Li Yunqi, Journalist
CGTN Radio

“If there’s an extra guest, you have to prepare an extra pair of chopsticks,” – an ancient Chinese wisdom for the upcoming G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The global economic order is undergoing an obvious shift toward Global South countries, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that by 2030, developing economies will account for 60% of global GDP—up from already 50% in 2010. With emerging markets playing an increasingly prominent role at the global “economic table,” the question facing the G20 is clear: Where is the hospitality, and those extra pairs of chopsticks?

Formed in the 1970s, G7, the more “elite” club of G20, was designed to address the economic challenges of its time. At its peak, the G7 nations accounted for 60-70% of global GDP, with the U.S. alone contributing 25%. This dominance made the G7 a natural hub for global economic decision-making.

But as the global economy diversified, so too did the need for governance structures that reflected this reality. By the 1990s, the rapid growth of emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil reduced the G7’s share of global GDP. Recognizing the limitations of G7 as an exclusive forum, the G20 was established in 1999, incorporating a broader range of voices from across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Yet, despite its broader membership, the governance structures of the G20 still tilt heavily toward historically dominant economies, leaving the perspectives of the Global South underrepresented.

In 2023, developing economies attracted about 65% of global foreign direct investment (FDI). Many of these nations boast young populations, in stark contrast to aging demographics in Western countries. For instance, Africa’s median age is 18.8, compared to over 40 in many Western European countries. By 2030, the Asian middle class alone is expected to exceed 3 billion people.

These economic transformations underline the need for more fair and inclusive governance systems. Just as a gracious host ensures there are enough chopsticks for every guest, the G20 must adapt to accommodate the realities of a multipolar economic world.

This is not merely a symbolic gesture. Global South nations have legitimate demands for reforms in international institutions like the United Nations Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank, all of which remain skewed toward the interests of Western nations. The inclusion of perspectives from emerging economies isn’t just about fairness—it’s about crafting more effective and sustainable solutions to global challenges.

The rise of the BRICS is a case in point. Originally formed as a loose group of emerging economies, BRICS has evolved into a platform for addressing global imbalances, recently expanding to include nations like Argentina, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This expansion signals a broader desire among Global South countries for alternative frameworks to the traditional Western-led institutions.

The 2024 G20 Summit in Brazil offers a rare chance to recalibrate global governance. With a host nation that is itself a leader in the Global South, the summit is well-positioned to champion a more balanced approach to decision-making for global affairs.

This does not mean sidelining the priorities of developed nations; rather, it calls for recognizing that the inclusion of diverse perspectives leads to more innovative and equitable solutions. For Western countries, this shift will require letting go of long-held assumptions about leadership and embracing the legitimacy of different economic models and governance approaches.

The Global South’s rise is not about dismantling the established order but about evolving it to reflect the realities of today’s interconnected world. By preparing those extra pairs of chopsticks, the G20 can ensure a more inclusive future—one that respects the voices of all its members, regardless of their economic status.

Not having to share the table may seem convenient, but if we zoom out, we see that many in the world still struggle to secure even the basics, let alone a seat at the global table. Preparing a few extra pairs of chopsticks isn’t just a metaphor, but a call for a more balanced, diverse, and inclusive global order.

Our people have endured decades of oppression, during which their rights were virtually destroyed and forgotten. In the post-Oslo period, when the Palestinian leadership opted for negotiations, settlement expansion accelerated while the foundations of national independence eroded under partition, isolation and prolonged blockades. Today, the occupation seeks to complete the historic Nakba by exploiting the Palestinian uprising that began on 7 October in response to escalating Zionist extremism, attempts at Judaisation and efforts to marginalise and eradicate the Palestinian entity. This existential challenge, backed by a broad coalition with regional and international dimensions that do not serve the interests of our people, obliges us to unite our efforts around common principles. Despite these barbaric attacks, limited resources and the imbalance of power with the enemy, we stand in solidarity with the resistance and determination of the Palestinian people. If these efforts are coordinated, we can put counter-pressure on the occupation, deepen its political and legal isolation and worsen its economic crisis. This will be an opportunity to force the occupation and its allies to stop the aggression and strengthen the ongoing struggle of our people.

Today, the Palestinian people are facing one of the heaviest Zionist attacks on the Gaza Strip, which reaches the dimensions of genocide and ethnic cleansing. According to unofficial statistics, the number of Palestinian martyrs since the beginning of the war has exceeded 186,000, and the environmental and health destruction caused by the attacks has directly contributed to this number. This scenario could, God forbid, be repeated in the West Bank, with radical settlers attacking Palestinian towns and villages through the occupation army or with the official support of the occupation government.

Historically, the Palestinians have paid the heaviest price for the Western approach to the Eastern question. The consequences of this approach have been disastrous for us: It not only led to the seizure of our land by the Zionist movement, but also paved the way for the establishment of a settler state. In this war, the Arab and Islamic countries acted with great responsibility, rejecting the international categorisation of the resistance as terrorism and insisting on presenting it as a national liberation movement.

Arab and Islamic countries have played a strong role in supporting our cause in international forums, with a growing regional awareness of a common destiny and the need for common security against a common enemy. This solidarity is a very important step in supporting our cause through the work of the Ministerial Committee of the Arab-Islamic Summit convened in Riyadh, which is expected to be an international framework for shaping a solution to the Palestinian issue in accordance with the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Internationally, unlike in previous crises, we have seen clear international positions condemning the genocide and crimes against humanity committed against our people, reflected in firm positions at the United Nations. We appreciate these positions of the nations and peoples of the world and see the path to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on international legitimacy as the result of more than a century of Palestinian struggle and the revival of their rights, which have historical and political roots. Since 1922, the foundations of a Palestinian state have been laid, and despite British and Zionist conspiracies, Palestine retains its political primacy on the world map.

Today, more than 150 countries recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of international resolutions such as the General Assembly Settlement Plan (Resolution 181), the Algiers Declaration declaring the State of Palestine in 1988, and Security Council resolutions on the illegality of settlements outside the 1967 borders. The most recent resolution demands that Israel end its ‘illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ within 12 months of the General Assembly’s request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine. The resolution was adopted with overwhelming support – 24 votes in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions – demonstrating the gains made by the Palestinian cause and highlighting the growing political isolation of the occupying state.

Despite the obstacles to sovereignty posed by the occupation, the Palestinian state remains a legal reality. We see current international efforts to revive these historic and entrenched rights, against the post-World War II trend of international powers favouring the establishment of a Zionist political entity at our expense.

These forward-looking initiatives, called the ‘International Alliance for the Realisation of the Two-State Solution’, include direct steps to organise the establishment of a Palestinian state, rather than merely negotiating its right to exist. This is an important step for regional security and international peace, a necessary way to stabilise the global system and prevent the spread of geopolitical conflicts, sometimes with a religious or cultural dimension.

Diplomatic and political efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood must be compatible with efforts to end the war, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian aid and address the consequences of the aggression through compensation and reconstruction. At the same time, Palestinian efforts to meet the conditions for a sovereign state consistent with the principles of regional security and global peace should be intensified.

In the midst of these efforts, it is clear that the Palestinian forces will respond sincerely to these initiatives and are willing to overcome differences over governance, elections and the so-called ‘day after’ issues. Palestinian behaviour shows that these disputes are now a thing of the past and that focusing on the future enhances the ability to build and govern the Palestinian state on the basis of national spirit and solidarity.

The American elections ended “as expected” with Trump’s victory. The polls were wrong again, often showing Trump and Kamala Harris neck and neck. Trump did well both in the overall vote and in the swing states. At the time of writing, the results for the House of Representatives have not been finalized. If they win a majority there too, the Republicans will have won a huge victory. In addition to the presidency, Trump will give them overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, state governorships and state legislatures.

What will Trump do and how will he do it?

This time I followed the American election at the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia. The annual forum was attended by a group of about fifty to sixty academics, think-tankers, and experts from around the world, and about twenty to thirty experts from Russia, including, as usual, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (second day) and Russian President Putin (closing session on the last day). Deputy Prime Minister Novak and Kremlin Chief of Staff Oreshkin also attended the Forum, speaking at length and answering questions. As was the case last year, Putin’s introductory speech and subsequent Q&A session lasted more than four hours. He spoke with an incredibly clear content and style, without mincing words.

One of the most striking aspects of the Forum, which I attended for the second time (4-7 November), was that all participants were following the U.S. election with great interest. After Trump’s victory became clear, you could hear different comments from participants depending on which country they came from. For example, while those from Russia and other countries welcomed Trump’s arrival with the expectation that he would put an end to the policy pursued so far by the collective West in the war in Ukraine, guests from China and/or those focusing on China thought that there could be fierce winds between Washington and Beijing.

Similarly divergent views were immediately apparent among participants from Middle Eastern countries. For example, while some Middle Eastern participants were somewhat positive about the serious possibility of an American withdrawal from Syria and Iraq under Trump, Iranian participants spoke of the possibility of war between Iran and a Trump administration that is likely to fully support Israel.

On the other hand, Western participants (such as the UK and Canada) tended to see Trump’s arrival as the beginning of the end of the neo-liberal economic order. The neoliberal economic models, which have catastrophically widened the gap between rich and poor and almost eliminated the middle class, the foundation of democracies, are already being harshly criticized by the experts participating in the Valdai meetings.

First assessments

First of all, the Western participants emphasized the beginning of the end of neo-liberal economic policies. It seems that neoliberal economic policies have been rejected in their home country, America. Especially since the 1980s, neo-liberal economic policies, which the U.S. not only implemented but also imposed almost everywhere in the world, have been turned into an opportunity for their own rapid development by countries like China and Vietnam, which have implemented nationalist and planned development models, while in most developed countries, especially in the U.S., these policies have caused great rifts in societies. The consequences for us are perhaps among the worst in the world…

The main reasons for Trump’s exit were the excessive monetization of the entire U.S. system, the massive retreat from industrial production, and the fact that while the economy grew, it had no positive impact on the lives of a large part of the population. What remains to be seen is how much of what Trump says will be translated into policy and action. For example, will it be possible to force companies that have invested in industry and advanced technology in China, other Far Eastern countries, and Mexico for decades to come back and invest in the U.S.? If not, will Trump be able to impose high tariffs on goods from countries that export massive amounts of goods to the U.S., especially China, as he said during the campaign? And will he be able to maintain public support for such measures?

On the other hand, if Trump, who has promised to cut taxes, does so, how will he deal with the rapidly growing budget deficit and the national debt, which has already exceeded 35 trillion dollars and whose annual interest rate is around one trillion dollars (and will probably continue to rise)? I wonder if he will be able to seriously reduce the country’s defence spending, despite the fact that the arms companies, which are the most important part of the structure we will briefly describe as the Deep State, are engaged in a battle with him to prevent him from winning the elections? Perhaps… Maybe he even has to…

Foreign policy options

Trump has tied himself in knots over the war in Ukraine. There is no doubt that Trump, whose words ‘If I were president, I would not have allowed this war to start, if I were re-elected, I would end it with a few phone calls’ are etched in our memories, will take serious steps to end the war in our north. The opposition will be all the components of the American deep state, especially the arms companies, and the governments in Europe. If Trump, who this time seems to be more prepared for a comprehensive struggle with the Deep State, is not assassinated and consolidates his power, he can turn his statements on the Ukrainian war into policy.

The second opposition he is likely to face on the Ukraine war will be the weak governments in Europe. For the Baltic states, which would like to see Russia strategically defeated in Ukraine and then see that huge country torn to shreds, and for the European states that have turned the historical grievances of the former Eastern Europe into their own Russia policy, Trump’s election is a disaster in the truest sense of the word.

They can say to Trump: ‘Let’s continue the war in Ukraine, you can continue your arms and financial aid, we will fully support you in your China policy, and if you want, we can even go as far as recognizing Taiwan as an independent state’. However, such a policy would mean that Trump would be doing the opposite of everything he has said so far – especially on Ukraine. On the other hand, while Trump may be preparing for a trade war with China, we do not know much about his intention to start a hot war, or rather a proxy war, over Taiwan.

It goes without saying that Trump is totally opposed to wars against overseas countries, which have become a concept of hatred in the eyes of a large part of American society and which cause enormous costs. Therefore, we can say that Trump may engage in trade wars with China while focusing on stopping the war in Ukraine, but beyond that he is more likely to stay away from a proxy war that risks setting the entire world on fire.

Middle East scenarios

We know that Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria and Iraq during his first term, but the deep state elements prevented this with many maneuvers, and in the case of Syria, Ambassador James Jeffrey, who was America’s special envoy after 2019, said in a statement after Trump lost the elections that they deceived the president by pretending to withdraw from Syria. It is even possible to speak of Trump’s determination on this issue. It is even easy to say that the same determination is in question for Iraq. All this can create extremely important opportunities for Turkey, which we will discuss in our articles and Strategic Compass broadcastings in the coming weeks.

The question of Trump and Israel undoubtedly requires extensive analysis. There is no doubt that there is a lot of truth in theses such as that he will be strongly pro-Israel, that he will march on Iran or that he will unleash Israel on Iran. On the other hand, it may be misleading to expect that Trump, who has consistently stated that he will not start a new war in the Middle East, will give Israel or Netanyahu, whom he does not like very much, a blank cheque.

This is because we know that he unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which had been reached in the previous period, in order to please the Israeli lobby, whose help and support he needed in his fight against the deep state, especially in his first term, and that he has made the agreement obsolete and turned to a policy of maximum pressure against Iran. However, all this does not mean that he will now start a war with Iran, especially in a multipolar world order… Since the probability of America and/or Israel winning a war with Iran is low and Iran will not be an easy target, we can assume that Trump’s support for Israel will be subject to certain limitations. All this shows that we are/will be at the beginning of a very extraordinary period.