Indonesia’s leadership of the G20
Jokowi stresses healthcare, digital transformation and sustainable energy
IN his remarks upon unveiling Indonesia’s Group of 20 (G20) presidency, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo (pic) emphasised three main priorities: inclusive healthcare, digital-based transformation and the transition to sustainable energy.
During its presidency, which started Dec 1, Indonesia wants members of the world’s 20 largest economies to take concrete steps to realise the three priorities beyond rhetoric and ceremonial manner.
The challenge for Indonesia is therefore how to construe the G20 presidency in the perspective of diplomacy and foreign policy.
The big theme of Indonesia’s G20 presidency – recover together, recover stronger – carries an important message, which is intertwined with the dynamics of current international politics.
This, for example, is manifested in the priority goal of inclusive healthcare, which came on the heels of feuds among countries since the early days of the pandemic.
The pandemic has witnessed at least three dynamics that affect the mood of international politics. First, when Covid-19 began to spread globally, the United States and China accused each other of being the origin of the virus.
Undoubtedly, Covid-19 has intensified the global power rivalry, which takes shape not only in diplomatic manoeuvring, particularly in medical equipment and vaccine supplies, but also penetrates into the realm of ideology.
When the West was grappling with the Covid-19 spread in midmarch 2020 – only three months after the discovery of the coronavirus – China declared victory over the pandemic.
China has built a grand narrative that it has succeeded in defeating Covid-19 in a unified, strong, effective and efficient way, thanks to a single party political system, as against liberal democracy, which is considered slow, noisy and panicked in making decisions.
In the context of values and ideals, the Us-china rivalry is driven by ideological competition and the system of government: between democracy and authoritarianism (Matthew Kroenig, The Power Delusion, Foreign Policy, Nov 11, 2020). Complex rivalries can hinder international cooperation in fighting the pandemic.
Second, the emergence of nationalism in medical equipment and vaccines. Most countries were frantic about Covid-19 when it first spread out. To save themselves, the states banned exports of medical equipment and diverted medical equipment shipments from one country to another.
Due to the “me first” political mantra the European Union failed to devise a joint action to help Italy, which was hit hardest by the pandemic in the European region. This spiritual atmosphere of relations between countries is not conducive to international cooperation against Covid-19.
Third, the unequal distribution of vaccines. When supplies of medical equipment are secured, a new problem arises: vaccine distribution. The EU and the United
Kingdom have accused each other of banning the export of the Astrazeneca vaccine.
Although Astrazeneca belongs to the UK and Sweden, the EU claims it has the right to decide destinations of the vaccine, which is produced in Leiden (Netherlands) and in Anagni (Italy).
The EU’S reasoning is understandable because it wants to meet the vaccine needs of its member countries. Unfortunately, the UK has also banned distribution of Astrazeneca produced in Wrexham and Oxford to the Eurozone unless its domestic needs are met.
The nationalistic attitude has resulted in acute unequal access to vaccines. Director-general of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros A. Ghebreyesus said vaccine nationalism was not only morally indefensible, but epidemiologically it would destroy others.
To illustrate, rich countries whose population accounts for 16% of the world’s population have purchased more than 60% of the global vaccines in store. In contrast, according to Tedros, poor countries have to fight to get a vaccine for 20% of the population by the end of 2021. With this glaring inequality, cooperation between rich and poor countries is a necessity. Therefore, prioritisation of inclusive health care to combat Covid-19 finds its relevance. This is the main challenge for Indonesia’s G20 presidency: To ensure vaccines are distributed evenly to all countries.
The question is whether Indonesia can fulfil the mandate.
Theoretically, a country’s ability to deliver its international mandate depends on its power and influence.
Today, there is a shift in the concept of power. Power is no longer defined as military power and the structural hierarchy of relations between countries.
The new concept related to power is introduced, namely metapower (Peter Fisk, Soft Power Megatrend, Global Soft Power Index, 2020). According to Fisk, metapower is not gained through a great military, but results from a good reputation. Metapower is obtained because of contribution to a better, healthier and happier world community.
The keywords are “reputation” and “contribution” to the world.