From COP30 to G20, a churn – and India’s opportunity

(The article was originally published in Indian Express on November 29, 2025 as a part of Dr Madhav’s column titled ‘Ram Rajya’. Views expressed are personal)

Last week saw two major global events taking place in two important countries in the Global South – the G-20 Summit at Johannesburg in South Africa on November 22-23 and the COP30 at Belem in Brazil on November 10-21. Both were high-profile events dealing with important global issues like trade, wars and environment. COP30 was the 30^th session of the UNFCCC, and the 10^th session after the Paris Agreement in 2015. Belem summit was billed as the largest in three decades with more than 56000 delegates participating from more than 190 countries. On the other hand, the prestigious G-20 Summit also saw attendance of leaders from 20 member countries that included 13 heads of state.

While both the summits were successful optics-wise, there is an important underlying reality with respect to the outcomes and messaging. Both were marred by the absence of several big powers. While the US, given President Donald Trump’s aversion to Paris Agreement, was conspicuous by its absence at COP30, three major powers – China, Russia and India – too decided to send junior level participation at the summit. Fate of G-20 was also not very different. Of the 20 member-country heads, seven – the US, China, Russia, Argentina, Mexico, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia – did not turn up.

In terms of the outcomes too, both the summits failed to rise to the challenges the world is facing today. At Belem, the participating countries failed to build a consensus over critical environmental challenges, so much so that the Belem Declaration did not even mention the issue of phasing out of fossil fuels despite more than 80 countries demanding tighter controls over them. It may be a coincidence that successive COP summits since 2023 are being held in petrostates – 2022 in Egypt, 2023 in UAE, 2024 in Azerbaijan, and 2025 in Brazil. Next COP summit – COP31 – will also be held in Türkiye, another petrostate. Oil and gas exports being their main revenue source, leaders of these countries were naturally reluctant to toe a hardline on fossil fuel consumption reduction agenda.

The Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) for emission controls too fell far short of the requirement for containing global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2035, while the rules under Paris Agreement, mandated to verify and monitor greenhouse emissions remained weak or stalled. Governance of critical minerals was completely removed from the agenda. At the most, the progress on climate front after COP30 can be called incremental, far from being transformative.

Story at Johannesburg was also not too different. The 30-page, 122-point Johannesburg Leaders Declaration faced a boycott from the US and opposition from its close ally, Argentina. In an unusual manner, it got adopted at the very beginning of the summit rather than at the end, probably with an intention to prevent more countries from joining the American bandwagon. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bravado notwithstanding, the declaration remained by far the weakest with minimal references to contentious geopolitical issues like the Ukraine–Russia conflict. On Gaza and Middle East tensions, the declaration opted for a vague language without mentioning parties or actions. Supporters may call it a diplomatic balancing act in a fragmented world. But the fact is that the declaration lacked substance.

When India hosted G-20 two years ago with admirable efficiency, it was able to bring all the parties including US, Russia and China to agree to the powerful declaration that did not mince words in talking about Ukraine and Gaza conflicts. At Johannesburg this year, India played a proactive role by adding several game-changing proposals to the declaration, like Global Traditional Knowledge Digital Repository, Africa Skills Multiplier training initiative, Global Healthcare Rapid Response Team, Open Satellite Data Partnership, Critical Minerals Circularity Initiative, and a global initiative to counter the drug-terror nexus.

Prime minister Narendra Modi became the cynosure of all eyes, holding individual meetings with eight heads of nations and building bilateral and trilateral forums on important issues. India’s proactive role prompted host President Ramaphosa to acknowledge that “India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, has rightfully captured the maximum limelight at this G20 Summit. India’s contributions and vision have been instrumental in shaping the agenda and outcomes, highlighting its stature as a global leader.”

While it was not so good a summit for G-20, it undoubtedly turned out to be the best one for India. However, India needs to understand this contradiction carefully. Although India’s proactive role is being increasingly appreciated, these important multilateral forums that emerged as the voice of the Global South in the last few years, are increasingly seen as losing relevance. By their absence and disinterest, big powers like the US and China are betraying their discomfort with the rise of Global South in general and multipolar world order in particular. President Trump was never comfortable with the proposition of a multipolar world. Hegemonic role for the US is an article of faith with him. Just before his meeting with President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC summit in South Korea last month, Trump resurrected the ghost of bipolarity through a post on social media: “The G2 will be convening shortly”.

Many including India, EU and African countries responded warily to Trump’s G2 rhetoric. India needs to take the challenge seriously. If multipolarity were to survive India needs to use its present status and goodwill to lead the Global South from the front. The BRICS mantle that it is taking over next year will provide an excellent opportunity to prepare the Global South leadership in resisting the return of hegemonic politics and promotion of genuine multipolarity.