According to the South African Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola, geopolitical issues will be at the center of the meeting, which he sees as an opportunity to build a bridge between the global south and the north.
Also, he added, to defend the right to development of the global south, in particular of the countries of the African continent, in terms of financing for development.
“This continues to be an accusation to the world, since we still receive less financing for development and, also with regard to climate change issues, less than three percent of global monetary resources go to the African continent, when we are among the most affected,” said Lamola.
This meeting of Foreign Ministers also has the added value of achieving some of the purposes expressed by South Africa, given that the African Union will be present as a full member of the G20.
However, the ministerial meeting will take place in the midst of regional armed conflicts such as those in Ukraine, Palestine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen or Sudan, and diplomatic tensions heightened by the actions of the current US administration of Donald Trump.
In this way, the event will become a test for South Africa of its ability to smooth out differences between global actors with conflicting interests.
As if these challenges were not enough, recently the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said he would not attend the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meetings due to Pretoria’s “anti-American” stance, in what analysts see as a direct reference to Pretoria’s critical attitude towards Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people.
The positions of the G20 member nations and the statements of this ministerial summit will probably determine whether or not the American president attends the G20 summit of heads of state, scheduled for November 2025, where South Africa will have to hand over the pro tempore presidency of the group to the United States by 2026.
Thus, given the global political and economic weight that the United States has, its boycott may have negative consequences on the functioning of the G20 since, from the start, it undermines the credibility of the group as a forum for consensus of international scope.
For South Africa, as pro tempore president of the G20, it could be seen as a diplomatic setback that could eventually affect Pretoria’s work as a negotiator in relations between global actors with conflicting interests and as a spokesperson for African nations, at least while its presidency lasts.
Also in this context, it should not be overlooked that the United States under President Trump is markedly hostile to South Africa’s participation within the BRICS group, particularly with China and Russia. With China, because of Washington’s animosity towards the Asian giant, mainly on economic issues, although it is also upset by Beijing’s growing multifactorial influence in various regions of the world.
With Russia, the issue is different, because although the United States is currently trying to present itself as an effective peacemaker in the armed conflict between that country and Ukraine, it still considers Russia a strategic enemy.
Regarding this war situation, Washington perceives Pretoria’s non-alignment stance as tacit support for Russia, something it does not like.
According to local experts consulted by Prensa Latina, Washington’s absence in Johannesburg, beyond trying to damage South Africa’s reputation as an effective negotiator, could be aimed at destroying the G20 as a global reference entity. The history of the first Trump administration with respect to various international consensus and action bodies supports this criterion.
Added to this is Washington’s critical, disrespectful and dismissive stance towards several G20 member countries of the European Union, as evidenced in the speech by US Vice President JD Vance at the recently concluded Munich Security Conference in Germany, aimed at agreeing on positions regarding the Russia-Ukraine armed dispute.
In this way, this ministerial meeting could become a turning point in world geopolitics. It will depend on the individual attitude of the participating nations or the G20 itself as a whole, whether this can be described as something positive or not.
ef/ro/mv
