Navigating South Africa’s G20 presidency amid US isolationism, growing North-South divide

South Africa assumed the G20 chairmanship for 2025, marking the conclusion of the first full cycle of leadership among G20 member nations. The previous years have been particularly significant for the Global South, beginning with Indonesia in 2022, followed by India in 2023, Brazil in 2024, and now South Africa.

Each of these chairs has faced formidable global challenges, including the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, the ongoing Ukraine crisis, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the broader instability in the global economy. However, South Africa’s term comes at a particularly tumultuous time due to increasing geopolitical fragmentation and uncertainty in the global order.

The themes of solidarity, equality, and sustainability—embodied in the spirit of Ubuntu—are at the heart of South Africa’s presidency. The world is strained due to climate change, inadequate development financing, widening inequality, persistent poverty, and food production that fails to eliminate hunger.

Additionally, sluggish job creation and rapid technological advancements risk deepening global divisions. Growing geopolitical tensions make consensus-building within the G20 increasingly difficult. Previous chairs have navigated tensions between the G7 and their allies, who sought to isolate Russia over the Ukraine war. This dynamic led to the absence of Russian President Vladimir Putin from G20 summits in recent years.

For South Africa, a major challenge comes from the United States evolving approach to global diplomacy. The US is increasingly selective about its international engagements, prioritising bilateral over multilateral relationships. This impacts South Africa’s G20 chairmanship.

While Washington is part of the current G20 Troika and is expected to assume the chairmanship in 2026, it has yet to appoint a Sherpa to the process. The next Sherpas meeting is on April 2. US representation at key G20 meetings is by officials, normally the deputy head of the US Mission in Pretoria. This perceived snub reflects the deterioration in US-South Africa relations, which have worsened due to diverging foreign policy positions, most recently concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict.

In February 2025, the United States halted all aid to South Africa in protest of its Expropriation Act 13 of 2024, which permits the South African government to seize Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation. South Africa retaliated with its own economic measures, escalating tensions between the two nations. This diplomatic fallout will inevitably influence South Africa’s ability to drive a successful G20 agenda.

South Africa is committed to maintaining the continuity of key G20 initiatives from previous years. Recognising the importance of predictable and sustainable development financing, Pretoria is advocating for increased support for the fourth Financing for Development Conference, to be held in Spain in June 2025, as well as the UN COP30 climate summit in Brazil in November.

South Africa has outlined key priorities for its G20 presidency, including strengthening disaster resilience, ensuring debt sustainability for less developed nations, mobilising financing for a just energy transition, and leveraging critical minerals for inclusive economic growth. These efforts build on initiatives spearheaded by previous chairs, particularly India and Brazil.

To facilitate progress, South Africa has established three major task forces: one focused on inclusive economic growth, another on food security, and a third on AI, data governance, and technological innovation for sustainable development. However, rising protectionism, increasing bilateralism, and growing isolationist tendencies across the world pose significant challenges to these efforts. South Africa’s notable proposal is the creation of a Cost of Capital Commission, an initiative that has received backing from India.

Despite South Africa’s determination to lead effectively, multilateral diplomacy has faced setbacks. The absence of key leaders and ministers from crucial G20 meetings has raised concerns about global engagement levels. During the first G20 meeting under South Africa’s chairmanship, the US Secretary of State was absent.

Additionally, India, China, and Japan did not send ministerial representatives to the finance ministers meeting, citing domestic priorities. South African commentators monitor attendance, as participation levels serve as an indicator of international support for its presidency.

The first G20 Trade and Investment Working Group session was on March 18-20. Its focus is on four priority areas: trade and inclusive growth, a responsive trade agenda to address global commons, green industrialisation, and the reform of the World Trade Organisation. Much of this has little interest from the US.

South Africa’s G20 leadership is advocating for Africa’s interests, as this marks the first time a G20 summit will be hosted on the continent. African nations have historically struggled to secure tangible benefits from major international summits, as evidenced by the lack of concrete outcomes for Africa following COP27 in Egypt.

South Africa is determined to ensure that its G20 presidency yields meaningful results for the continent. To strengthen Africa’s presence, South Africa has invited key regional players, including Algeria, Egypt, and Nigeria—all of whom recently joined BRICS—as well as non-African guest nations such as Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Spain, and the UAE. The African Union Chair, Angola, and representatives from regional economic communities have been included.

South Africa is also exploring ways in which an expanded BRICS alliance could bolster its presidency. Russia is unlikely to create disruptions; President Putin’s absence from the BRICS summit in South Africa in 2023 suggests he may also refrain from attending the G20 summit. Meanwhile, China and India are expected to participate actively, but both nations will carefully assess US moves before making strategic decisions. The role of other BRICS members—including Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil—will be pivotal in shaping the summit’s direction.

European G7 members remain committed to multilateralism and the success of the G20, yet they face increasing pressure to allocate their political and financial resources strategically. While they aim to prevent the US-Europe divide from undermining the G20, maintaining a balance between these competing interests will be challenging. The Global South seeks the continuity of the G20 as an effective platform for addressing pressing development challenges. Small but meaningful victories achieved in recent years must be safeguarded.

To enhance the G20’s effectiveness, South Africa should avoid overloading the agenda. The forum risks becoming too broad, diverting focus from actionable outcomes. Given the divisions within the G20, adopting a Chair’s Summary instead of forcing a consensus communiqué could save time and effort.

South Africa has already issued Chair’s Statements for its first two ministerial meetings, and while some hope for a joint communiqué by the end of its presidency, greater emphasis should be placed on implementing targeted programmes rather than chasing symbolic agreements.

Ultimately, the Global South cannot afford to wait for shifts in global power dynamics before addressing its most pressing challenges. South Africa, Indonesia, India, and Brazil should work together to create a self-sustaining mechanism for supporting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Rather than lamenting the lack of external support, these nations should establish an Impact Investment Fund for the Global South, driven by their own priorities. By fostering greater cooperation, they can ensure meaningful progress in addressing economic disparities and development challenges.

The author is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, ASEAN and the African Union. He tweets @AmbGurjitSingh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.