could claim success in fulfilling his agenda despite differences among leaders on the nuances of the draft and dissenting opinions from Argentina. The language of the declaration, therefore, reflects the degree of compromise within the G20 on a number of issues. But the upshot is a text that is generic in ambit and short on specifics. Though the final agreement spared Lula the ignominy of failing to negotiate a final declaration, the Rio declaration missed the opportunity to move the agenda forward meaningfully ahead of Donald Trump’s impending second presidency of the United States.

 

Lula scored two notable successes. One was the mention of the proposal to tax global billionaires by 2 per cent; negotiations on this issue had been fraught, with Argentina reportedly opposing it. His bigger achievement was piloting the global alliance against hunger and poverty, which found mention in the closing declaration. So far, 82 nations have signed on to the plan. But on other critical issues, the Rio declaration is long on intention. On climate change, for example, the declaration was expected to see some progress on the stalled talks at the COP29 conference in Baku on climate finance. Beyond reiterating the New Delhi declaration last year of raising climate finance “from billions to trillions”, the Rio text did not specify where this money would come from, effectively letting the West off the hook. Instead, it merely spoke of trebling global renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy efficiency. The declaration did not capitalise on the breakthrough commitment among countries at the COP28 conference in Dubai last year to “transition away from fossil fuels” by setting phaseout targets for this transition or for curbing hydrocarbon investment.

 

Also concerning were the elliptical statements on the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas conflicts. On the first, the statement spoke of Ukraine’s suffering and the “negative impact of war” but avoided all mention of Russian aggression, though Ukraine’s allies and Russia traded charges over who was responsible for the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin was absent on account of an International Criminal Court warrant against him and was represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. On Israel-Hamas, the statement called for “comprehensive ceasefires” in Gaza and Lebanon, and spoke of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and escalation in Lebanon. The pro-forma reiteration of the two-state solution ignores the fact that Israel is now occupying large swathes of Palestinian land in the West Bank as well.

 

Looming over the summit of the world’s leading economies is the presidential transition in the US in January next year. Mr Trump’s campaign speeches and executive-office appointments so far point to an agenda that squarely contradicts the substantive issues of the Rio declaration, including climate change and taxing the super-rich. His personal proximity to Mr Putin raises the spectre of a split with the US’ European allies over the conduct of the war in Ukraine and close relations with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu do not augur well for the Palestinian cause. In that sense, the broad-brush nature of the Rio declaration is a reflection of the geopolitical uncertainties ahead.