If any images capture the changing world order, it is the two photographs from the recent APEC and G20 summits. At both events, outgoing US President Joe Biden was absent from the kind of prominence once reserved for the ‘leader of the free world’. Instead, China’s Xi Jinping stole the spotlight with effortless authority.

In Peru, at last week’s APEC summit, leaders were arranged alphabetically, placing China ahead of the United States. At the G20 in Rio de Janeiro, the group photo was reportedly taken before Biden arrived, according to US diplomats.

But these moments reveal something far more significant—not just China’s growing influence in Latin America, a region long considered as Washington’s backyard, but America's tone-deaf approach to the concerns and issues that matter to a wider segment of the global population.

Beyond that, they reflect a deeper shift in the region’s mindset—a growing determination to step away from under the shadow of its northern neighbour, increasingly seen as a fading power on the global stage.

The disregard for Biden at both events also delivers a broader message—after decades of being sidelined on platforms dominated by Washington and its wealthy Western allies, Latin America appears ready to chart its own course, somewhat free from the pressures of advanced economies.

If any doubts remained about the waning influence of Western powers within the G20—a group representing 85% of global GDP, 75% of international trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population—they were shredded during the weekend’s drawn-out negotiations.

After hours of wrangling, diplomats produced a joint statement that carefully avoided direct criticism of Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, who sent his foreign minister in his place. The final communiqué acknowledged the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine and stressed the importance of territorial integrity, yet it conspicuously refrained from Western demands to assign blame to the Russian leader.

For the advanced economies, long accustomed to leading the choir at such international gatherings, it was a sobering reminder that their dominance in shaping global discourse is no longer guaranteed. This divide was starkly evident in the contrasting positions taken by G20 host Brazil and China, which advocated for peaceful negotiations, in opposition to the leaders of the Group of Seven, the world’s most powerful democracies.

Yet, President Biden did little to garner support for his strategy in Ukraine, which has largely failed the people of the war-torn country. On the eve of the summit, he authorised President Zelensky to strike Russian targets with long-range missiles supplied by the US, sending a clear message that the West seemed more focused on escalating the conflict than on securing a peaceful, negotiated resolution.

In its response, the Kremlin announced a loosening of its nuclear weapons policy, a move that sent shockwaves through Kyiv’s allies in Washington, European capitals, and beyond, bringing the United States and Russia to the brink of direct military conflict.

Not just on the global stage but at home, Biden’s decision drew sharp criticism, with many seeing it as an attempt to entangle his successor, Donald Trump, in a conflict the incoming president has repeatedly vowed to end on his first day in the Oval Office.

From the outset of the Rio summit, it was clear that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, presiding over the G20, came with a firm agenda and little interest in yielding to pressure from G7 leaders—particularly those advocating for continued support of the war in Ukraine. That resolve was reflected in the final communiqué, a watered-down statement that frustrated G7 leaders with its cautious language on the Ukraine conflict, which has exposed divisions not only within the G20 but also among Western nations themselves.

While communiqués are typically issued at the close of a summit, Brazil's President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, faced criticism for approving the final text a day early, reportedly in the absence of leaders from France, Germany, and the United States. Yet, stepping into Brazil’s shoes might offer a clearer perspective on the events that unfolded.

President Biden’s unexpected decision to authorise the use of long-range missiles against targets in Russia overshadowed Brazil’s focus on anti-poverty and climate efforts—once again signalling to the G20 that the West prioritises its own agenda over the pressing concerns of much of the world’s population. Since leaving the venue, leaders from France, Britain, Canada, and Germany have criticised Lula’s handling of the G20 summit, particularly his decision to sideline their calls for a stronger statement on Ukraine.

But their push to double down on support for Kyiv and elevate the conflict to the top of the agenda—citing what they describe as an ‘illegal invasion’ by Russia—appears to have overlooked a glaring reality. Across much of the developing world, outrage over the atrocities in Gaza is as palpable, if not more so, than the anger directed at other conflicts. More than 46,000 people, including thousands of children, have been killed in the ongoing violence in the enclave, yet the crisis has been met with nothing but hollow words from G7 leaders.

And once again, at the recent G20 summit, dominated by geopolitical rivalries, Gaza barely registered on the agenda of advanced economies—a glaring omission given the scale of the humanitarian disaster.

This indifference is not new. Since the conflict erupted on 7 October last year, the disregard for Gaza’s suffering has been obvious. While the US and its G7 allies have championed Ukraine’s plight as the world’s foremost peace priority, their actions at the UN tell a different story. Washington, for the 49th time last week, vetoed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, further cementing its reputation as an unreliable mediator in the Middle East’s enduring chaos. Critics argue that such moves expose a profound hypocrisy at the heart of the global order.

Meanwhile, China appears to be charting a course that sidesteps the glaring double standards often associated with US diplomacy. Xi Jinping was not only warmly received at the G20 summit but aligned himself with the agenda rather than critiquing its omissions, such as the lack of condemnation for Russia or Vladimir Putin, whose backing Beijing has maintained throughout. On the other hand, the US, through its unilateral move to authorise the use of long-range missiles against Russia, came across as a lone ranger, only flanked by the usual G7 members.

In many ways, the leaders of the developed world appeared entrenched in a familiar ‘our way or the highway’ stance, revealing their evident inability to adapt to a rapidly shifting global order. The West’s monumental misstep lies in its failure to address the growing discontent over its inexplicable double standards on the brutal, indiscriminate conflict in Gaza. As global opinion shifts, many nations are openly questioning the glaring contrast in responses.

While Ukraine is championed as a cause worth escalating and defending, Gaza is met with cold indifference—its people left to starve and endure a fate they did not deserve. This disparity has not gone unnoticed by those watching from the sidelines, and the growing rift at events like the G20 only exposes the mounting global frustration.

The West’s narrative, which elevates Ukraine’s struggle while disregarding the suffering of Palestinians, is becoming increasingly unsustainable in a world that demands consistency and compassion for all—irrespective of geography and untainted by geopolitical self-interest.

If anything, the conclusion of the G20 offers a clear reminder – unless the West aligns its priorities with the broader concerns and consensus of the global community, it risks not only losing influence but being rendered irrelevant in shaping the narratives that will define the 21st century.