South Africa has issued a firm response to the United States’ decision to abstain from the upcoming G20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg, criticising what it described as an emerging tactic of coercion by absence. The rebuke follows a letter from Washington indicating it would not support any communique presented as a G20 consensus unless it included explicit US endorsement, and that it would only recognise a “chair’s statement” to reflect a lack of unified agreement among the members.
Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), stated that South Africa would not be intimidated into weakening its diplomatic stance. “We cannot allow coercion by absentia to become a viable tactic. It is a recipe for institutional paralysis and the breakdown of collective action,” Phiri asserted, reflecting a broader sentiment within the South African government that the legitimacy of multilateral fora must not be undermined by unilateralism.
South Africa assumed the rotating presidency of the G20 on 1 December 2024, marking a significant milestone as the first African nation to lead the intergovernmental forum that represents the world’s major economies. The G20 Summit, set to convene in Johannesburg, has been anticipated as an opportunity for the Global South to assert a more equitable voice within global economic governance frameworks. The United States is expected to take over the presidency in December 2025.
The diplomatic tension follows the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in January. Soon after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order to suspend US foreign aid to South Africa, citing the Expropriation Act, a land reform law signed into law by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, which he alleged was discriminatory towards white citizens. The South African government firmly rejected this interpretation, asserting that the law addresses long-standing inequities rooted in colonial dispossession and apartheid-era spatial injustices. DIRCO maintained that the claims levelled by the US administration were inaccurate and failed to account for the country’s sociohistorical context.
In February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced via social media that he would not attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg, citing vaguely defined concerns about governance and political developments in the host country. The diplomatic deterioration intensified in March when Washington expelled then South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, reportedly in response to his public criticism of the Trump administration’s foreign policy posture towards Africa.
During a bilateral meeting at the White House in May, President Trump reportedly confronted President Ramaphosa with discredited narratives, including the conspiracy theory of “white genocide” in South Africa. President Ramaphosa unequivocally refuted such assertions, noting that while South Africa does face complex challenges with crime and inequality, the overwhelming majority of victims are Black South Africans. The South African delegation had travelled to Washington with the intention of promoting trade relations and deescalating tensions, but the meeting appeared to exacerbate differences between the two administrations.
The developments surrounding the G20 summit underscore a broader debate about the shape and future of multilateral engagement. South Africa, in its role as G20 president, has repeatedly emphasised the need for inclusive governance structures that reflect the global plurality of experiences and voices. Officials in Pretoria have argued that frameworks like the G20 must serve as instruments for global solidarity and reform, rather than become sites for geopolitical brinkmanship.
By maintaining its commitment to hosting the summit and engaging constructively with all member states, South Africa continues to position itself as a responsible actor within the international community. The country’s leadership of the G20 has been viewed across the continent as a moment of symbolic and substantive importance for Africa’s role on the world stage.
This diplomatic episode, while strained, highlights the shifting dynamics of global power and the need for renewed dialogue built on mutual respect and historical understanding. As the Global South continues to advocate for more representative international institutions, Africa’s voice within these platforms will increasingly serve not only to challenge dominant paradigms but also to redefine them in ways that affirm the continent’s agency and humanity.
