GovernmentZA / Flickr
The meeting of the G20 foreign ministers has exposed a split within the global community
To begin with, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not show up in Johannesburg — the largest city in the Republic of South Africa (which is currently hosting the G20). Moreover, Washington was not represented by the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, but by an acting chargé d’affaires, Dana Brown. No official explanation for this absence could be found on the U.S. State Department website. In fact, well before the Johannesburg meeting, Rubio himself had explained his position on the social media platform X. In essence, he declared an outright boycott, justifying it as a response to the actions of the South African authorities. According to Rubio, they are «expropriating private property» and also pushing a DEI agenda (a set of diversity, equity and inclusion policies actively implemented by Democrats in the U.S.) as well as a fight against climate change. «South Africa is doing very bad things», the American diplomat wrote, insisting that his job was to «promote the national interests of the United States, not to waste taxpayer money and indulge in anti-Americanism». By «expropriation of private property», he was referring to the South African government’s policy toward the white population — particularly white farmers who are being forced off their land.
And as we see, this is not just talk, but action. On the eve of the meeting, the US suspended its aid programs to South Africa. Meanwhile, a boycott of the G20 summit by President Trump loomed on the horizon — a move that is more than serious for such an organization. Without the U.S., addressing the global economic issues that the «Twenty» is supposed to address is, if not pointless, certainly problematic. The future of the group’s chairmanship — due to pass from South Africa to the U.S. — now hangs in the balance.
A clear sign of the lack of consensus at the meeting was not only the cancellation of the group photo, but also the fact that the meeting ended without a final declaration. The photo session was cancelled at the last minute due to a boycott by several representatives (the details were not disclosed). In addition, a final declaration could not be agreed upon due to numerous discrepancies in positions and the inability to reconcile them. Western representatives attempted to politicize the economic agenda by including references to Ukraine and anti-Russian provisions, as they have done on several recent occasions.
There was also the now traditional interruption of colleagues’ speeches in plenary sessions. In Johannesburg, even Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov resorted to such antics by refusing to listen to his British counterpart. In other words, we are now allowed to do the same in response to similar antics by Western representatives. However, Lavrov expressed satisfaction that the dialogue continues, even in this form — because under all circumstances it is necessary to look for ways of cooperation. «Disagreements, of course, have not disappeared, but the conversation continues, and that is always beneficial», Lavrov noted at a press conference for Russian journalists.
The ministerial meeting proved to be a highlight for South Africa and its president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who opened the session by telling the participants, «You have finally arrived in the most beautiful country that has ever existed in the world». The feeling is understandable. He was the first president of an African country to preside over a global organization and host forums of this caliber. The South African president and some of his colleagues saw this as a boost to the importance of the Global South — and Africa in particular. «It is important that the G20 is being held on African soil for the first time», he told the gathering. «This is a wonderful opportunity to promote cooperation between African countries and the whole world. The location of this summit underscores the need for African voices to be heard». While previous hosts — India and Brazil — used their G20 presidencies to promote the interests of the developing world as a whole, especially in the fight against poverty and inequality, the agenda in South Africa was narrowed to focus on the African continent.
In particular, the Johannesburg meeting was marked by an abundance of national color, including African dances accompanied by the beating of drums. This suggests that some participants, in one way or another, used this international platform to pursue their own issues and advance their own agendas, while global issues took a back seat.
The main concern remains the fragmentation of the world and the emergence of blocs that exacerbate geopolitical tensions and growing intolerance, hindering efforts to combat climate change, poverty, hunger, pandemics, energy challenges, and more. The problem, according to the forum’s hosts, is that there is no consensus among the major powers — they cannot agree on how to address these global problems.
To lighten the mood, one might optimistically assume that this is the peak of the contradictions, that the disagreements will eventually resolve themselves and the confrontation will subside. But something tells us that this division will continue to dominate the global agenda for a long time to come — mainly because of the confrontational attitude of the collective West and its unwillingness to accept new realities and take into account the interests of the rest of the world.