On November 29, 2025, the global political landscape was shaken by a dramatic announcement from U.S. President Donald Trump: South Africa would not be invited to the 2026 G20 Summit, scheduled to take place in Miami, Florida. The declaration, made via a post on X, cited alleged human rights violations in South Africa, specifically referencing the treatment of white farmers and the seizure of their land. Trump wrote, "To put it more bluntly, they are killing white people, and randomly allowing their farms to be taken from them," asserting that "Afrikaners, and other descendants of Dutch, French, and German settlers" were experiencing abuses. This bold move has not only ignited controversy but also raised questions about the future of multilateralism and global cooperation.
According to MENAFN, Trump’s post further claimed that South Africa had refused to hand over the G20 Presidency to a U.S. Embassy representative during the closing ceremony of the 2025 G20 Summit in Johannesburg. The United States, notably, did not send a delegation to the summit, a decision that many observers saw as a political statement in itself. Trump doubled down on his stance, stating, "Therefore, at my direction, South Africa will NOT be receiving an invitation to the 2026 G20, which will be hosted in the Great City of Miami, Florida next year." He concluded by declaring, "South Africa has demonstrated to the World they are not a country worthy of Membership anywhere, and we are going to stop all payments and subsidies to them, effective immediately."
The immediate reaction from South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was one of disappointment and resolve. Describing Trump’s decision as "regrettable," Ramaphosa emphasized that South Africa is a member of the G20 "in its own name and right," with its membership recognized by all other members. In an official statement, Ramaphosa clarified that the G20 Presidency was handed over to a U.S. Embassy official at the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation headquarters, specifically because the U.S. was not present at the summit. He reiterated South Africa’s commitment to remain a "full, active and constructive member of the intergovernmental forum," as reported by Akashvani News.
The diplomatic rift between the U.S. and South Africa unfolded against a backdrop of broader challenges facing international cooperation. The G20 Summit in Johannesburg, which ran from November 29-30, 2025, was already under strain due to the U.S. boycott. According to The New Indian Express, Trump’s absence—and his invocation of alleged persecution of white farmers as a reason—cast a shadow over the proceedings. This move was widely interpreted as an attempt to undermine the summit’s legitimacy and the spirit of multilateralism that the G20 has long embodied.
Despite the controversy, President Ramaphosa managed to steer the summit to its conclusion, though not without setbacks. The summit’s central agenda—finding a solution to the mounting debt crisis faced by developing countries—ultimately went unresolved. As The New Indian Express noted, the G20 bloc, which includes 19 advanced and emerging economies along with the European Union and the African Union, represents 85 percent of global GDP and about two-thirds of the world’s population. Its importance in shaping global economic policy is hard to overstate. Yet, at Johannesburg, the effort to reform the international financial architecture on debt was stymied by the larger, more economically influential members who, as one think tank spokesperson put it, "saw little benefit to themselves."
In October, G20 finance ministers and central bank chiefs had met in Washington and released a consensus statement acknowledging, "We recognize that a high level of debt is one of the obstacles to inclusive growth in many developing economies, which limits their ability to invest in infrastructure, disaster resilience, healthcare, education and other development needs." However, this recognition did not translate into concrete action at Johannesburg, leaving developing nations, particularly in Africa, without the relief they had hoped for.
The G20 drama was not the only sign of fraying global cooperation. Just days earlier, the 30th annual Conference of the Parties (COP30) concluded in Belém, Brazil, with similarly disappointing results. According to The New Indian Express, the principal target of phasing out fossil fuels was left out of the final resolution due to fierce opposition from oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. The United States, under Trump’s leadership, chose not to attend COP30 at all, with Trump dismissing climate change talks as a "con job." This absence was felt acutely, as the U.S. is traditionally a key player in such negotiations.
The failure to make progress on climate commitments comes at a critical time. Daniela Durán González, Colombia’s Climate Delegate, told BBC that "scientific evidence indicates that more than 75 per cent of the global greenhouse gas emissions come from fossil fuels." Without a global agreement to phase out these fuels, the goal of reversing global warming appears increasingly out of reach. The Paris Accord’s targets—keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, and ideally at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-Industrial times—are slipping away. Environmental scientists now warn that, even with aggressive reversals of carbon emissions, the world is on track for a catastrophic temperature rise of 2.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
India, the world’s third-largest carbon emitter, was also in the spotlight at COP30. The country has yet to submit its updated climate and carbon reduction plan, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which countries are required to provide every five years. Out of 196 member countries, approximately 120 have submitted their plans, leaving India among the laggards. India’s continued reliance on coal—accounting for over 70 percent of its energy generation—makes rapid progress unlikely. Indian officials have long argued that the original polluters, the wealthy nations of the Industrial Revolution, should bear the primary responsibility for funding and reversing global warming.
What emerges from these recent summits is a picture of a world struggling to maintain the spirit of multilateralism. The G20, once a beacon of collective action, now appears vulnerable to the interests and whims of its most powerful members. Trump’s decision to exclude South Africa from the 2026 summit raises thorny questions: Can a single nation unilaterally bar another from a global forum? Can leaders be denied visas to attend? As The New Indian Express observed, "Donald Trump has set out to undermine the bloc, and he is succeeding."
For South Africa, the exclusion is both a diplomatic slight and a challenge. President Ramaphosa’s measured response—reaffirming his country’s commitment to the G20 and clarifying the facts of the presidency handover—signals a desire to keep the door open for dialogue, even as tensions rise. For the broader international community, the episode serves as a stark reminder: the future of global cooperation hangs in the balance, shaped by the actions and priorities of those at the helm.
As the dust settles, the world is left to ponder the consequences of fractured multilateralism—on climate, on debt, and on the very fabric of international relations.
