The G20 without the United States: A New Chapter in Global Governance

Under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability”, South Africa presents an ambitious agenda for its presidency of the G20: inclusive economic growth, industrialization, employment, reduction of inequalities, food security and use of AI for sustainable development. The aim is to respond to global challenges while strengthening Africa’s voice on the international stage.

However, this dynamic is compromised by the boycott of the United States and the notable absences of American leaders: neither the Secretary of State nor the Secretary of the Treasury participate in key meetings. This boycott, far from being fortuitous, reflects the United States' retreat from multilateralism and marks a break with their traditional role in global economic coordination. This decision also accentuates growing tensions between Washington and Pretoria, fueled by disagreements over South African domestic policies, including land reform, and differences over international issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The American absence potentially weakens the G20's ability to play its leadership role in global economic cooperation, and creates a strategic vacuum that could benefit China and Russia, likely to strengthen their influence and attract more countries from the Global South to alternative frameworks like BRICS. This could undoubtedly accelerate a fragmentation of the international order, to the detriment of cooperation on crucial issues such as climate, economic stability or pandemic preparedness. For South Africa, this situation constitutes both an unprecedented challenge and an opportunity: it will have to preserve the cohesion of the G20 despite an absent or hostile American partner, while being able to stimulate reflection on more inclusive governance mechanisms. Ultimately, the success of this South African presidency and the future of the G20 will depend on the ability of other nations to fill the void left by the United States. The outcome of this summit could have a lasting influence on the evolution of global governance, between enhanced cooperation or a shift towards rival blocs.

Reasons for US non-participation:

• Allegations of white persecution in South Africa: President Donald Trump announced that the United States would not attend the G20 summit in South Africa due to allegations of white persecution in the country [1][2].

He claimed that Afrikaners (descendants of Dutch settlers, as well as French and German immigrants) are being killed and massacred, and that their lands and farms are being illegally confiscated.[1]

• Disagreement with G20 priorities: Donald Trump rejected the priorities put forward by South Africa for this summit, such as promoting international solidarity and helping developing countries [3].
• G20 theme deemed “anti-American”: The theme chosen by South Africa for this year’s G20 – “solidarity, equality and sustainability” – was criticized by Washington, which described it as anti-American [4].
• Diplomatic tensions: The South African government's initiative to file a complaint for genocide against Israel before the International Court of Justice constitutes another reason for resentment between Washington and Pretoria [5].
• Boycott of preparatory meetings: The American Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and his Treasury counterpart, Scott Bessent, have also decided not to participate in the G20 meetings being held in South Africa [5].

 

Potential geopolitical consequences:

The absence of the United States at the G20 summit has a significance that goes beyond the simple framework of an international meeting; it has a major symbolic impact. Although it may seem superficial at first glance, this absence could significantly diminish the reach and influence of the summit. Indeed, the United States has long been seen as an essential leader in multilateral forums, and its withdrawal raises questions about its commitment to global institutions. This situation calls into question the historical role of the United States in decision-making in major international forums [6], as well as its vision towards multilateralism. US non-participation could create a vacuum where traditional US leadership is challenged, raising concerns about the future of global consensuses and major initiatives, particularly on crucial issues like climate and economic development. Without the American presence, the G20 conclusions reflect a vision less aligned with American interests or values, thus making their adoption more complex in the international context. In addition, the absence of the United States can lead to real diplomatic isolation for the country [7]. The summit is taking place without the direct contribution of American representatives, a situation that Washington denounced as an “instrumentalization” of the South African presidency by certain members of the government. This perception of isolation could reinforce domestic and international criticism of the United States' foreign strategy, particularly with regard to multilateralism and international cooperation [8]. The lack of U.S. participation also raises concerns about collective capacity to address pressing international crises. In a world where unilateralism and protectionism are increasingly widespread, questions of global solidarity are becoming central. International actors are then wondering how to move forward without unified leadership, which could compromise the effectiveness of responses to urgent issues such as climate change and pandemics. At the same time, this situation creates an opportunity for other voices, particularly those from emerging countries like South Africa. By choosing to amplify perspectives that are often marginalized, the host country can direct the dialogue toward issues that may not have had the space to be addressed under American influence. This dynamic could constitute a turning point in the way voices from the South are heard on the international stage, introducing a new form of global governance. However, this fragmentation also poses great challenges for global cooperation [9]. Issues that require coordinated solutions, such as food security, the energy transition, and economic stability, risk becoming more complicated to resolve due to the absence of a strong U.S. voice. As a result, the effectiveness of initiatives taken at the summit could be compromised, and egalitarian solutions could be more difficult to achieve. Finally, the G20 summit represents a crucial opportunity for South Africa to restore its credibility on the world stage. After years of economic stagnation, corruption scandals and reputational losses, the country wants to use this platform to demonstrate its commitment to inclusive and effective global governance. The absence of the United States could provide South Africa with greater room to shape the summit's debates and outcomes, while attempting to reposition itself as a key player in the global economy. In sum, the absence of the United States from the G20 not only shapes the immediate landscape of international discussions, but it also has long-term implications for global governance, the authority of multilateral institutions, and power dynamics in an increasingly polarized world.  

Withdrawal from UNESCO and boycott of the G20: A new area of ​​international fragmentation

Similarities

1. Skepticism towards multilateralism In both cases, the American decision reflects a disengagement from multilateral institutions; a sign that “America First” or other national priorities take precedence over international cooperation. In withdrawing from UNESCO, the United States is putting forward a foreign policy incompatible with what it considers to be UNESCO's “globalist” or “ideological” agenda.
2. Ideological/political motivation
   • For UNESCO: the American administration criticizes “divisive social and cultural causes”, positions that it considers “woke” or too progressive. [10]
   • For the G20: the American absence may reflect a loss of confidence in multilateral institutions to manage global policies (economic, monetary), which may be linked to a desire to redefine the role of the Americans in the world.
3. Weakening of American leadership
   • G20: without the active participation of the United States, its influence on global economic decisions could diminish, opening space to other powers (China, Russia, etc.).
   • UNESCO: withdrawal weakens the diplomatic and financial weight of the United States within a major UN agency (education, culture, science), which may give more influence to other states or blocs.
4. Consequences for global governance Both decisions may contribute to a reconfiguration of international alliances: by leaving or shunning traditional institutions, the United States leaves room for maneuver to other powers, and perhaps encourages alternative blocs or different forms of cooperation.

 

Broader meaning of the parallels

• These two movements reflect a desire to redefine American engagement on the international scene: not just disengagement, but a desire to choose where and how to get involved, based on national priorities.
• They demonstrate a decline in traditional multilateralism: if the United States withdraws or no longer actively attends certain forums, this weakens its ability to influence global rules.

  In summary, The non-participation of the United States at the G20 summit highlights a worrying development in the global geopolitical landscape. This event symbolizes a withdrawal from the multilateral commitments that have long defined American leadership on the world stage. By choosing to withdraw, the United States not only leaves a vacuum of decision-making and influence, but it also opens the door for other countries, like South Africa, to redefine their roles and amplify otherwise marginalized voices. This dynamic could alter the global cooperative efforts needed to address pressing crises such as climate change and economic security. In an increasingly interconnected world, the absence of the United States from the G20 could have lasting impacts on international cooperation, underscoring the importance of a unified approach to solving global challenges. https://institugeo.org/articles/the-g20-without-the-united-states-a-new-chapter-in-global-governance/ ‎ References:

1. The United States boycotts the G20 summit in South Africa - Reporteri.net
2. The United States will not send any officials to the G20 in South Africa - RTS
3. The United States discusses participation in the G20 in Africa from the South, says Ramaphosa - 11/20/2025 at 9:28 p.m. - Boursorama
4. Historic G20 in South Africa despite the American boycott - Anadolu Ajansı
5. The United States snubs the G20 meetings, a first - Les Echos
6. South Africa criticizes US for boycotting G20 and opposing consensus - Xinhua
7. G20: Pretoria stands up to Trump after his rejection of the joint declaration - Agence Ecofin

8. The G20 is threatened by geopolitical divisions, its leaders warn
9. US Absence at 2025 G20 Summit: Implications for Global Cooperation and South Africa's Leadership - Citadel
10. https://www.bfmtv.com/international/america-nord/etats-unis/donald-trump/l-unesco-trop-woke-et-pro-palestinienne-donald-trump-announcement-un-retrait-de-l-organization_AN-202507220341.html