The Group of 20 (G20) has long served as the pre-eminent forum where the world’s largest economies convene to coordinate on global economic stability, climate change, debt management and international trade. Historically, membership in the G20 has symbolised more than GDP weight: it represents a seat at the table of global economic governance, shaping agendas that affect billions across continents. The legitimacy of the G20 depends not only on its collective influence but on the expectation that member states engage with mutual respect, procedure and diplomacy.
In that context, recent events have placed the G20, and by extension, global multilateral diplomacy under pressure. The dispute between Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States, and Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa, signals a fraying of diplomatic norms, with ripple effects that could redefine what multilateral cooperation looks like in a changing geopolitical landscape.
READ ALSO: G20 Johannesburg 2025: Africa’s Triumph in Shaping Global Agendas
The firestorm erupted after the recent G20 summit held in Johannesburg on 22–23 November 2025, marking the first time the summit has been hosted on African soil. South Africa chaired the meeting, steering dialogue on critical issues such as climate action, debt relief and economic inclusion for the Global South.
At the close of the summit, custom and diplomatic practice normally call for a ceremonial “handover” of the G20 presidency, symbolised by the passing of the gavel to the next host. The country expected to host in 2026 is the United States. However, the United States, citing alleged human-rights abuses and land policies in South Africa, formally boycotted the summit and declined to send senior officials. A junior U.S. Embassy representative attended the closing ceremony. According to President Trump, South Africa refused to symbolically hand the G20 presidency to that representative, a claim South Africa robustly rejects.
Taking to social media, President Trump announced that South Africa would not be invited to the 2026 G20 summit to be held in Miami, Florida. He framed the decision as a consequence of alleged failure to transfer the presidency properly, along with broader accusations that South Africa is committing “genocide” against white farmers and seizing land from white citizens.
South Africa’s Rebuttal
In response, President Ramaphosa condemned the decision as “regrettable” and rooted in “blatant misinformation.” He reaffirmed South Africa’s status as a founding G20 member in its own right, insisting that the handover procedures were followed in line with tradition and diplomatic practice. He underscored that Pretoria remains a “full, active and constructive member of the G20,” regardless of unilateral decisions by any one member state.
In a televised address to the nation, Ramaphosa rejected the narrative of racial persecution and land theft, labelling such allegations as false and part of a wider disinformation campaign, one that threatens South Africa’s economy and undermines its global standing. He stressed that the country values dialogue with the United States, but will not accept its sovereignty and dignity being undermined.
Pretoria further highlighted that, despite the diplomatic rift, U.S. businesses and civil-society organisations had continued to engage in G20-related events during the Johannesburg summit, a reality that undercuts the narrative of total rupture.
What the G20 Is, And What This Rift Says About Multilateralism
At its best, the G20 is not a formal international organisation with a treaty or charter; it is an informal, consensus-driven consortium of major economies meant to complement, not replace, institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
Under that informal yet influential architecture, attempts by one member to unilaterally exclude another represent a serious challenge to the norms that underpin international cooperation. Observers warn the move could weaken the appeal of the G20 as a credible platform for global coordination, particularly as developing and emerging economies, including those from Africa and the Global South, seek to assert greater influence.
Moreover, by weaponising visa regimes and diplomatic recognition, the United States risks transforming what was designed as a cooperative, multilateral gathering into a tool of bilateral power politics. This, critics argue, undermines the equal-footing principle that has allowed the G20 to remain relevant, especially for smaller or less economically dominant members.
For Africa and other Global South nations, the confrontation carries layered significance. The successful hosting of the G20 summit in Johannesburg had buoyed expectations that African voices might gain greater prominence in global economic governance, a symbolic step toward decolonising global policy spaces. The friction over 2026 threatens to undercut that momentum.
The spat also reinforces growing concerns about the stability of multilateral forums in a world increasingly shaped by power politics, nationalism and unilateralism. If the G20 becomes another venue where big powers assert exclusionary influence, the Global South may face yet another barrier to influencing global decision-making.
In addition, the broader rhetoric, accusations of land-grabbing, racial persecution, and genocide, risks feeding domestic polarisation inside South Africa and beyond. It amplifies existing anxieties in various African countries about sovereignty, foreign interference and the politicisation of domestic policy narratives.
What’s Next
The coming months will be telling for the future of global diplomacy. The United States, as the next host, could enforce its decision through visa bans or by refusing to recognise South African delegates. But because the G20 lacks a formal charter, such moves would remain political rather than institutional, testing whether the grouping can weather such pressure without fracturing.
South Africa has affirmed its intention to stay engaged, signalling that it will continue to participate in G20 processes and work for dialogue, mutual respect, and adherence to the principle that no member state should be excluded unilaterally.
In so doing, Pretoria is placing a bet on the resilience of multilateralism: that the G20’s strength lies not in coercion, but in cooperation; not in power politics, but in the shared aspiration for a more inclusive global order.
