¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

As the divide between global haves and have-nots widens, the question looms: when we champion the idea of a fair and equitable world, who do we really include? And what are we willing to do for those left behind in this uneven race to recovery? asks Imran Khalid

THE G20 summit in Brazil offered a rich tableau of contrasts, both inspiring and troubling. World leaders gathered to confront issues of hunger, inequality, and systemic injustice. Yet, for all the lofty rhetoric and ambitious proposals, the gathering epitomised a troubling paradox: a conclave of privilege tasked with redressing the very inequities it represents. Among the summit’s focal points were wealth taxes on the rich, revisited as a potential salve for global poverty. This idea, long a staple of G20 discussions, is laden with moral urgency but fraught with political challenges. Reforming global governance institutions — vestiges of the post-World War II order — was also high on the agenda. These debates took place under the looming shadow of a volatile geopolitical landscape, including the unsettling prospect of Donald Trump’s second term as US president. His return to power has already unsettled European leaders, casting doubt on the cohesion of transatlantic alliances. Representing two-thirds of humanity, the G20 is as much a mirror of global disparities as it is a vehicle for progress. Its roster — juxtaposing affluent powers with emerging economies — underscores its potential to heal divides. But as pandemics upend economies, climate change accelerates, and technology disrupts the old order, the forum’s true test emerges: Can it evolve from an elite conclave into a genuine steward of equitable governance? The stakes are colossal, for the future of the G20 may well dictate the trajectory of global cooperation in a fragmented world.

Global economic data tells a story as stark as it is sobering: a world increasingly divided. Wealthy nations have not only rebounded from the pandemic’s economic toll but have wiped away its scars, reclaiming pre-pandemic prosperity by 2021. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa — the planet’s poorest region — remains stuck in recovery limbo, only now approaching its pre-pandemic GDP per capita levels. The disparity grows even sharper for emerging markets and developing economies, grappling with a brutal 5.5 per cent shortfall below their pre-pandemic growth path. For billions, this isn’t just about numbers; it’s about shattered aspirations, lost opportunities, and the grim reality of worsening poverty. As the divide between global haves and have-nots widens, the question looms: when we champion the idea of a fair and equitable world, who do we really include? And what are we willing to do for those left behind in this uneven race to recovery?

The G20 has a crucial opportunity to challenge the entrenched imbalances of the global financial system by pushing for a bold reform of the Bretton Woods institutions. This isn’t about making small tweaks to voting rights; it requires a fundamental overhaul of governance structures. The current system, shaped by post-World War II dynamics, no longer reflects the economic realities of today. A more equitable distribution of voting power, one that better mirrors the rising influence of developing economies, is an urgent necessity. While this kind of restructuring may encounter political resistance, an immediate solution could be to implement interim measures that grant developing nations a stronger voice in critical decision-making processes.

In addition, the G20 must address key financial mechanisms that have shown themselves inadequate, especially in times of crisis. The pandemic underscored how the existing financial channels fail to support developing nations when they need it most. The G20 should consider creating a more nimble and responsive crisis fund, with governance shared more equitably among all member nations. This would prevent future global challenges from perpetuating the same inequalities exposed during COVID-19. Finally, technology transfer should be placed at the heart of G20 collaboration. The pandemic highlighted the barriers posed by intellectual property rights in global health responses. The G20 must set up common protocols for the sharing of critical technologies, whether related to health, climate, or financial stability, ensuring that no nation is left behind in times of crisis.

The G20 must confront the digital divide that risks exacerbating global inequality. As financial systems pivot increasingly toward digital platforms, ensuring equitable access to technology and infrastructure is vital for genuine economic inclusion. This shift necessitates a departure from outdated aid models, advancing instead toward collaborative partnerships in technological development. Critics may argue that such reforms would undermine the dominance of traditional powers. Yet, the alternative — a world where the majority of humanity remains excluded from the digital economy — poses a far graver threat to global stability. If the G20 fails to address this, it risks losing its legitimacy, as its relevance hinges not on serving the powerful few but on representing all its members, particularly those whose voices are often drowned out in global governance. In a rapidly digitalised world, economic inclusion is not just a moral imperative but a crucial pillar of global prosperity and security.

The G20 earned praise for its role in mitigating the 2008 global financial crisis, effectively coordinating macroeconomic policies to stabilise the world economy. However, since then, it has struggled to evolve from a reactive body into one capable of addressing the pressing issues that threaten global growth, governance, and economic stability. The lack of a clear, forward-thinking strategy has led some to dismiss the G20 as little more than a ceremonial gathering, where leaders jet-set across the globe to exchange empty rhetoric. While such criticism may be overstated, it underscores the growing frustration with the G20’s failure to meet the world’s expectations. Part of the problem lies with the developed nations within the G20, which have failed to set an example for economic growth. Protectionism has emerged as a major roadblock, hindering both investment and trade. Ironically, it’s the developed countries—chiefly the US and the EU—that have taken the lead in erecting barriers to Chinese electric vehicles, undermining global efforts to combat climate change.

Despite frequent pledges to fight protectionism, the G20’s actions have fallen short. With developing nations bearing the brunt of these policies, the need for the G20 to act decisively and live up to its promises has never been more urgent. The international community deserves more than empty assurances; it deserves action. Yet, in spite of these uncertainties, the G20 remains both a symbol of hope and a stark reminder of global disparities. Representing two-thirds of humanity, it holds the promise of bridging divides between affluent nations and emerging economies. The G20 summit in Brazil was a microcosm of the challenges facing the world today: deep divisions, competing interests, and the urgent need for transformative solutions. Whether the forum can rise to the occasion remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the stakes have never been higher. If the G20 fails to evolve, it risks irrelevance in a world that desperately needs effective global cooperation. The path forward will require bold leadership, a willingness to challenge entrenched power structures, and a commitment to inclusivity. The question now is whether the G20’s member nations have the vision — and the courage — to meet this moment. The future of global governance may well depend on their answer.

Ìý

Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance contributor from Karachi.