One possible explanation for this could be because, aside from Indonesia, Singapore (an invited nation, not a G20 member) and the ASEAN Secretariat, Southeast Asia was largely absent from India’s G20 summit guest list last year. G20 was a platform where India demonstrated its diplomatic and leadership abilities in the context of Global South politics, and Southeast Asia’s absence could be a reason why this doesn’t seem to have permeated to the region. Pragmatically, if summits are meant for optics, New Delhi did a remarkable job. The fact that the G20 New Delhi Leaders' Declaration was achieved despite several opposing stakeholders at the table showcased India’s diplomatic prowess and convening power. In part, this might also be explained by India making a conscious call to pursue a more responsive and indeed perceptive Africa during its time as G20 chair, effectively leaving out Southeast Asia and ASEAN from its Global South mobilisation.
Yet it is ironic and unfortunate that Southeast Asia itself is missing from the larger Global South narrative.
Mostly inward looking in recent years, preoccupied with domestic troubles and an increasingly debilitating narrow-minded focus on outdated ASEAN mechanisms, Southeast Asia has not significantly positioned itself in the Global South – a strategic configuration that is gaining traction in an era of geopolitical uncertainty. This is a missed opportunity. Concerns of the Global South, especially in ensuring food, fuel, and fertilizer supplies along with obtaining adequate climate finance to expedite energy transitions, are all part of both the ASEAN and G20 agenda, and yet, no substantive efforts have been made to align the two institutions. ASEAN could take the lead in initiating a meaningful dialogue. This is important since, except for New Zealand, each of ASEAN’s dialogue partners – Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – are G20 members.
An overarching issue is whether there is an emerging “leader” of the Global South. There are doubtless pressing issues and urgent priorities for the developing world. And although it makes sense to think that India and China, as the two most populous and biggest economies in the Global South, would fight for “leadership” as part of their wider struggle for influence, it is clear that neither has it all figured out. China battles with an identity crisis, debating whether it truly belongs or wants to be considered “still developing”, whereas India’s appeal doesn’t reach to all quarters, notably Southeast Asia. Moreover, the two seem lost to each other, given China skipped the G20 summit in India.
So why is it important that India’s Global South ambitions turn to Southeast Asia? Such a move would lend more weight to India’s “Vishwabandhu” (friend of the world) pledge and its ambitions for its Global South in the long run. It would also be a more pro-active attempt on New Delhi’s part to engage a lukewarm Southeast Asia for one, offer deeper functional ties and meaningful movement on the Global South front.