How Politics Is Affecting The G-20 Forum

The G20 summit in Johannesburg—the first to be held on the African continent—has been overshadowed by controversy over the United States’ decision to boycott the event. President Donald Trump had made it clear he would not attend, citing America’s frayed ties with Pretoria over alleged discrimination against white minority farmers—claims he has repeatedly made without evidence.

The Shifting US position

Initially, there was speculation that Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife, Usha, would represent Washington. But Trump later opted for a complete boycott, disappointing both South Africa and its African partners.

Late on Thursday night, President Cyril Ramaphosa indicated there might be a change: the US could send an official delegation after all. “The United States is an original member of the G20, so they have the right to be here,” he told reporters, according to the Associated Press. But Washington swiftly denied any such move.

Complicating matters further, the US warned that a final G20 declaration could not be issued without its participation, as the forum operates on a consensus basis. Ramaphosa pushed back sharply: “Without the United States, the whole process of the G20 is moving forward. We will not be bullied,” he said.

He added that a declaration would indeed be issued: “The talks are going extremely well… we are just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.”

Protocol dictates that the host hands over the G20 presidency to the next chair—in this case, the US. Washington will make an exception and send its ambassador solely for the handover ceremony.

South African officials privately acknowledge that the US absence raises questions about the summit’s success. But Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola argued earlier in the week that the moment also offers a chance “to send a clear message that the world can move on without the U.S.,” even if that will be difficult.

Originally created as an economic grouping, the G20 has gradually transformed into a political forum attempting to bridge wealthy nations, emerging economies, and the broader Global South. But like other multilateral platforms, it has become increasingly politicised—especially since the Ukraine war.

In recent years, final declarations at various forums have been held hostage to disagreements over Ukraine, with Western nations insisting on language condemning Russian aggression, only to be blocked by Moscow and Beijing. India managed a diplomatic balancing act in New Delhi in 2023, securing a consensus after both Western countries and Russia–China made concessions. Indonesia’s Bali summit in 2022 named Russia as the aggressor; Delhi avoided such wording in recognition of India’s ties with Moscow.

Broader implications of US disengagement

The US decision to skip key multilateral meetings over bilateral disputes sends an unsettling message about the future of global governance. As the world’s pre-eminent power, its absence weakens forums that depend on broad agreement to function. Its no-show at COP30 in Brazil—stemming from Trump’s dismissal of climate change as a hoax—has deepened concerns.

For African nations that rely on such platforms to push for development financing and climate support from wealthier economies, the continued erosion of US engagement is particularly troubling. Ends