Born of crisis but torn by years of tensions among its members, the group of 20 major economies scored a rare victory for multilateralism after overcoming the boycott and objections of its most powerful member, the US.
South Africa, this year’s G20 president, rallied all but two member nations — the US and Argentina — to issue a declaration, ignoring Washington’s warnings and quelling questions about the G20’s future — at least for now.
Many doubted Pretoria would secure a declaration, much less tackle issues such as helping poor nations cope with climate change and external debt.
Illustration: Mountain People
That success strengthened a body which for years was struggling to reach meaningful agreements, and highlighted the power of multilateralism when it seemed in retreat, researchers and delegates said.
The outcome infuriated the US, next year’s G20 host. The White House accused South Africa of weaponizing its presidency to undermine the G20’s founding principles on unanimous consensus.
US President Donald Trump would restore its “legitimacy” while hosting next year, it said.
The White House had no immediate comment when asked if it planned to disinvite South Africa from next year’s G20 events.
The declaration’s final paragraph was carefully worded to commit to meeting in future G20 summits in the UK and South Korea, but only to “working together” under the US presidency, a South African delegate said.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa declined a US offer to hand over the rotating G20 presidency to a junior diplomat. That ceremony took place between equivalent diplomats this week.
The summit had seemed hopelessly overshadowed by Trump’s boycott over false allegations that South Africa’s black majority government mistreats its white minority.
A South African delegate at the summit, who declined to be named, because they were not authorized to speak, said the agreement on a draft caused a visible ripple of relief among negotiators.
“News of the G20’s demise is greatly exaggerated,” said Josh Lipsky, the Atlantic Council’s international economics chair and ex-aide to former US president Barack Obama.
“In a crisis ... it will be there — regardless of which leaders are present at any ... summit,” he said. The declaration tackled issues such as climate and renewable energy that often divide G20 members. It proposed the first global panel to address inequality.
“This is the first meeting of world leaders ... which put the inequality emergency at the center of the international agenda,” Oxfam economic justice senior director Nabil Ahmed said.
Faced with Trump’s ire, G20 leaders had a choice: “Do we butter him up or stand up to him?” Atlantic Council Eurasia Center nonresident senior fellow Michael Bociurkiw said. They chose the latter.
“Leaders were getting fed up,” he said.
“This could set a new approach to dealing with Donald Trump,” he added, a view several delegates echoed.
Saturday’s show of unity was aimed at supporting the hosts and decrying the US’ refusal to engage in the G20’s first African summit, one said.
The US’ actions brought together countries at odds with Trump, such as India and South Africa, with others seeking to maintain good relations, including the UK and France, another said.
With the US taking up the mantle, there is a risk much of the work in Johannesburg could be undone. Washington is expected to narrow the G20’s focus during its presidency, which coincides with the US’ 250th anniversary, to just the leaders’ summit and financial forum, jettisoning other working groups and ministers’ meetings on energy, health and the environment.
“The United States looks forward to emphasizing economic growth, deregulation and energy abundance as key pillars of its 2026 G20 host year,” a US Department of the Treasury spokesman said. “A back-to-basics approach at the G20 is long overdue.”
Entities including the IMF and the World Bank are still invited, but Washington plans to exclude UN organizations, a source familiar with the plans said.
Then again, it is only for a year.
At worst, countries could “lay low” during the US presidency then resume work later, said one delegate who also declined to be named.
Despite the bitter differences, Washington’s G20 agenda overlaps with Pretoria’s in key areas such as development, economic growth and financial stability, UN adviser and Jubilee USA Network executive director Eric LeCompte said.
“I think there is going to be carry-over in certain areas with the US taking the mantle,” he said.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS