G20 in Johannesburg: A test of multilateralism as the Global South takes the stage
The 2025 G20 summit in Johannesburg will be historic: the first time the grouping meets on African soil. Under South Africa’s presidency and the banner “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability,” Pretoria aims to pivot the world’s premier economic forum toward issues that disproportionately affect the Global South — debt distress, climate resilience, and stark global wealth gaps.
- Advertisement -
But the summit opens under an unusual cloud. President Donald Trump has announced a U.S. boycott, calling South Africa’s presidency a “disgrace” and signaling opposition to the meeting’s agenda. President Cyril Ramaphosa has publicly insisted the summit will go ahead and produce concrete outcomes for developing countries. The confrontation sets up a two-track narrative: a symbolic victory for African diplomatic hosting and a practical strain on the summit’s ability to deliver consensus among the world’s largest economies.
Why Johannesburg matters
Hosting the G20 is a diplomatic milestone for Africa. Beyond symbolism, a successful summit in Johannesburg can reframe global priorities. South Africa’s theme intentionally centers issues that many lower-income countries have long argued are marginalised at global economic tables: sovereign debt relief and restructuring, more predictable climate finance for adaptation (not just mitigation), and measures to reduce inequality both within and between countries.
If the summit yields stronger language or new instruments — for example, scaled-up concessional finance, clearer pathways for debt treatment linked to climate resilience investments, or commitments to shift multilateral development bank quotas and lending terms — it would mark a substantive shift in agenda-setting power toward poorer nations.
What the U.S. boycott signals
A major economy’s decision to skip a summit is rare and consequential. The U.S. absence undercuts a long-standing dynamic in which Washington played a central role in forging G20 communiqués and in mobilising global financial responses. At minimum, the boycott will complicate efforts to reach unified statements and could reduce the political weight behind any commitments secured in Johannesburg.
Beyond procedural effects, the boycott is a political signal. It reflects domestic priorities and fault lines in U.S. foreign policy — a skepticism, at least from the present administration, of certain multilateral frameworks and of agendas perceived as limiting national sovereignty or imposing burdensome obligations. It also hands leverage to other actors on the global stage: if Washington is not physically at the table, states such as China, the EU, India and Brazil may find more space to shape outcomes.
Risks and opportunities for the Global South
There are two competing scenarios for Johannesburg. In the optimistic version, South Africa uses the spotlight to stitch together a coalition of emerging and middle powers to secure concrete deliverables: expanded liquidity facilities for low-income countries, a clearer timetable and financing mechanisms for adaptation, and a G20 commitment to reform international financial architecture to better reflect current economic realities.
In the pessimistic scenario, the summit becomes largely symbolic. Without U.S. endorsement, key financial promises may lack substance; communiqués may be watered down; and implementation by multilateral banks and creditors could remain slow. There is also the risk of the summit being used as a stage for geopolitical positioning rather than practical problem-solving — an outcome that would frustrate the very countries South Africa is trying to uplift.
Geopolitics and the multipolar moment
Johannesburg sits at the intersection of shifting global power balances. The G20 has always been an uneasy mix of cooperation and competition; this year it also tests whether multilateral governance can function when a principal member sits out. China and other rising powers may seek to project their model of leadership through targeted initiatives — for instance, by promising infrastructure, investment or alternative financing arrangements to African nations. That could deepen existing geopolitical competition for influence on the continent.
But the moment also offers an opening for South–South cooperation that is less dependent on the U.S. presence. African countries, alone or in partnership with other emerging economies, could turn the summit’s focus to practical mechanisms that do not require U.S. sign-off: regional pooling of resources, strengthened continental financial institutions, or new concessional credit lines supported by multilateral partners willing to act.
What to watch in Johannesburg
- Concrete finance: Will G20 leaders endorse new instruments for debt relief that include climate adaptation funding or faster channels for concessional loans?
- Communiqué language: The final statement — and any annexes — will reveal whether the absence of the U.S. materially weakened commitments on inequality, climate, and debt.
- Coalition-building: Who steps forward as lead conveners for Global South priorities? Look for joint declarations from blocs like the African Union, BRICS, and the G77.
- Follow-through mechanisms: Declarations matter less without implementation plans. Watch for timetables, funding pledges, and accountability frameworks tied to any promises.
Why outcomes here matter beyond symbolism
Even modest progress in Johannesburg could have real consequences: improved debt relief could unlock investment and public services; clearer adaptation finance could protect livelihoods already being eroded by climate shocks; and stronger representation for African priorities at the G20 could alter the calculus of international financial institutions. Conversely, a muted summit may deepen cynicism about the ability of multilateral forums to address the urgent crossover crises of debt, climate, and inequality.
Ultimately, the G20 in Johannesburg will be a barometer of contemporary multilateralism. It will reveal whether international cooperation can adapt to a more multipolar world and whether fora like the G20 can be reshaped to reflect and respond to the priorities of the Global South — even when one superpower chooses to sit this one out.
By News-room
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
