[News] South Africa G20 Pragmatism vs Politics at the Summit

Given that the United States (US) has largely checked out of South Africa’s G20 presidency, finding common ground at the Summit may prove difficult. But even if a communique or similar shared document can prioritise an issue such as debt repayment conditions for emerging countries, this would be a diplomatic and geopolitical win for the country’s G20 presidency.

In a more uncertain global environment, it is vital for South African businesses and citizens that their government use any global platforms to advance the country’s interests, and further South Africa as a key and desirable investment and trade partner and destination. South Africans should pay particular attention to how the government runs the Summit, and what communications it uses in engagements with important trading partners. Additionally, the weeks after the Summit will be important to see whether the government in Gauteng, especially, continues the infrastructure investments started before the Summit, or whether these fall by the wayside as expected.

South Africa does not have the military or economic leverage to be taken seriously in some geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts thus far in 2025, including the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza. If South Africa uses the G20 Summit platform to continue engaging in flights of its perceived moral superpower status, this will deepen the rift between and the US, especially. Should South Africa use the G20 Summit to engage in more pragmatic and transactional foreign policy and trade and investment deals with countries like the US, it will set itself up well for this new geoeconomic era of more hard-nosed and pragmatic foreign policy.

Regarding more macro geopolitical developments, multilateral institutions such as the G20, United Nations, World Trade Organisation (WTO), and others face a serious challenge in the form of US President Donald Trump’s policy preferences. The WTO was already weaker coming into 2025, unable to address effectively other countries’ concerns with China’s manufacturing and trade practices.

Unilateralism and bilateral deals are proving more tempting – and arguably, more effective – than some multilateral platforms and avenues. The US is focusing more on exerting power and influence with countries and regions it considers more important for its interests, no longer on the whole world. It remains to be seen whether China wants to or can fill such a void, or whether it will also prefer carving out areas of influence and closeness for its interests. In this challenging space, South Africa’s G20 presidency and the country’s professed preference for dialogue, compromise, and multilateralism could well be relegated to a mere talk shop, heavy on rhetoric but ultimately ineffective in volatile global affairs.

Globalisation and multilateralism are not necessarily at an end. But if multilateralism is to survive, it needs to adapt. It will probably also be more fragmented. Countries with similar inclinations as South Africa will gravitate towards each other – if platforms are strengthened to support such, and to then have more refined agendas and address specific problems, not necessarily all of the world’s issues. Proving effectiveness – more so than talking about all the problems afflicting the world – will gain more purchase and support through the rest of the decade.

While Mr Trump will not attend the Summit, US Vice President JD Vance will. He is no less forward than his principal, and he will relish any opportunity to argue and highlight what he perceives to be problems with South Africa’s G20 agenda. How South Africa engages with any such disagreements – usefully, or as an excuse to argue back and get lost in tit-for-tat engagements – will determine whether it has learnt useful lessons in this new era of geopolitics and geoeconomics. South Africa needs to use every international platform to enhance its influence, and not be distracted by only ‘feeling’ it has enhanced its legitimacy.

Article originally appeared here.