A tense ending to a historic African-hosted summit
South African president Cyril Ramaphosa formally closed the G20 summit in Johannesburg after rejecting a US request to hand over the presidency to a junior embassy official, following Washington’s decision to boycott the meeting. The unprecedented diplomatic rift dominated the summit’s final hours and overshadowed an event that had been positioned as a landmark moment for African leadership on the global stage.
A gavel struck in defiance
As the closing session opened, only one G20 nation was missing from the main floor: the United States. With President Joe Biden declining to attend and no senior US delegates present, the White House requested that South Africa hand over the rotating G20 presidency to a lower-ranking embassy representative.
Ramaphosa refused, citing long-standing protocol that only heads of government, foreign ministers, or designated senior officials may receive the gavel. Instead, he brought the summit to a close himself, announcing the transition of the presidency to the US for the coming year and declaring the meeting adjourned.
The move was widely interpreted as a direct message that South Africa would not allow the summit’s diplomatic framework to be reshaped by the US boycott.
Boycott casts a long shadow
Washington’s absence loomed heavily over the proceedings. The US administration had cited political concerns and souring bilateral relations, prompting criticism from several G20 members who said the boycott undermined collective decision-making. For South Africa, which hosted the summit for the first time, the no-show risked diluting the significance of an event designed to amplify Global South priorities.
Despite the tension, leaders pressed ahead with economic discussions, climate policy negotiations, and development commitments. A joint declaration was adopted early in the summit, reflecting a shared desire among participating governments to avoid diplomatic deadlock.
A platform for the Global South
Pretoria used its presidency to highlight structural inequality, climate finance, and reform of international institutions. African leaders pushed for expanded representation within global economic governance, arguing that developing nations must have a larger voice in shaping multilateral policy.
The absence of the US did not derail these efforts, but it did fuel broader questions about the cohesion of the G20 at a time of shifting geopolitical alignments.
A deeper diplomatic divide
The handover dispute has widened existing fractures between Pretoria and Washington. Analysts noted that while symbolic, the disagreement underscored deeper tensions regarding global partnerships, regional influence, and South Africa’s foreign-policy positioning. With the US set to host the G20 next year, the episode has already raised concerns about how effectively Washington can guide the forum after its decision to disengage from the Johannesburg summit.
Ramaphosa, however, sought to maintain a forward-looking tone. He emphasised that cooperation must remain the defining principle of the G20, even when political disagreements flare. His closing remarks were measured but firm, signalling both respect for the institution and resistance to what Pretoria viewed as procedural overreach.
Looking ahead to the US presidency
The responsibility of steering the next G20 cycle now rests with a country that declined to participate in the last one. Observers say the challenge for Washington will be to restore momentum, rebuild trust among member states, and demonstrate that its boycott was an exception rather than a new pattern.
For South Africa, the summit delivered both diplomatic strain and international recognition. As the first African nation to host a G20 meeting, it leaves with a strengthened global profile—albeit one framed by a contentious finale.
Newshub Editorial in Africa – 24 November 2025
Recent Comments