Johannesburg is days away from hosting the G20 Leaders’ Summit, the first time the meeting has been held in Africa. For South Africa, it should be a moment of diplomatic confidence: a chance to demonstrate leadership and its ability to influence debates on global development, financial reform, and multilateral cooperation.
Instead, the lead-up to the G20 has been overshadowed by familiar tensions with the United States, driven almost entirely by US President Donald Trump’s shifting and inflammatory statements about South Africa. Trump initially signalled he planned on boycotting the summit. Then, following a meeting with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa in May, he claimed he might attend. Earlier this month, however, he declared once again that he would not participate, invoking discredited claims of “white genocide” and criticising South Africa’s pursuit of Israeli accountability at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He went further, calling for South Africa to be expelled from the G20, stating:
“It is a total disgrace that the G20 will be held in South Africa. Afrikaners are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated … I look forward to hosting the 2026 G20 in Miami, Florida!”
These allegations, which have been widely disputed, have contributed to a more volatile political environment around a summit already shaped by heightened geopolitical tensions.
Priorities advanced during the past four Global South presidencies are unlikely to survive next year’s agenda under a US G20 presidency.
Other heads of state have also confirmed they will not attend. Argentina’s President Javier Milei will be sending his foreign minister, Pablo Quirno. Russia's President Vladimir Putin will be absent because of the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against him over the war in Ukraine, and China’s President Xi Jinping will be sending Premier Li Qiang.
While four consecutive Global South G20 presidencies – Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa – are diplomatically significant, they do not translate into real influence over where power ultimately resides within the G20. If small and middle powers remain structurally constrained, their “seat at the table” risks becoming largely ceremonial rather than a mechanism for shaping outcomes. The withdrawal of major powers then raises deeper concerns about the future of the multilateral system itself: without the participation of major powers, the G20’s ability to function as a credible forum could be fundamentally undermined.
The implications of the US absence became more serious when Trump said on the weekend that he would not accept anything beyond the chair’s statement. This means the G20 is now unlikely to reach a leaders’ declaration for the first time since its inception, which could undermine the very purpose of the summit and underscore the limitations of consensus-based models. The leaders’ declaration is the G20’s core output, reflecting agreement and serving as an action plan to address global economic and political issues. A chair’s statement, however, is a more informal outcome document issued by the host country's chair, and it may be released even without full consensus.
Ramaphosa has maintained that the absence of the United States at the summit will not derail the discussions. However, South Africa’s long-standing non-aligned foreign policy, traditionally a diplomatic asset, is becoming challenging to maintain in a fractured global order where major powers expect clearer alignments.
With the United States, China, and Russia absent, South Africa faces a difficult question as host: whether it has the political weight to moderate discussions and drive consensus within a forum whose effectiveness has historically relied on the participation of all major powers. The G20 is not only a diplomatic platform but also a negotiation space in which these states have traditionally shaped outcomes, set priorities, and anchored agreements among competing interests.
Trump’s absence at the summit is especially concerning, given the political and economic dominance of the United States on the global stage. This will also be the second consecutive year in which the US has been absent during important discussions. Under the Biden administration, officials were reluctant to commit to long-term initiatives, knowing they would likely be overturned once Trump took office. Trump’s disengagement also signals that many of the priorities advanced during the past four Global South presidencies, including the discussions that will take place in a few days, are unlikely to survive next year’s agenda under a US G20 presidency.
Despite Ramaphosa insisting that the summit will proceed without the US and that “their absence is their loss”, expectations will need to be adjusted. The summit will test whether South Africa can maintain momentum on its agenda and demonstrate that the G20 can still function as a meaningful forum, even as the global order becomes increasingly divided.
