The meeting of the G20 foreign ministers in Atlanta, on October 30–31, ended without a joint communiqué and without the traditional group photograph of the participants. Objections to Russia’s presence and disagreements over wars, trade, and representation within the group highlighted the difficulties of cooperation among major powers. For the leaders’ summit in Miami, on December 14–15, this is a political warning, but above all an economic one. Countries that need to cooperate to protect growth and stability are increasingly using economic relations as instruments of strategic competition.

However, the absence of a ministerial communiqué does not mean that the summit is destined to fail. The ministers did not rule out the possibility of compromise; they left unresolved issues that now require decisions at the highest political level. The problem is that these issues can no longer be easily separated in today’s economic and geopolitical environment.

1. ENERGY SECURITY AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

The US presidency aims to refocus the G20 on growth and prosperity, emphasising affordable energy, the easing of regulatory burdens, and technological innovation. However, the discussions in Atlanta showed that energy security, supply chains, and international trade are directly dependent on political and military developments. This is the contradiction that will accompany the Miami summit: the economy requires predictability, while relations between the major powers generate uncertainty.

Behind this contradiction lies interdependence. Even as governments seek to reduce their dependence on rivals, they remain exposed to international energy prices, industrial supplies, transport, and financial conditions. For this reason, political divisions do not remain confined to diplomatic halls. They can translate into production costs, consumer prices, investment decisions, and budget expenditures.

Energy is the most direct link between conflict and the economy. In Atlanta, concerns about navigation through the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb were linked to the security of supplies. Discussions also covered oil, liquefied natural gas, and chemical fertilisers as components of the supply chains that underpin energy and economic security.

The importance of these discussions goes beyond the supply of fuel to petrol stations. When energy and transportation become more expensive, businesses face higher costs for producing and distributing goods. Depending on competition and demand, they may pass some of these costs on to consumers or accept lower profit margins.

2. INFLATION AND MONETARY POLICY

Concerns about energy-driven inflation and the possibility of monetary tightening were also present during the G20 financial discussions in Asheville. Thus, a security crisis can simultaneously complicate the fight against inflation and efforts to promote economic growth.

This is a particularly difficult problem for policymakers. If price pressures persist, the scope for lowering interest rates may be limited. But more expensive financing weighs on businesses, households, and countries alike. At the meeting of finance ministers, concerns about debt, inflation, and fiscal conditions were accompanied by shocks in bond markets. For Miami, this means that the debate about growth cannot be separated from the question of how much it costs to finance it.

3. TARIFFS AND COMMERCIAL POLICY

Another equally important front is trade. The economic divisions that will come to the fore in Miami did not begin in Atlanta. At the Asheville financial meeting, China objected to parts of the chairmanship’s statement dealing with economic imbalances and practices deemed untradeable. Other participants supported the call for economies with large and persistent external surpluses to remove policies that restrict domestic consumption and encourage excessive dependence on exports. In simpler terms, the debate concerns how demand and production are distributed across the world economy.

Washington and some of its partners argue that state-backed, export-oriented manufacturing puts pressure on the industries of other countries. But the discussion is not only about China. Differences between the United States and Europe are also evident here. European Commissioner for the Economy Valdis Dombrovskis identified China as an important source of imbalances, but emphasised that the US and Europe also have a responsibility to correct them. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil criticised the uncertainty created by US tariff conflicts. Thus, the existence of shared concerns about Chinese policies does not imply unconditional support for the means employed by Washington.

For the Miami summit, this creates a concrete dilemma. Tariffs may protect certain producers from external competition, but they also alter trade flows and the conditions under which trading partners operate. In Asheville, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued that American restrictions were shifting part of Chinese exports towards other markets. In this way, a protectionist national policy can transfer economic pressure to third countries without necessarily resolving the broader issue of production capacity and demand.

Uncertainty surrounding tariffs also affects investment. For a company considering the construction of a factory or the expansion of a supply network, knowing current prices is not enough; it must also assess whether it will be able to import raw materials and export its products under relatively stable conditions.

Another dimension is the competition for critical minerals. In Atlanta, the US administration promoted the “Pax Silica” initiative, which aims to foster cooperation among countries concerned about China’s dominance in rare earths and other strategic materials. This places supply security at the heart of economic competition. The question is no longer merely whether a product can be purchased at the lowest price, but whether supplies will remain available in the event of a political confrontation.

Diversification can reduce vulnerability, but it does not come without costs. Developing alternative sources, processing capacities, and new trade links requires investment. The expected benefit is a more secure supply; the dilemma lies in how much economies should pay for this security and how the costs should be distributed. If partnerships are formed primarily on the basis of political alignment, they may strengthen certain supply chains while deepening the fragmentation of the global market.

This concern is not merely hypothetical: restrictions on the export of critical minerals were discussed during the financial meetings, where calls were made to avoid unnecessary limitations that disrupt the functioning of global supply chains.

Public debt further complicates this transition. Governments are expected to support growth, invest in energy and technology, and address security risks—all while maintaining the sustainability of their public finances. However, these objectives compete for the same resources. Sovereign debt was part of the G20 financial agenda, with disagreements involving China also affecting the wording of discussions on debt restructuring. Consequently, a general statement on development in Miami will remain insufficient unless it is accompanied by clarity on financing and the handling of debt distress.

4. THE ISSUE OF FOOD SECURITY RESURFACES

Food security links these issues even more directly to everyday life. In Atlanta, Ukrainian grain exports through the Black Sea were addressed as a component of global supply stability. Meanwhile, discussions concerning energy and chemical fertilisers demonstrated that food prices depend on more than harvests alone; they are also tied to agricultural inputs and transportation. For this reason, the American call to refrain from using food trade as an instrument of economic or political coercion carries significance that extends beyond mere diplomacy. It relates to the ability to safeguard essential supplies from the escalation of rivalries.

It is precisely in these areas that a realistic outcome might be sought in Miami.

The summit is unlikely to resolve disagreements over economic models, wars, or the distribution of power. However, it will be worthwhile if it produces limited, measurable, and actionable commitments concerning essential supplies, the transparency of trade restrictions, or financial cooperation. These are not agreements that have already been reached, but rather criteria for distinguishing a substantive economic outcome from a purely ceremonial success.

Political issues will continue to weigh on this endeavour. Disagreements over Russia’s participation, the failure to invite South Africa to Atlanta, and the proposal for Poland’s membership indicate that the discussion also concerns the legitimacy of the negotiating table itself. A forum cannot expect the collective implementation of commitments if its participants lack confidence in how representation and priorities are determined.

Therefore, the true test in Miami will not simply be whether the leaders manage to pose for a photograph or adopt a declaration. Rather, it will be whether they can make the global economy somewhat more predictable—by ensuring more secure supplies, reducing trade uncertainty, and establishing a clearer direction for financial cooperation. / Panorama

*Academician, Prof. Dr Anastas Angjeli is economy expert, former Economy Minister and MP, founder and president of the Mediterranean University of Albania