Eurasia Press & News
Colleagues,
You have all had a chance to read the Declaration, so I will keep my opening remarks short.
The G20 Summit was an unqualified success. First and foremost, it was a success of the Indian Chairmanship, but also of all of us. The G20 is undergoing an internal reform. One aspect of this reform is that the member countries representing the Global South have become more proactive, with India leading the way. They have been clear and persistent in ensuring that their interests are included in the agreements negotiated by the G20. As a result, they were included in the Declaration.
They are eager to change the way the G20 is conducted so that the role of the Global South in global governance mechanisms is strengthened to adequately reflect its real weight in world affairs, including in the economic sphere, where BRICS has already surpassed the G7 countries in terms of gross national product.
The Declaration formulates the tasks of reforming the IMF, where, if quotas and votes are divided fairly, the Americans will not have an artificially preserved entitlement to block all others. The summit will give a serious and positive impetus to the efforts to reform the IMF and the WTO (it is also explicitly stated), which are artificially restrained by the Americans and their allies.
In the same vein, there is an emphasis on the need for the West to fulfil its commitments and long-standing promises, which are not being kept, including the transfer of technology. It is firmly stated that developing countries will no longer put up with being presented with a false choice: either to fight poverty or to invest in fighting climate change. This is a false dichotomy. The challenges of economic and social development take centre stage. In that regard, the Declaration also records the need to fulfil long-standing promises to transfer technology to the Global South, not just take their raw materials and then add value and make a profit. It is also stated that the West has long signed up to allocate $100 billion annually to prepare economies to deal with the adverse effects of climate change. None of this has been done.
The Declaration reminds us of everything that needs to be done, in line with long-standing pledges, to ensure a balance of interests in the global economy. The road is not a short one. Nevertheless, this summit was in some ways a watershed in terms of a clear focus on these challenges.
I would also like to note the important role played by the Indian presidency, which, for the first time in the history of the G20, has consolidated its participants that represent the Global South. Our BRICS partners, particularly India, Brazil, and South Africa, were highly active in this regard. This consolidated position adopted by the Global South in defence of its legitimate interests helped thwart the West’s attempt to Ukrainianise the agenda at the expense of discussing pressing issues facing developing countries.
Notably, the Ukraine paragraph is part of the agenda and is a subject of consensus, but it is not about Ukraine. Indeed, it mentions the Ukraine crisis, but only in the context of the importance of resolving all existing global conflicts in accordance with UN Charter goals and principles in their entirety and interrelation. This is important because as soon as Ukraine is mentioned, the West tends to avoid intellectual discussions and demands the cessation of Russian aggression and the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN Charter alongside the principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, but it was, in fact, included in the charter at a later date. We explained to our colleagues (we had many discussions about that behind closed doors) that when a state coup took place in Kiev in February 2014, and the coup leaders immediately declared their objective of abolishing the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, it served as a trigger. The residents of Crimea and Donbass were outraged and stated that they did not want to live in such a country. By treating its own citizens in this way, the Kiev regime undermined its own territorial integrity. The UN General Assembly’s declaration on Principles of International Law states that territorial integrity of states must be respected if their governments adhere to the principle of self-determination of peoples and represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territories in question. I believe that it is self-evident that the masterminds and perpetrators of the February 2014 coup in Kiev cannot claim to represent the interests of the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So, the Kiev regime destroyed its own territorial integrity and, in full compliance with the UN Charter and international law, the principle of self-determination of peoples came into force. We made this point clear one more time. Clearly, the G20 members have a correct understanding of what is happening. I’m confident that some of our Western colleagues are perfectly clear about this as well, but they are banking on the strategic defeat of the Russian Federation.
Overall, the paragraph deals with geopolitical realities. In addition to the importance of resolving all conflicts around the world based on the UN Charter principles in their entirety and interrelation, it contains important agreements on how to proceed in the sphere of food security. Our position has been made known in full. President Putin has repeatedly conveyed it. It is important (if everyone is interested) to reinstate the Black Sea initiative in full, including both components of the package proposed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, namely, Russian fertiliser and grain, and Ukrainian grain.
In this regard, I would also like to highlight another paragraph in the geopolitical section where the West had to agree to a significant shift in its position, calling for an end to attacks and the destruction of critical energy infrastructure related to agriculture. It does not explicitly mention it, but everyone understands that this covers the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines, the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, the strikes on the Kakhovka HPP, and the ongoing launches of drones against the Zaporozhye NPP. I believe this is a balanced and, most importantly, realistic paragraph that we supported.
The declaration contains over 80 paragraphs. I’m confident that you have already reviewed it or will do so soon.
The summit’s success has created extra opportunities for continuing work to ensure fairness in the global economy and financial sectors. Following this summit, the Western countries should think again about whether they are capable of and whether it is in their own interests to continue their pursuit of dominance. The West will not be able to maintain its position of hegemon given that new global development, economic growth and financial power centres have objectively emerged and are quickly gaining strength and political influence. I believe the declaration offers a healthy solution in terms of the need to achieve a fair and just balance of interests. The goal is distant, but things have started moving in this direction.
In turn, we will continue to strengthen these positive trends, including during Brazil’s G20 presidency in 2024 and South Africa’s presidency in 2025.
In his closing remarks during today’s final session, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said he would convene another G20 summit online, via video conferencing, before the end of 2023 (most likely in late November). This will offer another opportunity to see once again how the agreements approved today are being put into practice and to pass the baton more effectively to our Brazilian colleagues.
Question: With regard to the West’s reaction, there was a slight dissonance. Some leaders, such as UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his German counterpart Olaf Scholz, said there was some strong language regarding Russia in the declaration which can be seen as success. Meanwhile, the Western media are calling it a failure in terms of the Ukrainian track. What can you say about this?
Sergey Lavrov: There is not much to say about it. You have read the text. I think that if the Western leaders you mentioned consider everyone to be naive and they explain to everyone that the text condemns Russia, but our country is not mentioned once in the declaration. The declaration mentions things that I have just mentioned that reflect the persistent efforts by India and our other like-minded partners who prevented the entity created to address global economic and financial issues from being turned into a politicised circle.
As for what the media are saying, I have seen a variety of assessments. The Financial Times said it was a failure for the West. On the other hand, according to Reuters, the West coordinated this section of the joint declaration and turned it over to the Russian Federation as an ultimatum. It is laughable. Grown-up people are spreading rumours that cannot be taken seriously.
We once again thanked our Indian friends. They stood their watch with honour and made a substantial contribution to laying the foundation for further work on democratising international economic and financial relations.
To be continued…
