When global realities rule

South and South partnership: Ramaphosa (left) and Anwar with their respective officials meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Johannesburg last week. — Bernama

THIS weekend was supposed to be South Africa’s big moment as G20 President hosting the G20 Summit for the first time.

But then the unpredictable predictably happened: a recalcitrant Trump administration representing nominally the world’s biggest economy boycotts the annual gathering of the world’s leading economies.

Western pundits swiftly pronounced this year’s Johannesburg summit damaged and particularly injurious to its host. However, the G20 institution is made of sterner stuff, its collective purpose being far more enduring and entrenched than the latest Trumpian shock.

A South Africa that had triumphed over many long years of cruel apartheid rule is even more steadfast. President Cyril Ramaphosa had already declared that the US boycott will not upstage the event.

Then, as if sensing that its boycott could be another own goal, Washington said it would be there after all – in a diminished capacity. The US is next year’s G20 President, so somebody had to attend the handover ceremony.

This prompted speculation that Washington would wreak revenge at next year’s summit by overturning any progressive agenda South Africa may propose this year. But there can be any number of flip-flops by a wildly capricious player over a whole year.

Besides, the G20 is more than annual summits – its machinery comprises a dozen Engagement Group meetings besides Working Group consultations, ministerial-level gatherings and pre-conference discussions before the year-end summits. All other members have agency too, and they are already unimpressed with bouts of wayward Trumpism.

Why is the Trump administration so upset with South Africa?

Officially, Pretoria’s land reform law since January had unhinged a segment of its white Afrikaner minority which accuses it of just about everything from land grabs to genocide. Despite constitutional safeguards against abuse of the law, Afrikaner groups like AfriForum appeal for international support against it.

In May, the US welcomed 59 Afrikaners claiming to be ‘refugees’ from South Africa. In August, the State Department released a report alleging a range of disputed human rights allegations against Ramaphosa’s government.

However, left unsaid is South Africa’s upstart role as a leading continental economy actively engaged in an emerging Global South and as a core member of BRICS. Being this year’s G20 President and Summit host as well is difficult for a populist Trump administration with its largely white, rightwing base to accept.

Besides Trump’s allegations, Secretary of State Marco Rubio accuses Pretoria of championing DEI (diversity, equity, inclusiveness) priorities. Their criticism of the US Democratic Party on these grounds has thus spread to targeting another country.

This is where Washington loses the plot again by surrendering its grip on reality. Today’s world is a very diverse place, where equity is a growing popular dividend and inclusivity is a common consequence.

The G20 is proof of a more open and far more democratically accountable forum than the G7. Beyond South Africa, Washington’s angst is against the G20 in affording space for emerging nations and economies beyond the G7.

The G20 currently comprises 19 countries, the EU, the African Union and Spain as a “permanent guest”. More may join in the coming years if the G20 further democratises.

All G7 countries are in the G20, but they are joined by only one African, one Arab, one South Asian and one South-East Asian country (Indonesia). India’s 2023 chairmanship helped the African Union (AU) to join.

Malaysia as Asean Chair is an Observer at this weekend’s summit. Its theme of inclusivity with sustainability accords with the imperatives of the time and the wishes of the vast majority of G20 members.

In contrast, a pouting and petulant Washington preferring to languish in dated 20th-century entitlements would have to be left to itself. Trump had already sidestepped the recent Apec Summit in South Korea, so his absence in Johannesburg seems par for the course.

The Chinese, Russian and Argentinian presidents are also absent but their countries are represented. The G20 as an institution will go on, while its ultimate destiny will be decided by its membership and global realities.

Despite the US absence, it is demanding that only a ‘Chair’s statement’ and no ‘leaders’ declaration’ be issued. However, not being represented at all makes enforcing demands by remote control difficult.

The US argues that its absence makes consensus impossible, so no leaders’ declaration can be issued. However, consensus is not the same as unanimity which may require all countries to be represented.

There could be more spoiler incidents by outlier members in future. How can these be avoided or minimised?

One way is to further democratise the G20 by making it better represent 21st-century realities. After welcoming the AU into its ranks, a credible and consequential G20 should next admit Asean as a full member.

South-East Asia is as deserving as any region in economic achievement and potential.

Bunn Nagara is Director and Senior Fellow at the Renaissance Strategic Research Institute, and Honorary Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.