The G20 and UN: Can Multilateralism Survive in an Era of Global Uncertainty?

Dr. Reneva Fourie

There is increasing uncertainty as to whether the world still believes that shared challenges can be addressed through collective solutions. As South Africa’s stewardship of the G20 draws to a close later this year and the United Nations celebrates its 80th anniversary, the unpredictability of the United States’ attitude towards multilateralism is concerning.

The US is due to take over the presidency of the G20 in December. On paper, the transition is automatic. In practice, it is not guaranteed. This uncertainty threatens to reduce the G20’s capacity to act as a stabilising force at a moment when the global economy faces debt distress, fragile supply chains, and uneven progress on post-pandemic recovery.

The current administration has made its hostility towards South Africa and the broader multilateral system clear. President Trump has openly suggested that he may skip the leaders’ summit in Johannesburg and send a substitute in his place. The absence of the US Secretary of State from the foreign ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg earlier this year was a sign of discord. Reports of restrictions on US government engagement in the G20 tracks further illustrate that bilateral tensions have begun to spill into the multilateral arena.

The immediate question is whether the G20 can retain its relevance if the US either withdraws or participates at lower levels. The presidency matters because it sets the agenda and coordinates the pace of engagements. If Washington fails to optimise this role, other states are likely to fill the vacuum. The forum will continue to meet and to publish communiqués. However, trust in the US will be further eroded, and its stance will also corrode the very fabric of multilateralism. 

The wider context is the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. The UN is not perfect, and its limitations are well known. The veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council has too often paralysed action in the face of aggression and humanitarian catastrophe. Yet the UN remains the only universal platform where every state can speak and where norms of international law can be reaffirmed. Reform of the UN is essential, but it does not equate to demolition. It requires the careful renovation of a house that has sheltered the world from the worst of storms.

The White House has already instructed agencies to review and, in some cases, suspend funding for UN programmes. It has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement once more and rolled back US engagement with international bodies. These actions alter the balance of power within institutions that were designed to manage collective risk. The US’s attitude towards multilateral institutions could signal that international rules are optional and that power alone dictates outcomes. 

The General Assembly, which opens in September, will provide a stage on which the direction of the organisation will be tested. Leaders will gather to signal whether they intend to defend the Charter or to hollow it out. The world will listen closely to what the US chooses to say. A message that the Charter is optional would echo across negotiations on climate, debt, health, and peacekeeping. A message that the US is prepared to support calls for reform with renewed commitments would carry a constructive weight. Either way, credibility will flow not from speeches but from the willingness to back words with sustained action.

To sustain their existence, value, and relevance, both the G20 and the UN must prepare for a world in which the participation of major powers is unpredictable. That means building contingency measures that make them less vulnerable. The G20 should strengthen its technical working groups and secretariat functions so that coordination continues even if summitry is reduced. It should design procedures that guarantee progress on debt relief, financial stability, and health security regardless of political volatility. 

The UN should protect its core humanitarian programmes with pooled funding mechanisms that insulate them from abrupt withdrawals by single donors. It should streamline mandates to ensure that peacekeeping and development work are more agile and results-oriented. And it must advance serious discussions on Security Council reform, recognising that representation today does not reflect demographic or economic realities. These reforms will not be easy, but they are necessary if the institutions are to remain fit for purpose.

Defending multilateralism does not mean ignoring failures or indulging hypocrisy. It means recognising that the alternative to collective problem-solving is fragmentation and rivalry. Without global rules, debt restructuring becomes a race to the bottom. Without international standards, supply chains fracture and investment falters. Without universal forums, small states are silenced, and great powers increase confrontation.

Multilateral institutions matter because they convert friction into negotiated rules. The process is noisy, but the product is more stable than anything a single state can dictate. The G20 is the forum where macroeconomic coordination has prevented deeper crises before and can do so again. The UN is the place where every state can assert its sovereignty while committing to norms that protect all. Both the G20 and the UN are under pressure. Both need renewal. Both can still deliver.

Defending multilateralism is about more than preserving institutions for their own sake. It is about ensuring that global tools exist to manage risks that no single nation can manage on its own. The G20 and the UN remain essential parts of that toolbox. 

The future of the G20 and the UN depends on the choices leaders make in the coming months. In Johannesburg, the G20 summit will reveal whether members are willing to collaborate even when the host and the presumptive successor are at odds. In New York, the UN’s 80th anniversary will show whether states can summon the political will to pair reform with recommitment. It is in the interest of all that leaders rise above hostility and the fracturing of cooperation. We trust that they will summon the will to defend and reform these institutions, making them engines of practical problem-solving that protect lives, sustain peace, and expand opportunity.

* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development, and security.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.