Indonesia’s G-20 Dreams

… [A]s the Chair of the G-20, Indonesia can encourage cooperation and initiate concrete results in the three priority sectors, which are crucial for recovery. This is a momentum for Indonesia to earn credibility or global trust in leading the global recovery efforts. Credibility is invaluable capital in diplomacy and foreign policy.

– From an October 2022 statement by the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

By mid-2021, there were banners, posters and billboards on the main streets of Indonesia’s major cities displaying information about Indonesia’s G-20 presidency, which began on October 31, 2021. It was a display of how, for Indonesia, the G-20 presidency faces two audiences: the domestic and the international.

Promoting the G-20 and the 2022 G-20 presidency to the domestic audience was important for the Indonesian government, mainly to ensure support and success. Approaching the presidency, the government carried out activities promoting it domestically, in particular raising awareness of the “benefits” of the G-20 and the hosting of the annual summit for Indonesia’s economy. In a speech in November 2021, Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo pressed for the country to make the most of its strategic position as the G-20 president to “prioritize national interests.” The government claimed that the G-20 presidency would bring many benefits to the economy, in foreign policy and in terms of social development, which include a direct impact on Indonesia's economy by increasing the country's foreign exchange earnings and a promotion of Indonesia’s openness for business.

For the international audience, the Indonesian government aimed to encourage cooperation and garner concrete results in three priority sectors: global health architecture, the digital transformation of the global economy, and the energy transition. These priorities make up the flagship agenda of the Sherpa Track working groups and engagement groups. With its own experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the hardship Indonesia faced as it struggled to keep the health system from being overloaded and the concessions it made to acquire batches of vaccines, Indonesia wants to promote solidarity in addressing the transnational crisis. Unequal global vaccine distribution, notoriously exemplified by trends of vaccine nationalism and hoarding, is a key issue that Indonesia has repeatedly highlighted in multiple international forums. 

All of these objectives were expressed prior to assuming the G-20 presidency, as Indonesia was getting ready for one of the biggest tasks in its international affairs: leading the grouping of the world’s largest economies. At that time, setting up the right agenda was of utmost importance. The G-20 has been known to be successful in its Finance Track, but less so in its Sherpa Track, particularly in accommodating recommendations from working groups in charge of non-financial issues like health and climate. Indonesia started putting agendas like pursuing digital reforms, empowerment of human resources, including women and youth, and addressing the issue of climate change and sustainability at the forefront.

Indonesia’s G-20 presidency is the start of a series of presidencies by developing nations – next year the G-20 will be led by India, followed by Brazil, and then South Africa. So this year has been highlighted as the start of an age of representation for the voices of developing nations and emerging economies, including those outside of the G-20. Experts have observed that while the G-20 has performed important functions for member states and the world at large, it generally still struggles with the critical challenge of how to balance the legitimate pursuit of national interests of its members with a genuine commitment to the global common good.

Derailed by Geopolitics

Indonesia’s G-20 presidency had originally been scheduled for 2023, but Indonesia switched with India. The Indonesian foreign minister said the change of plan was agreed to considering that Indonesia is scheduled to chair the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2023. Although no official reason was available for the sudden change, it is assumed that the order of the rotating presidency of the G-20 is decided among members on the basis of consultations and mutual convenience.

At the onset, the swap seemed very logical in that would allow Indonesia to avoid holding two chairmanships in major multilateral forums at the same time. Now we can only wonder whether Indonesia ought to regret the decision, as its 2022 G-20 presidency has met with significant challenges, mainly the geopolitical implications from the war in Ukraine.

The G-20 Summit in Bali will be the first multilateral summit involving China, Russia, and the United States since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and heightened tensions over Taiwan. The war in Ukraine split the global consensus on other important issues to be tackled collectively, including at the G-20, with some choosing to take the talks hostage, risking any productive outcome from the forum.

It has not been an easy journey for Indonesia at all. The world was looking to Jakarta, as the G-20 president, and gauging its response to the Ukraine war. After voting in support of the U.N. General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian attack on March 2, Indonesia later abstained from the vote to suspend Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council. Various criticisms have been thrown at Jakarta for not having a stronger voice on the issue. 

But in a departure from its earlier stance, on October 12 Indonesia voted in favor of a UNGA Resolution calling on countries not to recognize the four regions of Ukraine that Russia has claimed, following so-called referendums held in late September, and demanding that Moscow reverse course on its “attempted illegal annexation.” Comments from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry have thus far have not connected this with Indonesia being president of the G-20, but as Indonesia prepares for the G-20 summit in November the vote will be viewed favorably by many other members.

The G-20 this year is not going to be business as usual, that’s for sure. So far we have witnessed how meetings at the ministerial levels have failed to produce communiques. In fact, the agendas have been derailed at many of these meetings.

One vivid example is the G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, which took place on July 7-8. There were very loud debates – shouting, to be more precise. Some ministers from the G-7 countries excoriated the Russian minister for the Ukraine invasion and the global consequences, as the Russian minister lashed back at them and eventually walked out of the session. Afterwards, naturally, the meeting failed to produce its traditional joint communique. 

One article described the G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting as a “sneak preview” of what will likely happen in November, assuming the summit takes place and that all the major players in the Russia-Ukraine war actually attend.

The second event was the G-20 Finance Ministers’ Meeting, which took place on July 15-16, during which debates on the Ukraine war derailed meaningful discussion on financial issues. Even before the meeting started, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen made comments about how the war in Ukraine presents the “greatest challenge” to the global economy. “We are seeing negative spillover effects from that war in every corner of the world, particularly with respect to higher energy prices, and rising food insecurity,” she said. Yellen also refused talks with members of the Russian government. 

Global food insecurity, rising debt, and the energy crises had been some of the top priority issues that were initially to be discussed by the finance chiefs. The meeting took place after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) slashed its global growth forecast, while inflation sparked concerns of a possible U.S. recession. The talks were overshadowed by the Ukraine war after it proved to have immediate impact on global markets, caused rising food prices, oil prices, and further inflation. 

The forum was divided on the issues; thus few policy breakthroughs were made, and of course no joint communique was produced. A 14-paragraph statement issued by Indonesia was to replace the communique. Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Mulyani described it as the “best result” the group could have achieved at the meeting, while admitting that chairing a fractured G-20 has been “quite overwhelming.”

Observers have expressed concern that the failure to agree on a joint communique would hinder coordinated efforts to solve rising global inflation and food shortages. Moreover it portends serious difficulty for the G-20 to forge a consensus on vital issues at the summit later in November.

Beyond the ministerial meetings, similar challenges have also occurred at some of the engagement group meetings. The Parliamentary 20 (P-20) Speakers’ Summit also failed to produce a joint statement. As an official engagement group in which non-government stakeholders offer solutions to their state counterparts, the P-20 assembly sought common ground on the green economy, food security, energy crisis, democracy, and social inclusivity. But despite these initial plans, no substantive agreements was reached by the lawmakers. The Indonesian House of Representatives’ speaker noted a sense of weakening multilateralism in a “world that is increasingly divided.” 

Media reported that Jokowi’s remarks about the need for a willingness to sit together for dialogue – the Indonesian president said that “conflict and division will only harm all parties” – were met with skepticism. The United States’ lead delegate for the P-20 said that “there was no agreement” made at the conclusion of the assembly and noted that the war took the biggest portion of talks at the meeting. The U.S. is especially strong in their stance to use as many forums to condemn Russian aggression as possible.

Following the failure to issue an outcome document, a chairman’s statement would instead be presented at the summit in November, which, as a non-binding document, would consist of an overview of the attending speakers’ discussions.

What to Expect Now

At a plenary cabinet session on October 11, roughly one month before the summit, Jokowi said he wants “the splendor of the Indonesian G-20 Presidency to be felt at home and abroad.” It seems he might be worried that enthusiasm for the G-20 has died down along with the derailment by other issues and debacles.

So what can we expect now of the G-20 Summit in November? The summit will be the culmination of the entire series of Sherpa Track, Finance Track, and Engagement Group meetings. Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi reported in September that the preparations for the summit were going well: “In the logistics and the substantial aspects, we are ready. I also believe that our preparation progress is on the right track.”

There is, however, much less confidence regarding the substantive aspects compared to logistical matters. The concern that the summit could produce nothing is valid. As of publication, eight months have passed since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. When the war first broke out, there was a glimpse of hope that some sort of settlement might be reached before the G-20 Summit. That hope is gone as the war persists. 

In the first half of October, following Ukrainian victories, Russia’s efforts have escalated, in particular with air strikes on Ukrainian cities distant from the frontline. In a joint statement released on October 11, the G-7 (which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K., and U.S., as well as the European Union) denounced Russia’s escalation and also committed to financially backing Ukraine “for as long as it takes.”

A few months ago, Western leaders had threatened to boycott the G-20 Summit if Russian President Vladimir Putin attends. This stance has shifted; mass Western non-attendance at the summit is now thought to be counterproductive, as it would give a free platform for Russia to engage with the rest of the G-20 leaders. Indonesia was nonetheless very concerned about this. 

In June 2022, Jokowi made a long trip to Germany, Ukraine, and then Russia. He persuaded the leaders of the G-7 to ensure their attendance at the summit, even if it is attended by Putin. And then he personally conveyed an invitation to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attend the meeting, followed by a visit to Moscow to try to persuade Putin to pursue peace. 

Looking at the current conditions, concerns about a mass boycott are pretty much settled. But there remain worries about the forum being hijacked by endless – and fierce – debate, culminating in a failure to produce a joint communique. Indonesia as G-20 president will need to get “crafty” to keep its global agenda priorities intact, as acknowledged by Marsudi.

There is no chance that discussion on Ukraine can be avoided, but the escalation of tension in the room could. And there is no shortage of commitments to maintain cooperation – various statements and commitments have been reaffirmed in different G-20 meetings throughout the year. So the spirit for cooperation is there. 

As I mentioned at the beginning, for Indonesia the G-20 presidency has two audiences: the international and the domestic. The international audience awaits a real outcome, in the form of concrete deliverables to tackle common global challenges. Marsudi suggested that the G-20 Summit will produce an outcome document comprising 34 paragraphs agreed upon by member countries. She also noted that Indonesia is focused on producing concrete cooperation programs and deliverables from its G-20 presidency and summit, with deliverables being “projects that have been carried out by G-20 member countries, either nationally, bilaterally, or multilaterally, which other countries can implement to solve common problems.” 

In the end, if no joint communique is produced, most will not put the blame on Indonesia. As if to remind the other G-20 members that the responsibility to ensure success is borne by all, Indonesia invited the G-20 member countries to show their responsibilities to the world to make the G-20 summit a success and resolve the existing crisis. Past G-20 summits have shown that negotiations to formulate the outcome documents have been tough, even under “normal” conditions. This time around, we might have to anticipate the worst.

For the domestic audience, the government had promised that the G-20 presidency would bring many benefits, including a direct impact on Indonesia's economy by increasing the country's foreign exchange earnings and a promotion of Indonesia’s openness for business. One month before the summit began, an advertorial ran in a popular online news site highlighting how the G-20 presidency would be “a momentum to showcase Indonesia as an investment-friendly country.” 

The latest campaign by the Ministry of Communications and Informatics involves several top national influencers, who have been hired to spread the word on the priority issues addressed in the G-20, with the aim to reach all levels of Indonesian society. The influencers will share various types of content through their social media platforms for their millions of followers to see, which includes topics such as “20 Healthy Habits to Increase Productivity” to foster public understanding of the Global Health Architecture agenda, and “Different Ways to Love the Earth” to promote the Sustainable Energy Transition agenda.

Even though the indicators to measure success at this level are different, it is obvious that the domestic audience is a significant target for the Indonesian government, so there is still a lot at stake here as well. The way the media will report on the summit will without a doubt shape the narrative in the public. Jokowi is looking to build a legacy as he nears the end of his second (and final) term in 2024, so this is a big deal for him.

A “failed” G-20 summit should be prevented by all means. For Indonesia, there will be scrutiny as to how the summit host responds to various challenges that will certainly crop up in the days approaching and during the summit. Nonetheless, different audiences will have different definitions of a successful summit. Indonesia is unlikely to make everyone happy, if that is even possible, but there are still serious issues at stake. The global food and energy crises, and overarching political chaos, are some of the threats lurking if the world’s 20 major developed and emerging economies do not find a common ground on at least some of the most important global agenda items.