Russia-Ukraine conflict cannot be separated from G20, says US head of delegation
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be separated from the G20’s agenda because it is the root cause of food and energy insecurity, inflation and subsequent instability in financial systems, the US sous Sherpa Christina Segal-Knowles said on Saturday.
Without naming China and Russia, Segal-Knowles said the G20 states are having to renegotiate the text to describe the Ukraine crisis in outcome documents because “two countries have just walked away from language that their leaders had agreed” at the G20 Summit in Indonesia last year.
There is an “extreme sense of urgency” among the 18 countries that have not walked away from the language of the Bali Declaration about making ensuring the success of India’s G20 presidency, Segal-Knowles, who is special assistant to the president and senior director for international economics, said in an interview on the margins of the G20 sherpas meeting in Kumarakom.
Q. How would you characterise the discussions at the second G20 sherpas’ meeting and how have things gone?
A. I think it’s been very positive. There is a real commitment to supporting India’s presidency. I think everyone, particularly the US, views this as an extremely important year for the G20 because I think it’s a really important moment for the global economy [and] when it comes to the challenges particularly faced by emerging markets and developing economies. I think India’s presidency has put a lot of focus on that and on concrete deliverables that the G20 could deliver for the summit in Delhi. I think there’s a constructive and positive tone and an actual consensus in the room that we need to deliver concrete things, particularly for developing countries and emerging markets.
Q. For countries that aren’t at the table, basically the Global South?
A. I think the Global South, also some of the emerging markets in the room need more support to deal with global challenges like climate change. So I think it’s both for the people in the room and the people outside of the room.
Q. Would you say there is a lot of overlap between the Indian and US agendas, especially the way India has been raising the concerns of the Global South?
A. I think there is a real overlap between the Indian agenda and the US agenda. I think when we think about the challenges that we face and the things that the G20 needs to focus on, we’re very focused on the debt crisis that’s facing several developing countries currently. And it looks like there are many, many more countries that are at risk. We need to find a way forward to deal with that constructively and put countries back on a sustainable footing. We think we need to be thinking about the SDGs and how far behind we are currently. If we think that is a travesty, we need to be pushing it forward and we need to be looking at the individual SDGs. I think we’ve seen setbacks in health, in terms of people’s access to clean and affordable energy and we’ve seen food security is a major issue that has been a real challenge, particularly given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has exacerbated all of this. So, we think that addressing that, really focusing on what can the G20 do, what can we deliver, is essential and I think that’s very much in lockstep with India’s own goals.
Q. On the issue of climate justice, there’s been a gap between the developed world and developing countries in terms of funding climate transition. Do you think there is some way forward for finding solutions?
A. I do, and I think that is really at the heart of some of the things that we’re discussing. I think it’s very important for us as a country that is a signatory to the COP and to our climate commitments that we think about, how we make good on the commitments that we’ve made when it comes to climate finance. I think it’s also a global challenge, not just one for developed countries or developing countries, not for this dichotomy, but globally to think about how are we going to finance the climate transitions and how are we going to do that differently.
It’s delivering on commitments made, but also thinking about the sheer scale of what will be needed. How do we mobilise the private sector [and] official finance in productive ways? How do we make sure that that’s done in a way that provides a real just transition and makes life better for workers and makes people think and understand that climate and development are not in tension? Making a successful transition to the new clean energy economy should be something that advances the development of countries around the world.
Q. The elephant in the room – the Ukraine crisis – due to which there was no joint outcome at two ministerial meetings. How much was the Ukraine war an issue in these discussions?
A. I think it’s very regrettable that what happened in Bali last year, the countries worked very hard, certainly the US came to the table very, very committed to making sure that the G20 remained able to move forward and remained able to be the preeminent forum for economic cooperation because we think this is the right group of countries to be sitting down with and having these conversations. We were very, very dedicated. We worked very hard to get an agreed outcome with the assumption that that would set up the Indian presidency for success. What’s happened is two countries have just walked away from language that their leaders had agreed to just months before, which is very upsetting to us…We are upset on behalf of India because this could have been something that was not an issue for discussion and now it is again an issue for discussion because we need to find a way forward.
I think the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be separated from the G20 agenda because when you look at food security [and] energy security when you look at the cause of some of the inflation and then the subsequent cause of some of the instability that we’ve seen in financial systems, it all comes back to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So the G20 agenda and the economic agenda can’t be separated.
That said…the US wants to make sure that we can find a way forward that allows the G20 to continue its work. I think we’re very hopeful that Russia and China will come back and live up to their word.
Q. China and Russia recently said they don’t want multilateral organisations to be politicised and Chinese and Russian officials have been saying G20 is not the forum to discuss Ukraine. How do you square the two positions?
A. I think the reality is that 141 countries around the world, just in February, adopted a UN resolution that notes with great concern the impact that Russia’s war in Ukraine is having on food security and energy security and the environment. I think the issues that the G20 are discussing are food and energy security, the environment and the economy, all of which are impacted. So it’s not politicisation. We can’t sort of turn a blind eye to the root cause of the issues that we are facing and some of the things that are happening for developing countries and emerging markets sitting around the table, as well as developing countries around the world. The impact on food prices in sub-Saharan Africa, the impact on energy security for countries around the room – we can’t ignore that. That’s not politicisation. It’s just you can’t have a real discussion if we all have to step around this issue and so that’s why I think the G20 Bali language, which India worked so hard to get, we were all making compromises to get there, it was very clear the G20 is not a forum to solve security issues, but it is a forum to discuss economic issues and we all acknowledge that this security issue is having an impact on the world economy.
Q. How can India and the US work more closely to ensure the security of food, fuel and fertilisers?
A. I think this is something that is very personally important to President [Joe] Biden. He’s been very focused on leading food security. The US gave almost $10 billion last year to support food security around the world. We have been pressing for us to think about how we take forward and reinforce [this]. India could be a leader in this. Some of the G20 commitments that we have already, are not to do things when it comes to our trade policies that further exacerbate food security, thinking about how we collectively reinforce some of the mechanisms that we have globally when it comes to food security. I think India very much has food security on the agenda front and centre and we want that to be the case. I think there are lots of opportunities for us to work together.
Q. Do you think the price cap on Russian oil and sanctions are working at a time when there is fatigue about the war in parts of Asia, where some think this is Europe’s war?
A. I think for us it’s very important for the world that we respond when there’s a flagrant violation of international law. I think that is an issue not just for one country, I think the world needs to be very decisive in how to respond and I think that’s very important. I think we have responded decisively. It’s not just the US, it’s not just Europe. We have over 35 countries that are involved in thinking about the economic consequences for Russia. There are actions. I think that said, we have been very, very focused on making sure that the consequences of that and the consequences of sanctions are not felt by developing countries and emerging markets because it is not [them] that created this war. We don’t want the cost to be felt by those countries, I think the price cap is explicitly designed to try to help with that, because what we are trying to do is say, look, we’re giving more negotiating power to emerging markets and developed countries. We’re not saying don’t buy oil from Russia. We’re just saying we will only provide services if the oil is sold at a discount and that should be helping. We have seen, since the price cap came into effect, the revenues for Russia have decreased, but so has the price the developing countries are paying for oil. And that is exactly what it’s designed to do. It’s not supposed to take the oil off the market, which we think would hurt developing countries. It would hurt emerging market countries and not necessarily hurt Russia. The exact design of the price cap is to support developing countries to not bear the brunt of Russia’s aggression.
Q. Will you be going away more hopeful about some sort of consensus after these discussions?
A. I think around the table, particularly the 18 countries that have not walked away from the Bali language, there’s an extreme sense of urgency around making sure that India has a successful G20, that’s in the United States’ view. So I’m hopeful in that respect.