Dissecting the G20 Leaders' declaration for clues on the Ukraine language

Those of us who have been involved in G20 negotiations for many years have developed a habit of scrutinising Leaders' declarations for what they say, the way they say it, and what they leave out. The process of reaching a consensus declaration is primarily a textual negotiation; the final text is the result of many rounds of negotiations that typically start with a "draft zero" several months before. Most phrases in a declaration have a long history, probably going back a few years, and previously agreed language is very difficult to strengthen, weaken or omit entirely. Furthermore, negotiators often rely on subtle "qualifying language" that will obscure divergences and make consensus possible by lessening commitments or allowing members discretion in implementing certain actions.

Early in India's presidency, both Russia and China signalled that the language they had agreed to last year at the Bali summit would no longer be acceptable, either because conditions had changed in terms of military support to Ukraine and sanctions (Russia) or because the G20 should primarily be an economic forum (China). With the fallback option off the table, none of the ministerial meetings that preceded the summit were able to produce a joint communiqué. Instead, the presidency issued a "chair’s summary and outcome document" with a clear mention of the paragraphs not endorsed by all members. The text would typically contain two footnotes: 1) China stating that the meeting was not the right forum to discuss geopolitical issues; and 2) Russia dissociating itself from the status of the document as a common outcome because of references to the Ukraine war in certain paragraphs. So what changed at the summit?

The Delhi Leaders' declaration states the following:

??3. "Global challenges like poverty and inequality, climate change, pandemics and conflicts disproportionately affect women and children, and the most vulnerable". The text avoids directly mentioning the Ukraine war under the euphemism of "conflicts".

??7. "We note with deep concern the immense human suffering and the adverse impact of wars and conflicts around the world". Again, the wording on "wars and conflicts" -note the plural- dilutes the centrality of the Ukraine war.

??8. “Concerning the war in Ukraine, while recalling the discussion in Bali, we reiterated our national positions and resolutions adopted at the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly". This reflects that divergent national positions persist: so we agree to disagree.

??9. "Reaffirming that the G20 is the premier forum for international economic cooperation, and recognizing that while the G20 is not the platform to resolve geopolitical and security issues, we acknowledge that these issues can have significant consequences for the global economy". This sentence is a nod to China's position.

??10. "We highlighted the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine with regard to global food and energy security, supply chains, macro-financial stability, inflation and growth, which has complicated the policy environment for countries, especially developing and least developed countries which are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic disruption which has derailed progress towards the SDGs. There were different views and assessments of the situation". The key is the last sentence: here again, we agree to disagree. Not much different from the "two-paragraph" formula on the Paris Agreement at Hamburg and Buenos Aires.

??14."Today’s era must not be of war". This echoes PM Modi's remarks to President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the SCO meeting last year, which India sought to highlight as a key message of the Delhi summit.

The way things stand in the world today, any consensus Leaders' declaration would always have entailed a softening of the language on the Ukraine war. At the start of its presidency, India had put forward an ambitious, multi-faceted agenda that had to overcome a complex geopolitical and economic landscape. In the run-up to the summit, PM Modi said: "We should not allow issues that we cannot resolve together to come in the way of those we can". When the chances of diplomacy seemed to be fading, the Delhi summit was a success for India and breathed new life into the G20 at a time its relevance is put into question.