The G20 Summit in Buenos Aires was the most bizarre in the short history of that gathering which held its inaugural meeting in Washington against the backdrop of the 2008 financial crisis. It reflected a picture of a dysfunctional family suffering from internal strife, with its members differing on almost everything from economic growth and financial regulations to trade, poverty and climate change. The final communique was testimony to a very troubled international system. The two days of discussions revealed a world divided between protectionism, on the one hand, and free trade on the other. There was also no hiding the differences between those who recognise the damaging effects of global warming, and those denying them; and between those accepting international responsibility to reduce poverty and solve the refugee and migration crisis, and those who clearly refuse to share any responsibility. To put this chaos into perspective, we must remember that the G20 countries represent two-thirds of the global population and 85 per cent of its GDP. In a sense, we are in an order-less world. The Trump administration does not like NAFTA, the UN, NATO, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the EU and the WTO, among other multilateral entities. At the G20 meeting, leaders made compromises to avoid the fate of the last two world gatherings, the G7 Summit last summer in Hamburg, and also the dismal failure of the APEC Summit in mid-November where leaders failed to agree on a joint communique for the first time in the group's 30-year history due to differences, especially between the US and China. The G20 communique began with a statement of principle the Europeans insisted on, but the US was not ready to agree to. It reads: “We renew our commitment to work together to improve a rules-based international order that is capable of effectively responding to a rapidly changing world.” The US delegation had opposed the positive reference to a “rules-based international order” as they argued the current system is skewed against the US and has allowed China to get away with unfair trading practices. For the same reason, the US opposed references to the threat of protectionism to global growth, insisting Trump's use of tariffs is a legitimate response to a skewed playing field. The result was a communique that treated words like “multilateralism” with suspicion. A phrase recognising the importance of the “multilateral trading system” was included in the final communique only after acknowledging that the WTO was falling short of its objectives. The final statement read: “International trade and investment are important engines of growth, productivity, innovation, job creation and development,” adding that, “we recognise the contribution that the multilateral trading system has made to that end. The system is currently falling short of its objectives and there is room for improvement.” This compromise formulation allowed US officials to claim victory. The United States is unhappy with what it says is the WTO's failure to hold Beijing to account for not opening up its economy as envisioned when China joined the body in 2001. A senior White House official called the summit a success in part because the US had been able to exclude language on “multilateralism”. So, for the first time, the G20 recognised the WTO, the body supposed to regulate global trade disputes, is currently falling short of meeting its objectives and that it is in need of “reform”. The leaders agreed to make significant progress on reform before the next G20, in Osaka, next June. To force reform at the WTO, Trump's team has blocked new appointments to the world's top trade court, which is rapidly running out of judges, meaning it will be unable to issue binding rulings in trade disputes. The US team has even threatened to withdraw the United States from the global body. “There was an attempt from a lot of the other countries to get the United States to commit to certain language with regard to the multilateral system,” said one senior US official to Reuters. “We commit to multilateralism where it works. Is it achieving its intended objectives? In a lot of areas, it is falling short,” said the US official. Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton, also pushed for a hard-line position, particularly on the role of the IMF. But European officials led a pushback, arguing that if the agreement on common principles was watered down too much, the communique would be meaningless and the G20 would be robbed of its purpose. Also, for the first time since G20 leaders held their inaugural meeting 10 years ago, the communique did not contain a pledge to fight protectionism. The US administration has become sensitive to criticism after President Trump imposed tariffs not only on $250 billion-worth of Chinese goods, but also on steel and aluminium imports, hitting several of his G20 partners. China, meanwhile, steadfastly opposed the inclusion of the usual calls for “fair trade practices”, delegates said. Beijing rejects criticisms from the United States, Europe and Japan for dumping, industrial subsidies, abuse of intellectual property rights and technology transfers, amongst other practices. The last dispute was over refugees and migration, with the US opposing references to the role of multilateral organisations in dealing with the issue and the responsibility of wealthy countries to mitigate the human cost. The compromise reached puts off addressing the crisis until next year when Japan will hold the G20 presidency. The paragraph dealing with the refugee crisis simply says they are a “global concern” and that “shared actions” to address the causes and consequences of displacement are “important”. On climate change, members of G20 agreed to disagree. The United States reaffirmed its commitment to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, as it had at the previous G20 gathering in Germany last year, while other members said they would fully implement it. The two-day chaos was capped by an awkward “family photo” where body language showed discomfort, annoyance and even anxiety. The summit happened as French leader Emmanuel Macron was facing growing pressure to find a way out of the deepest crisis of his presidency after protests over taxes sparked Paris's worst rioting in decades. Trump also came to the summit facing more pressure after his ex-personal lawyer iMchael Cohen admitting to lying before Congress in 2017 about a proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow, a move that will empower Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Theresa May is struggling to keep her Brexit plan alive in front of enormous opposition in the UK House of Commons. The summit marked also Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman's first appearance at a major international event since the killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Despite the communique and the compromises, the summit did not achieve anything that will give hope of bridging differences that are pushing the world deeper into anxiety and doubt.
