The first-ever G20 Summit held on African soil has come to a close in South Africa, and while the moment was historic, it unfolded under an undeniable cloud: the outright boycott by the United States, ordered by Donald Trump. Yet despite the vacuum created by Washington’s absence, the summit pushed forward with an assertiveness that surprised even seasoned observers, leaving the world to ask whether the gathering was ultimately weakened by the drama or strengthened by the unity that emerged in response.
The boycott, announced with claims of alleged discrimination against white Afrikaner farmers, was widely dismissed by South African officials as misinformed and inflammatory. Pretoria condemned the move as an attempt to delegitimise both the summit and South Africa’s leadership at a time when global cooperation is already under strain. But instead of derailing the event, the controversy appeared to energise it. Leaders quickly shifted their focus from the snub to the work ahead, determined not to allow one country’s absence to overshadow the agenda.
In an unusual but strategic move, the G20 adopted its 122-point declaration on the very first day. That alone sent a message: the summit would not wait for absent voices to validate its direction. South Africa, as host, anchored the conversation around issues long championed by the Global South, especially economic justice, climate resilience, and global inequality, topics often sidelined in previous summits dominated by wealthier nations.
The declaration itself covered a broad spectrum of concerns. Debt relief and sustainable financing for low- and middle-income countries were given renewed prominence, with leaders acknowledging that many nations, particularly in Africa, are trapped in cycles of borrowing that undermine development. The summit also stressed the need for a just and inclusive energy transition, urging wealthier countries to scale up climate finance and support adaptation efforts on the frontlines of climate change.
Institutional reform was another recurring theme. Many leaders called for reshaping global financial institutions to better reflect the voices of emerging economies. This includes increasing the representation of African countries in key decision-making bodies and reassessing the criteria used to determine development financing. Discussions also touched on industrialisation, particularly Africa’s longstanding quest to climb the value chain rather than merely export raw minerals.
While the declaration referenced active conflict zones — from Ukraine to Gaza, from Sudan to the DRC — it did so in broad, diplomatic language. That ambiguity reflects the realities of a world where major powers often disagree on geopolitical crises and where unanimity on conflict is difficult even in the best of diplomatic climates.
The political theatre surrounding the summit did not end with the boycott. A symbolic moment unfolded during the closing ceremony when South Africa refused to hand the ceremonial G20 gavel to a junior U.S. diplomat sent at the last minute. In previous years, the handover was a routine act of continuity. This year, the empty U.S. chair made the symbolism impossible to ignore. President Cyril Ramaphosa closed the summit with the gavel in hand, acknowledging that the presidency now passes to the United States but without the traditional exchange. It was diplomatic but unmistakably pointed.
Despite the tensions, South Africa declared the summit a success, emphasising that global cooperation had not crumbled under the weight of political discord. For many African observers, the fact that the summit proceeded, produced a detailed declaration, and prioritised African concerns was itself a milestone. The tone was clear: Africa was no longer content to simply host global powers; it intended to shape the global agenda.
But whether the summit accomplished enough depends on where one stands. Critics argue that while the declaration is ambitious, it lacks enforcement mechanisms. Without the participation of traditional powerhouse voices, especially the U.S., some fear the commitments may struggle to translate into real action. Others note that geopolitical divisions remain deep, and a summit that cannot agree on a unified stance regarding ongoing global conflicts still faces a credibility challenge.
Yet there is another perspective: that the summit demonstrated a shift in the balance of global influence. It showed that the G20 can function, and even innovate, in the absence of any single member. It demonstrated that African priorities can drive global conversations. And it highlighted a growing willingness among developing nations to assert themselves rather than waiting for direction from traditional power centres.
The real test begins now. The adoption of a sweeping declaration is meaningful, but the follow-through — on debt relief, financial reform, climate resilience, and governance restructuring — will determine whether the Johannesburg summit becomes a footnote in diplomatic history or a turning point.
For South Africa, the symbolism of hosting the world’s most powerful economic bloc was undeniable. For the G20, the summit revealed both its fragility and its resilience. And for the rest of the world, it offered a reminder that global cooperation does not hinge on unanimity but on the willingness of nations to keep showing up, even when others choose to walk away.
In the end, the Johannesburg summit may not have resolved the world’s crises, but it succeeded in redefining the stage on which they are addressed, and for many, that alone makes it a success worth noting.
