Beyond the Lines | The voice at G20: A global declaration with Indian characteristics

Whenever a Chinese leader decides to skip an important summit, such as the recent one in Delhi, whispers abound about hidden agendas. History is replete with many about-turns in Chinese stands in international relations, post the summit. On July 3, 1914, Tibet and India signed the Simla Convention and agreed to the McMahon Line as a boundary in India’s eastern sector. At the summit, there was a delegate from China — Ivan Chen — who represented his leader, then Chinese President, Yuan Shih-kai. Chen gave his assent to the creation of the McMahon Line. The McMahon Line, mutually agreed, was never brought up again until 1959, when Chinese premier Zhou Enlai wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru, stating that China had never agreed to the McMahon Line. An argument was posited that Ivan Chen had initialled and not signed the document. In today’s world, such blatant reversals of agreements may not be possible to execute, but to make it more nuanced, states find escape routes to evade commitment. So, in 2023 when Xi Jinping decided to not attend the Delhi G20 summit and Li Qiang attended instead, the question uppermost in minds was — what was China’s plan for the summit? Was Xi signalling the advent of a change in the world order? The G20 summit in New Delhi had arguably more heightened drama in its build-up compared to past summits. With Xi Jinping’s decision to give the summit a miss, China made clear its stand on G20, which it felt had a distinct American influence — much like its well-known disdain for multilateral platforms with the US as its chief guarantor. Though Vladimir Putin’s absence at the summit (he hadn’t appeared in international forums recently) wasn’t a surprise, the absence of two leaders inimical to a US-driven consensus on global peace and territorial integrity collectively cast a shadow of doubt about the success of the summit, even before it had begun. What was the likely sticking point? More than developing a consensus on greenhouse gas emissions, energy transition, sustainable development goals, it was the Ukraine war that was going to be a litmus test for India’s G20 mantra of one world one family one future. The previous Bali G20 summit declaration condemning Russia’s role in the Ukraine war got derailed a month after the summit — pushing the world into two power camps. One was dominated by the G7 developed countries while the other camp was helmed by China and Russia. On the eve of the Delhi summit, China’s declaration of its territorial perceptions involving several neighbouring countries wasn’t merely an assertion of its alleged claim-lines, but a well thought-out opening gambit that laid the stage for how it would choose to play at the Delhi summit. Soon enough, Xi Jinping declared his absence from the summit. The Chinese Opening Gambit: A Stone for Two Birds With his decision to skip the summit, Xi aimed to kill two birds with one stone. One, he was vocalising his support for China-led platforms such as BRICS over the west led summits, and was keen to establish a separate caucus of developing countries centred around China. Thus, his decision to relegate the prominence of the Delhi summit was to undermine the US and its alliance of democracies. Two, China thought it had pushed India into an embarrassing corner on the Russia issue. All along, the west had been pressurising India to condemn Russia for its actions against Ukraine, which it hadn’t, though India had taken a principled anti-war stand. India had consistently walked a fine diplomatic line — importing oil and weapons from Russia and keeping America at bay. Through deft diplomatic manoeuvring, India had emerged as a nation of balance that declared its commitment to peace and yet maintained a steadfast rapport with old friends and allies, prioritising its own strategic interests in the bargain. It was assumed that the absence of Putin and Xi would put India into a corner on Ukraine and thus lump the host of the summit with a fait accompli which embraced a West-influenced declaration that incorporated forceful language against Russia vis a vis Ukraine. That would have put India in an awkward position on Russia — a country that both China and India have good relations with. Did China overplay its hand? The Delhi Declaration had a surprise in store. Frenetic rounds of diplomatic exchanges at the Delhi summit resulted in an elaborate declaration. The Delhi Declaration dropped western references to Ukraine and carefully used a language that did not name Russia as a violator. Both Russia and China had opposed the references on Ukraine. Thus, by adopting a statement that was softer on Russia than the previous one in Bali, the declaration took the sting out of Chinese plans. India’s Growing Global Stature The Delhi Declaration is an Indian coup in global diplomacy. Despite sharp differences in their views on the Ukraine war, the participating nations agreed to a line that doesn’t implicate Russian aggression. Would Xi’s presence in Delhi have made the western bloc more hesitant in their adoption of a similar Declaration? Likely. The previous Declaration in Bali, despite Xi Jinping’s presence, had adopted a hardened stance on Russia. In Delhi, Li Qiang’s presence was overshadowed by India’s pivotal role in the final message. Thus, the Delhi Declaration which satisfies all sides with deep differences, points to the increasing agency of trust and neutrality that India has begun to command in global forums. At the recent BRICS summit, China had wanted to expand the membership, which India suspected to be an ulterior agenda to increase Chinese support in the house. China’s plan fits in with its aim to create a separate forum of developing nation-states, away from the US. At the Delhi summit, the addition of the African Union (AU) as a permanent member of the G20 showed India’s ability to pave the way for expanding the membership — thus cannily taking a page from China’s plan on BRICS and turning it to its own advantage. Two-third of the debt of the nations is linked to Chinese loans and thus, the discussion in Delhi about addressing debt concerns creates room for potential discussions on restructuring and relief under the G20 platform. The move, both philanthropic and statesmanlike, is a clever first step towards accumulating influence among economically weaker nations. It helped the summit stay aligned to the current global flavour of ‘oneness’ but while doing so, the slogan ‘One world, One family, One future’ resonated deeper than the privileges of ‘One belt, One road’. The summit also agreed on the aspect of developing nations requiring more time on greenhouse emissions peaking — the point after which emissions need to reduce. The lead taken by Indonesia, India and Brazil also indicated a shift from a Western, developed-nations narrative to one steered by the developing south. Bali and Delhi: Two coins with different sides To sceptics unsure about the recognition of the Declaration at the end of the summit, S Jaishankar, India’s external affairs minister, shot back that ‘Bali was Bali. This is Delhi’. What made India more confident about the durability of the Declaration was China’s endorsement of its fine lines. Thus, the success of the summit must also be seen in the light of a depoliticised outcome it achieved. There was the announcement of the rail and shipping lines that link India with European markets via West Asia that set off immediate excitement. The rail and shipping links pose a greater complexity of durability than China’s BRI, given the Middle East’s newfound proximity to China and lack of clarity on funding mechanisms that the BRI possesses. Therefore, President Joe Biden’s mention at the summit of such a network might have been to signal more potential competition to BRI than trigger an immediate blueprint for execution. A summit serves as an essential talk before the proverbial walk, but a good beginning is key to the journey that follows. The Bali summit’s declaration had collapsed soon after it was adopted and besides, China has a history of about-turns on agreements signed at summits, which raises doubts among naysayers. However, in a world order where competing superpowers jostle for relevance, India quietly emerged as a hub of consensus — demonstrating leadership on AU inclusion, energy issues and in turning mediator to craft a unanimous statement on a complex, ongoing war. It was feared that the Delhi summit might end up being remembered as the inflexion point when the world chose to be formally split into two halves. Instead, the summit brought together a fractious world to agree on a common platform, in keeping with the spirit and vision of India’s leadership at G20: “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”. The writer is the author of ‘Watershed 1967: India’s Forgotten Victory over China’. His fortnightly column for FirstPost — ‘Beyond The Lines’ — covers military history, strategic issues, international affairs and policy-business challenges. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views. Tweets @iProbal_ Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .