 India's capital New Delhi is in the final stages of preparation for the G20 summit that concludes, of course, India's presidency of the grouping. We ask NewsClicks editor-in-chief Praveer Pukhaistha what the context of the G20 really is and whether this is the right platform to even potentially address the economic realities of the world today. And the ASEAN summit begins in Jakarta on Tuesday. Most notable so far is the absence of U.S. President Joe Biden, China's Xi Jinping and even Thailand's new prime minister. What then is on the agenda at the ASEAN summit and are we likely to see any real resolutions on the key issues facing the region? This is Daily Debrief coming to you as always from the People's Dispatch Studios here in New Delhi. A New Delhi among the largest cities in the world is gearing up to come to an almost complete halt as world leaders, particularly those from the West, arrive for the head of state summit that will conclude India's year in the chair of the global economic club that is the G20. We go over now to NewsClick editor-in-chief Praveer Pukhaistha for a bit of a curtain razor on what to expect over these two days. Hi Praveer, good to have you back with us on Daily Debrief. New Delhi is shaping up or gearing up rather for the jamboree that is the summit of the G20 grouping of nations and of course the population 30 also million including migrant workers who come in and out of India's capital set to face a significant set of difficulties, particularly the poorest section among Delhi's population. But before we get into some of that, set the context for us Praveer. What exactly is the G20 and where does it stand amid all of the various organizations and multilateral multi-national platforms that exists in the world today? You know, G20 really came out of the 2008 financial crisis when G7 countries realized that they were not in a position by themselves to overcome the crisis. Needed countries like China, like India, who had sufficient foreign exchange reserves and a banking system, we should help them get out of the crisis of their sinking banks. If you remember, it started with what is called the mortgage crisis, but it soon engulfed the banking system, both the United States and in Europe. So they needed financially to be bailed out by countries which had sufficient reserves upon the exchange and to show up some of these banks. So that was the limited remit of G20. And if you remember, G7 itself was not supposed to be a political platform. In fact, it included Russia before that and then become G8. Russia was kicked out soon enough for various reasons which we won't get into. But it again became G7. But G7 has been a club even as G20 is a club. Because they were the European countries and the United States, essentially, and Canada. So they were what new statesmen called the White Boys Club. This is what I would call Excolonial Pass and the Neocolonial Pass, getting together. And that's really the United States and these European allies along with Australia, Canada and its other countries like that. So when G20 is to be seen, we have to see it in the context of what G7 represented. And it represented a club which would then call say, and it has been saying now for some time, that we have what would be called the global rules, the rule-based order. And the rule-based order is not done by an international body like the United Nations or international law, which is something you negotiate and say, OK, this is the legal framework that all of us agree. But it's a set of rules which are never stated. But the rule-based order means we make the rules and you have to follow it. It's like the Constitution, I guess, of the United Kingdom, where there is no Constitution. But in this case, at least the courts would define the law. Here, the United States and its allies really determine what is the rule-based order, who makes the rules and who violates the rules. If the US intervenes in various countries, it's not a violation of the rules. But if Russia, for instance, has got into Ukraine war, then of course it's a violation of the rules. But that's only a small part. Much bigger part is the rule-based order by which the United States today has probably sanctioned about one-third of the world. Now, those are the kind of problems that we get into. And therefore, G20 is still something which can work with consensus. Otherwise, it cannot work. That's a basic understanding. But the rules of the game are not defined. So this is really a set of intentions. And in that sense, it's no different, for instance, from the BRICS game, which meet and decide what it agrees on, what it doesn't agree on. And that's the kind of the platform that G20 is to be. But this has become, as we saw in Bali, a platform by which to mobilize countries against Russia. This seems to be the limited objective of at least the United States and European Union. And of course, there are a number of countries against India, including Brazil, who would say a war should be stopped. That is one part of it. But does it mean that therefore you say, OK, now you, Russia, stop the war. But Ukraine has no responsibility for it, unlike what you did in the Minsk Accords, when there was a decision to bring together Ukraine and Russia. Now we understand both France and Germany to say it is only to buy time to arm and military, you know, help the military in Ukraine. So if we take all of that out, this is not the platform in which you will decide the Ukraine war. It has to be something which has to be decided at the level of the United Nations, all between NATO countries, Ukraine and Russia. And that's not something other countries have too much of a role to play. I think that's a background of what the expectations of each side is. And I think India is trying to get a good agreed draft. In fact, we agreed with the Bali draft, which was proposed. China did not and Russia did not. That's where the things still probably lie. And we will not know what the agreement and disagreements are. But behind the scenes, I'm sure the various sherpas are working to get a certain kind of draft, which it could then come out as India's statesmanship, having got a unified draft, if such a draft does come through. But the portents of that, because neither Putin nor Xi Jinping is here, doesn't seem to be that bright that we will get a complete unanimity. We may get something like the Bali draft with exceptions, which some countries will not agree to. Which brings us to what is likely to be the central theme. You have, of course, talked already of the war in Ukraine, Praveer. And despite it not being the platform to discuss that sort of international politics, it is likely to be the sticking point. And India is sort of diplomatic prowess and also maneuvering over the past year, as it's assumed this sort of rotational presidency of this grouping. Perhaps we'll be highlighted in already commentators pointing out just as you have, that perhaps lack of consensus will be looked at as a bit of a failure on that front. Well, given the world situation today, a consensus cannot be reached easily. Not as far as the Ukraine war is concerned. As long as the United States and the European Union or NATO countries think, they can lead Russia out. And that will be a defeat of Russia. And the costs are being borrowed by Ukraine, as some of the US leaders have said. Well, for us, the cost is much less. After all, we are only spending about 3% of our budget or GDP. Now that's a small cost for destroying Russia. Now that is the framing of it. Then the expectation is the war will continue. And there is no, in that sense, there is no meeting ground between the two sides. Now, if that is the understanding, then of course, irrespective of what the other 18 countries may want, we're not going to get a resolution on this issue. The question is, are there any other issues? Now, here is the issue. Any other issue are not the ones that the West is interested in. And the Western parts, in fact, are a very important section of the G20. You can see the African Union has one seat. If you take European Union, well, it's there as European Union, as well as various European countries. So they get a number of seats at the table. Then, of course, you have the United States, the Big Brother, all by himself, and you also have Canada. So given all of that, it does not reflect the economic strength of the countries. And if G20, as well as G7, were economic platforms, then the current world doesn't look like what it did 20 years back. Now, that is a significant part of what is being missed out. If you see, for instance, simply the economic weight of G7, or G7 plus the European Union countries, it would take that and look at it via the Asian countries today, that's China, India, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia. You will see that the world has changed significantly from that age, which at that time G7 was about 41% of the global economy. It's much less. And it's also true, the BRICS countries, the economic weight is today, bigger than that of G7. Even if you leave out the expanded BRICS, original BRICS itself, in PPP terms. So given all of that, if this is to be wielded economic agenda, then the economic power of the countries are very different today. And the fact that Africa, the whole of African continent, represented by South Africa, itself makes a huge statement. And European Union is there, but African Union is not. And that's why I think India has put forward the idea that African Union should be part of G20. So these are some of the issues which are very glaring. And they really hit you in the face. That is the neocolonial vision of the world. Is that to continue? Is there going to be a different way of looking at the world? Unfortunately, if you're looking at Europe and you're looking at the United States, it doesn't seem to be so. Because you take Borel, European Union head, who said, we are a garden. The rest of the world is a jungle, who are trying to enter the garden. But that is the framing, if that is the framing. Then you know, the jungle has something to say on that. And I think that is the problem that the European countries and the United States, and Canada, Australia, its various allies have to face. But this is not the world that a large number of countries in the world would like to continue. And some rebalancing of economic forces have to take place within such loopings. And I would say G7, G20 really represents the past. And the fact that India has put a lot of stake into it is, in fact, not going to lead it to the kind of results it's looking for. Because this is a platform which really does not today represent what's happening in the world. In the world. Which maybe brings us to a concluding point from you, Kabir, on the expanding BRICS as well as other regional cooperation organizations. We've talked about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the past. There's an ASEAN summit happening in Southeast Asia as well. And all of these groupings are more than just clubs. They are based on some sort of understanding of international law that is based on years of negotiation and understanding and debate around issues involving multiple nations. How do you then look at the tightrope that, in a way, India is trying to walk by balancing, of course, its existing relationships with Russia and also, of course, its trade with China, but trying to keep the United States and Western democracies also on its side and sort of batting for both teams as it were? That's the argument that has been made by the Indian Foreign Minister that we are involved in multiple alignments, not non-alignment, but multiple alignments. And that means certain issues will go with certain countries or certain other issues will go with other countries. So, OK, I do think that what came out of the national movement was non-alignment and still the reworking of the global relations, particularly with respect to Africa, still remains on the agenda. And that's why you have, right now, against the Neocolonial regime that France introduced in its former colonies, you are saying the world takes place and it does seem the United States doesn't know which way to go. It cannot abandon France. At the same time, it cannot go. So it's sort of caught in a kind of bind over there. So this is the kind of colonial baggage a lot of the countries carry, not India. And I would say the Soviet Union, in that sense, had a huge role to play in African national liberation struggles. And a lot of the credit still goes to Russia, how much they can claim or not claim is a different issue. But they do look upon Russia, therefore, favorably because of their anti-colonial past. So I do not think this multiple alignment part is something which is, in the long term, sustainable. Because at the end of it, the real issues today, economic terms, it's not just the India's economy. India is a continental sized economy. It can do a lot of things by itself, just like China could do. And Russia has shown that it can do. But ASEAN countries, you have mentioned, if you have a look at the map, you will see there are all island nations except Malaysia. And Malaysia is actually projection into the Indian Ocean. So they are really a part of that grouping, which is for a long time believed that trade is the answer to their identities. And there have been trading nations for a long time. And they therefore wanted to also have trading relationship with the United States, as well as China. And if you remember, it was the United States who pulled out of that. So ASEAN is going to be economic terms very important. And ASEAN means that they're also with China economically, just as Japan is, just as South Korea is. So that is one part. Look at the other part. We've already talked about West Asia's economic importance. We're talking today about Africa's economic importance. Look at Central Asia's economic importance. So all these are going to play much more important roles in the future, economically. And the question is, what is European Union countries going to do? What is the United States going to do? What is Australia, Canada, the outliers going to do? It's still an issue. But it is an issue which they have to face up to much more than the rest of the world has to face up to. Because the rest of the world really knows where to go. They want independent economies. They do not want to be dominated. They don't want to be sanctioned beyond based on which side of the Ukraine war you are or not. So that is, I think, the issue that's going to increasingly confront. And these are the issues also coming up in G20 in different ways. An African Union inclusion being one of those issues which are more or less, I would call the weatherway, which way the wind will blow. I think that you will have to see. All right, thanks very much, Prabir. And we will, of course, be covering the G20 summit over the next few days on daily debrief and People's Dispatch at large. Prabir, do you want to add something? I just wanted to add. The fact that the Chinese Prime Minister and the Russian President is not coming means that there is not going to be a resolution, for instance, of the Ukrainian issue. And we are going to get something like a Bali resolution state. Yeah, but probably even that watered down from the language that was used in Bali itself. They said that this paragraph is not agreed to by all. So that kind of, what shall we say, manoeuvre. To say, we agree to disagree kind of manoeuvre. And India probably will agree to what the Bali paragraph was with China and Russia did not agree. Did not agree. All right, thanks very much, Prabir. We'll leave it there for today. And it's a busy week for diplomatic sherpas working behind the scenes to build consensus on key issues in Southeast Asia, including, of course, the lack of moves towards peace in Myanmar and ongoing concerns regarding the South China Sea, a subject on which there has been some positive movement in the recent past, but plenty of negotiations still remain. Anish covers the region for people's dispatch. Let's go over to him now for a bit of a curtain raiser on the Jakarta summit. Anish, we were talking to a news click editor-in-chief, Prabir Pulkaias, a little while earlier about the upcoming G20 summit in the Indian capital, New Delhi. And in that conversation, of course, regional groupings came up and formed a major part of, you know, how some of these clubs operate versus actual multilateral organizations. The ASEAN summit kicking off on Tuesday in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. And Biden not attending, Anish, how much of an impact is it likely to have on the idea of unity and sort of at least the photo ops that this 10 member nation might have wanted to put out before the summit goes ahead? Yeah, I mean, it's a very interesting kind of set of conditions that the ASEAN meeting is happening right now. Obviously, Biden's absence is one thing. There's also Xi's absence. Xi Jinping is not going to be part of the meeting either. So what you'll have is the only other major countries probably will be India, obviously. And this definitely, there's most likely to be Japan involvement as well. Participation in the meetings. But like these countries are not the main issue. Like the member nations are the ones who pretty much decide the agenda, what is going to be set in the, like what kind of post-paction they will be taking for the next year or so. And the current agenda, definitely the two issues obviously come to mind for and is something that is overshadowing the discussions right now. One is obviously Myanmar, where the ASEAN grouping has failed to actually bring out any kind of peace or stability or any action plan that could be workable. And also bring the military regime and the militant opposition together in some ways for a peace that can have some level of resolution in the near future. And despite the five point consensus that they've created, we have seen absolutely no movement on that part. And it is quite interesting also to note how there is definitely the consensus broke immediately after it was agreed upon. We've seen Thailand actually closing up to the military generals, taking a more or less equalist position on the matter as well in many ways, especially in the international forum. And obviously the new Thai prime minister is not attending the meeting either. And then you also have other similar kind of discussions about how much you can actually impose a sort of action plan on a country that is not willing to take off whatever you are proposing to do. And that is something where you obviously have the limitations of clustering of groups coming in. And definitely the other is the South China Sea, which is not necessarily an ASEAN problem. Like there is a handful of nations within ASEAN who have a war part of the set of disputes on the South China Sea, but it's not something that ASEAN as a whole can really come up with. Like Indonesia, for instance, has no standing on the matter either and does not want to be involved or dragged into the matter. But this is definitely something where you see like more pro-US governments like the Philippines wanting an ASEAN block to come up as a unified front against China. Obviously coming with the sort of geopolitical necessities of that government at the current moment. Right, so what we have reported on sort of some forward movement on negotiations on the South China Sea. Anish, is that likely to sort of continue? And you did point out that ASEAN may not be the right forum for it, but definitely it'll be one of the major topics of discussion. How do you see things proceeding? Yes, a previous, earlier this year, actually we talked about a couple of months ago, we talked about this progress that actually did happen with China and several other countries, including Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. But the issue is Philippines kind of the, where we saw recent tensions with Philippines and China, kind of derailing the entire problem altogether. Now there is this kind of, on multiple issues, there are like, we do not need to delve into which side was right or which side was wrong, but there is a definite need for both sides to actually agree upon the fact that they cannot resolve this conflict. This dissolve is dispute with an armed conflict or any kind of armed confrontation or military confrontation. They have to actually deal with it in a diplomatic manner, with other stakeholders involved, other people who are actually taking claims on these islands as well. And these, and this is something that we are not seeing especially with Philippines, there is no intention or no willingness to go for that option. Rather they want to internationalize this issue more and more. So ASEAN is the latest forum. They have already dragged in Australia recently and on top of that, Japan and the United States as well. So this is Philippines part is basically to derail the matters even further by bringing in foreign powers who have no say in the matter, who only have this quote unquote free and open Indo-Pacific agenda, which is pretty much them saying that they do not want sovereign rights of any countries to be recognized as long as it conflicts with their interests as well. So this is something that Philippines and like other countries as well need to recognize that they cannot really have that kind of, any kind of lasting resolution they're not willing to talk and are more willing to drag in other people who are not necessarily either willing or who are not somebody who should who are right to be in that situation either in this dispute either. So this is something that we are seeing as kind of deadlock on right now. And obviously nothing is going to move forward on the ASEAN front. Earlier we had the same kind of voices being raised but nothing happened. But in the case and this clearly shows like a severe set of limitations within us and because we're talking about a diverse range of countries with diverse political systems and each of them having their own national and geopolitical interests. And there is something like there are certain things that they can definitely agree on but when it comes to some very pressing matters they might find themselves better off doing it on different forums of different multilateral negotiations rather than use this as sort of a political block. All right, thanks very much Anish. Looks like a week ahead of diplomatic wrangling and also diplomatic probably stalemates that we'll be seeing from Indonesia to India as the week progresses. We'll of course keep you updated on developments on daily debrief and on the other shows and the other work we do on People's Dispatch. Thanks for joining us Anish today. And that's a wrap on this episode of the daily debrief. As always, we urge you to head to our website peoplesdispatch.org for more details on these stories and all of the other work we do. Don't also forget to give us a follow on the social media platforms of your choice. We'll be back with another episode of your favorite news and analysis show same time, same place tomorrow. Until then, stay safe. Thank you for watching. Goodbye.