South Africa Loses Geopolitical Relevance

At the very least Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Javier Milei, and Claudia Sheinbaum, five heads of state from G20 member countries, will not attend this year’s G20 Summit in Johannesburg.

Regardless of how much President Cyril Ramaphosa and many commentators want to downplay the relevance of this, it remains an embarrassment for South Africa, and a joint statement with strong outcomes at this year’s summit will be impossible. The leaders of the two largest economies in the world will also not be in the famous group photo.

For each of the five heads of state who have already excused themselves from attending, there is probably a good reason: Trump has it in for South Africa. Since the pandemic, Xi has been traveling less internationally, and he is very selective in accepting invitations. Putin has to stay away because of a warrant for his arrest. Milei aligns himself closely with Trump and therefore sees little reason for traveling to South Africa. Sheinbaum apparently already had other commitments.

The reality, however, is that this is an exceptionally large group of heads of state who will not be attending this year’s summit, and major geopolitical red lights should be flashing for South Africa.

While the South African government would like to present the historic occasion of the first G20 Summit on African soil as a sign of South Africa’s global standing and the country’s continued role as a middle power, we all know that this year it was simply South Africa’s turn to host the summit. The mere fact that we are the host country says very little about our current geopolitical power position.

Rio

Last year’s summit in Rio de Janeiro was a great success with only Putin absent for the same reasons. In 2023, it was Xi, Putin, and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico who were absent. In 2022 in Indonesia, it was the heads of state of Brazil and Mexico who were absent. So, the absence of one or two heads of state since the first G20 Leaders’ Summit held in Washington D.C. in 2008 is normal. However, the absence of five heads of state is exceptional.

Should one or two more, possibly Narendra Modi of India, Sanae Takaichi of Japan, Giorgia Meloni of Italy, or Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, also decide to rather send a deputy or even only a minister to South Africa, serious questions can and will arise about South Africa’s ability to bring world leaders together.

The reality is that, despite some valid excuses, more and more world leaders consider it to be less geopolitically risk to rather not attend this year’s summit in South Africa. President Xi has been keen to visit South Africa in the past. He played a key role at last year’s summit in Rio. Without Trump’s presence, he could have been the most important world leader at this year’s summit. Yet Xi has an excellent understanding of the current global power struggle.

The question then inevitably arises: What is in it for me and my country to attend this year’s summit? Last year’s good attendance, basically full representation although Putin did not attend, was for several reasons, including Brazil’s role as the largest economy in South America, an opportunity to discuss important global economic issues on which decisions could be made.

It was also an event that leaders of G20 member countries and other invitees wanted to be a part of. There was, of course, also the prestige of having a position at the table of the most powerful leaders in the world.

Regardless of the extent to which one wants to admit or deny it, geopolitical movements in 2025 are dominated by the persona of Donald Trump, and it also includes his aversion to multilateralism and a preference for bilateral relations. So far this year, the White House has been frequented so often because world leaders understand the importance of relations with the United States (US). While everyone may have an opinion of Trump, the US remains the most powerful economic, geopolitical, and military player in the world.

With the US completely absent from Johannesburg, major and substantive decisions on global economic issues are impossible. Without Xi and other leaders, we know that the typical Leaders' Declaration at the end of the summit, signed by all the leaders and to which the most powerful countries in the world then commit themselves, will be impossible this year. At most, we will see a chairman's statement with all sorts of good intentions by President Ramaphosa.

American hegemony

If Trump, or at least his deputy JD Vance, had decided to attend this year's summit, we could assume that there would have been a very good chance that Xi, Milei, and even Sheinbaum would also have been present. Xi would undoubtedly not want to see Trump dominate and further strengthen American hegemony, which is precisely what China is working strategically against.

The fallacy being made by the South African government and so many willing lackeys is that Trump would not have attended this year’s summit, or at least have sent his deputy, in any circumstances. We recently saw with Trump’s visit to three Asian countries how successfully these countries were able to tie Trump into their own agendas by proactively responding to Trump’s instincts, speaking his language and strengthening bilateral relations within the context of his America First agenda.

If so many other countries have been able to achieve this in the past ten months, perhaps we should stop believing the excuses about why South Africa could not also have a better relationship with the US. President Trump and the White House have been outspoken about their desire to see good relations between the two countries.

Over the past ten months, Trump and his officials have also been quite clear about what they want to see from South Africa in order to strengthen the relationship between the two countries. The five demands; namely declaring farm attacks as a priority crime, reviewing the zero-compensation clause in the Expropriation Act, a commitment to phase out racial laws (not even immediately, but over time), the protection of minority rights, and a strong neutral, non-aligned foreign policy, are unambiguous and something that could be bridged.

However, in the past few months, delegation after delegation from the government arrived in Washington with trade proposals that included access to South African resources and markets and all sorts of splendid proposals that are attractive for American investment in the South African economy. However, the five Trump demands have not been addressed. A settlement on these five points was already possible months ago.

Yet it is as if President Ramaphosa and his government are tone-deaf. It is therefore entirely fair to blame the government for Trump’s ongoing dispute with South Africa and the US’s absence from the G20 Summit.

Huge opportunity

The G20 Summit is a huge opportunity for our country. Every South African who loves our country and its people and wants to see more foreign investment, higher economic growth, and the creation of truly sustainable conditions for a free, secure, and prosperous existence for all South Africans should be excited about the G20 Summit.

However, every South African should also be concerned about the missed opportunities of a watered-down summit and about one that actually highlights the cracks in South Africa’s global influence.

The question we must ask is whether it is unpatriotic to simply talk about South Africa's declining global standing. To deny this is simply dishonest. Since 1994, South Africa has been steadily declining in the rankings of the largest economies. While the inclusion of the African Union in the G20 makes sense, we must be honest about other African countries that are going to start questioning our exclusive permanent membership of the G20. Nigeria and Egypt in particular may do so. The question may already be relevant before next year’s summit in Florida in the US.

Two or three decades ago, there were enormous geopolitical advantages for foreign leaders in visiting South Africa. Seventy heads of state attended the funeral service of former president Nelson Mandela. Since then, however, South Africa has endured a decade of state capture, increasing violence, the massive electricity crisis that is known worldwide, and numerous other problems.

Although South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice is considered by some to be heroic, it was an enormous risk for a country with a diminishing global standing that thereby placed itself at the centre of enormous geopolitical storms. South Africa’s case against Israel was moral hypocrisy while the country completely lost its historical ability to contribute to peace on the African continent.

From a military point of view, we failed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambique. South Africa and Ramaphosa’s extremely dubious ties with the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, but also our country’s inability to do anything meaningful to try to bring the war there to an end, is an embarrassment.

We should all hope for a successful G20 Summit. However, it is dishonest to simply repeat President Ramaphosa’s talking points without any hesitation. It is also dishonest to dismiss as unpatriotic any criticism or highlighting of the South African government’s colossal diplomatic mistakes and even greater domestic and foreign policy mistakes of the past few years.

It is equally dishonest and intellectually lazy to blame organisations such as Solidarity for Trump’s absence, the strained relationship between the US and South Africa and South Africa’s waning geopolitical position as a middle power. This year’s G20 Summit could have been a showcase of South Africa’s potential, but also an opportunity to speak out loudly and honestly about Ramaphosa and his government’s failures. Both are possible, and in a free South Africa, this is everyone’s right.

Kleynhans is head of International Liaison at Solidarity.