Myths of Multilateralism as the African Agenda Stagnates

Ashraf Patel 

The dust has not yet settled on South Africa’s historic G20 year as the Leadership summit concluded on Sunday with a range of views on its successes and shortcomings in a world rife with multiple geopolitical storms, Trumpism redefining partnerships and solidarities.  

A brief scorecard unpacks multiple contradictions and shifting sands amidst stagnation.

Global finance is the DNA of the G20 and took place in the year when African countries faced their greatest debt crisis. South Africa’s ‘downgrading’ (excuse the pun) of the all-important  Cost of Capital commission can be seen as a capitulation to creditor nations and credit agencies. For its part, only SA was rewarded with an ‘S&P  ratings upgrade’, while no African nation in debt distress got any rating concession. Solidarity?  African Agency? Clearly not.  

For the sheer scale of global financial inequality, it is sobering to note that with regard to IMF bailouts, one country, fellow G20 member Argentina, received a $22 billion bailout - more than the entire African continent. 

In terms of World Bank support, Ukraine has received more development aid than the whole of the Global South. Ironically, they are also the most neoliberal economies needing global bailouts.   The G20 communique hardly addressed these structural inequalities in global finance, and even the UN Global Tax Treaty work took a back seat.

While South Africa’s G20 themes were commendable, and sustainability,  solidarity, and climate change featured in the working groups, recommendations were lukewarm and non-committal in terms of real resource allocation.

By contrast, Brazil's COP 30 Belen stewardship provided an example of a solid Global South development agenda with the Mutirão Decision (a term used by the Presidency to signify a collective, community-driven effort in Brazilian Portuguese) with clear commitments, has Climate Funding mechanisms, the incorporation of indigenous communities in mining areas, a clear commitment to combat climate disinformation and the support Forever Forest facility etc. 

Here, Brazil and China have emerged as the true champions of multilateralism and sustainability in the midst of the significant powers, and petro states push back. Even the EU has backtracked in its COP30 emissions agenda, as EU nations scour the globe and Africa for energy, oil, gas, hydrogen, and resource extraction. 

In terms of global powers, China has been the de facto global multilateral champion; it has agreed to all its COP30 commitments as well as voluntarily given up its Most Favoured Nations (MFN) status at the WTO in a year of economic nationalism of the US and EU. China has also provided all African nations with duty-free access for all goods. 

Information integrity and social media regulation have been a real challenge in 2025. Despite the themes of information integrity being a core of the UN Global Digital Compact (GDC), the G20 failed to include just two words on the final 30-page statement, a major gap in the era of disinformation and climate denialism. Fortunately, Brazil's Belen declaration managed to save the day with a commitment to combat climate disinformation.

The clear and present dangers for Africa are the multiple wars and civil wars on the African continent, many linked to resource extraction zones in DRC, Sudan, Mozambique,  the Sahel, etc.

In this context, the red-carpet invitation to the UAE was the sore thumb of the G20's human rights agenda.  The invitation to the UAE as a special guest is a diabolical contradiction given its nefarious role in funding the rogue RSF forces that are currently engaging in genocide in the Sudan – a violation of all UN, AU, and Geneva conventions. 

Yet the special invite stands as a sore thumb -  a symbol of South Africa’s deep contradictions in its supposed human rights-centred foreign policy. Here, one can see the ‘Investment agenda’ trumping  South Africa’s G20 human rights agenda. Much explanation is needed by the leadership. 

For its part, Canada’s Mark Carney, a fellow G20 member and supposed ’global human rights champion,’ signed a $70 billion investment agreement with the UAE just days after their G20 attendance. This gives credence to the view that the G20 in 2025 was more of an investment forum without sustainability and human rights (William Shukri, 26 November 2025) .

With only a handful of African leaders invited, and even those who did attend,  Nigeria, Kenya, and Zimbabwe only sent Vice presidents or lower officials. Perhaps this signals the unhappiness at the lack of any meaningful outcomes on the African finance agenda?  

For scholars and social justice activists, the G20 has always been an elite global forum informing the major global challenges of inequality and exclusion.  The 2025 geopolitical storms continue even as South Africa ends its G20 term, with President Trump announcing that South Africa will be ‘disinvited’ to the US G20 in 2026.

 What should be done? Given that South Africa had a historical moment to firmly punt the African agenda and secure real outcomes, such as debt relief, but failed. 

Instead of pushing a bold Africa, we were reduced to playing the role of a broker and pawn for the powerful G7 and getting involved in a complex geopolitical spat between the EU and the US.   The main winners of G20 were the EU, which was well organised and promoted its core themes, and also managed to secure the most invitations by any bloc. And then promoted much of its AU- EU Summit in Angola the following days with a coherent investment agenda. 

South Africa inadvertently played the role of the ‘conveyor belt’ in the re-entry of old colonial EU back into the African continent. Here, its role as a ‘sub-imperialist state’ is merging, very similar to India in Asia.

President Trump is actually somewhat correct when he questions South Africa’s inclusion in the G20. A non-seat at the G20 for Africa in 2026 may be a blessing in disguise, as the G20 has not delivered on the African agenda.

Another spat with the US in 2026 will be diplomatically exhausting and expensive.  Perhaps in the spirit of Ubuntu and solidarity and acknowledging its inability to secure concrete outcomes for Africa, South Africa should ‘mature up’ and cede its G20 seat to a fellow African nation in 2026. 

Now that would be real solidarity and ubuntu in action. 

There must be an alternative to sub-imperialism!

* Ashraf Patel is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue, UNISA.

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