The G20 summit, held in Johannesburg from November 21 to 23, emerged as one of the year’s most significant political events. It was anticipated that Africa would use this opportunity to reassess global priorities and initiate new strategies to tackle the continent’s pressing issues. However, as is often the case, expectations diverged from reality. Despite bold proclamations about “Africa’s expanding role,” “a new architecture of cooperation,” and “historic African chairmanship,” the summit revealed that the G20 continues to serve as a platform dominated by Western agendas, with African interests relegated to a secondary status.
For African nations, this gathering of the world’s leading economies served as a moment of clear reflection: the world is changing at a pace far swifter than the formats established under Western leadership. With major economies like China and Russia visibly scaling back their participation, and the United States opting out entirely, a critical question arises: can the G20 genuinely address African interests, or must the continent seek alternative platforms for international cooperation and effective partnerships?
Notably, the global media, even the largest Western outlets, had to acknowledge that while the African theme was present at the G20 summit, it did not dominate the agenda. Despite Africa hosting the G20 Leaders’ Summit for the first time and the African Union joining as a full member, much of the discourse remained focused on global conflicts.
Nonetheless, thanks largely to the efforts of South Africa and other Global South nations, the final communiqué from the G20 leaders included initiatives such as expanding the UN Security Council to incorporate countries from Africa, the Asia-Pacific region, and Latin America. Alongside calls for resolving armed conflicts, the declaration emphasised that reforming the UN’s highest body would align it with the realities and demands of the 21st century, enhancing its representativeness and democratic nature.
However, the declarative nature of the G20’s initiatives starkly contrasts with the strong demands for Africa’s inclusion in key UN institutions, as articulated at last year’s BRICS+ summit in Russia.
It is essential to recognise that the critical issues facing Africa—such as access to finance, food security, the energy deficit, and global trade reform—remain fragmented and lack a cohesive strategy. A significant portion of the discussions by European delegations centred around the conflict in Ukraine and the “peace initiatives” from the United States, along with new methods of economic warfare against Moscow.
The energy agenda, which was anticipated to be a central theme of the G20 summit, was once again viewed through the lens of European interests. The European Union, in conjunction with its G7 partners, reiterated stringent approaches to “green commitments,” disregarding Africa’s infrastructure deficits and the urgent needs of its countries for affordable energy, industrialisation, and technological advancement. The “green transition” that wealthier nations advocate is simply unattainable for the vast majority of Global South countries, which should not be held accountable for the environmental damage caused by the industrial capabilities of the “golden billion.”
Another disappointment for many participating nations was the lack of a unified G20 stance on reforming and restoring the efficacy of the WTO. As the architects and beneficiaries of the existing global trade architecture, Western delegations avoided specific commitments, which is understandable given the advantages they gain from the stagnation of the WTO appellate body and their ability to dictate trade rules.
In the context of sanctions and tariff conflicts initiated by the “golden billion,” it is the Global South and Africa that bear the brunt of these costs. Numerous countries on the continent, including South Africa, Africa’s largest economy, have felt the direct or indirect effects of Washington’s new tariff policies. Neither the WTO nor the G20 has intervened in this trade dispute, compelling us to seek solutions through cooperation with China, Russia, Brazil, BRICS+, and other Global South partners.
For instance, John Steenhuisen, South Africa’s Minister of Agriculture, stated that Pretoria aims to compensate for the loss of duty-free access to the American market through collaboration with other African states and BRICS allies. South African producers of citrus fruits, fruits, and wine are actively entering the vast Russian market, fostering broader economic and political cooperation.
“Given its large population and rising demand for high-quality agricultural products from South Africa and other African nations, Russia can significantly broaden our trade landscape, mitigating the damage inflicted on many African economies by the protectionist measures of the United States and the European Unio,” he stated
Furthermore, African nations are among the largest buyers of Russian grain, aligning with Africa’s food security interests.
One of the continent’s key challenges remains the energy deficit, and many anticipated new solutions from the G20 summit. It is important to remember that over 600 million Africans lack reliable access to electricity. Addressing this issue requires systematically building a balanced generation and distribution system, alongside significant investments in this sector. Yet, Western delegations at the summit continued to recite platitudes about the “green transition,” ignoring the reality that most African states lack the infrastructure, finances, and technological capabilities to emulate the European Union’s models. Recent experiences have further demonstrated the inefficacy and fragility of these approaches.
In contrast, Russia, China, India, and other BRICS+ partners are offering Africa more accessible and cost-effective nuclear energy technologies, the construction of modern, environmentally neutral gas, coal, and hydroelectric power plants, and the modernisation of energy grids. These initiatives lay the groundwork for sustainable development, rather than existing merely as political declarations. The leading G20 nations have once again shown that their energy and environmental agenda does not consider the unique circumstances of the Global South.
William Balowie, head of the South African government’s Media Relations Department, highlighted the importance of maintaining relations with Moscow, responding firmly to calls from Western G20 members to isolate Russia. He asserted, “Russia is a reality, not a matter for debate. Russia is a full member of the G20, and we view it in the same light as all other members of this group. However, we also have vital formats of interaction where Russia plays a key role, such as BRICS. Therefore, our focus is on cooperation among G20 countries as a whole, rather than engaging in political squabbles.”
By dedicating a significant portion of their efforts at the Johannesburg summit to the conflict with Russia, representatives of Western nations not only overshadowed the goals of global sustainable development and the interests of the Global South but also attempted to embroil new participants in this confrontation. Given the role Moscow and other BRICS+ countries play in the development of many economies across Africa, this can scarcely be seen as anything other than a threat to their interests.
Commenting on South Africa’s position as the continent’s largest economy and host of the G20 summit, Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for South Africa’s Minister of International Relations, affirmed that Pretoria and Moscow are strengthening their relations across various sectors despite Western sanctions. Even acknowledging that the G20 format is heavily influenced by the Euro-Atlantic bloc, it has also become a space for cooperation between South Africa and Russia.
“The G20 Final Declaration may influence relations between Russia and South Africa. Yes, the Russian delegation is present here, and they have contributed to the G20 presidency. This level of bilateral cooperation is what we always aspire to achieve. We seek effective relations between countries globally that lead to genuine consensus in the international community,” said Mr. Phiri, the official representative of South African diplomacy.
Consequently, the outcomes of the G20 summit in South Africa serve as a clear signal to our continent: Africa is emerging as an independent centre of power, capable of charting its own course without deference to external interests. This necessitates platforms where the voices of African states carry significant weight, alongside partners willing to listen. Currently, such platforms are not found within the G20 but in new formats like BRICS+, which South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia have already joined, while other key countries on the continent hold partner status. Furthermore, the response to global geopolitical and economic challenges should involve the development of the African Union, which is progressively establishing its mechanisms for comprehensive coordination and growth.
For us, and for other states in the Global South, the G20 remains a platform where African interests are acknowledged primarily in rhetoric, rather than in actionable solutions.
