In November 2025, the 2025 G20 Johannesburg Summit marked the first time the Global 20 summit convened on the African continent.
Almost simultaneously, the United States announced it would send no government officials to attend, a de facto boycott. The publicly stated reason: Alleged human rights abuses in South Africa, especially targeting white Afrikaner farmers.
This boycott did not happen in a vacuum. Over the preceding months, two South African organisations (AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement) played a visible and strategic role in shaping US perceptions of South Africa’s land-expropriation policies, minority-rights discourse and Afrikaner advocacy. Their actions raise serious questions about transnational lobbying, ethno-nationalist agendas and the integrity of diplomatic forums.
AfriForum, Solidarity and US engagement
AfriForum presents itself as an umbrella organisation defending Afrikaner interests, including the rights of white farmers in South Africa. In early 2025, a delegation from AfriForum and Solidarity travelled to Washington DC, met senior US government officials and delivered a document titled the Washington Memorandum.
The memorandum requested specific US policy actions:
- To revise the Expropriation Act and anti-Afrikaans legislation;
- To support Afrikaners as a “people/cultural community”; and
- To facilitate humanitarian assistance and trade agreements benefiting Afrikaners.
In February 2025, Solidarity announced it would engage with the Trump administration over South Africa’s land expropriation law and express concerns on “racial discrimination” and farm attacks.
A further follow-up visit to the White House by Solidarity emphasised proposals for American business exemptions from South Africa’s “race-based legislation” and special economic zone arrangements. This is particularly jarring as Solidarity is a union lobbying on behalf of American employers, without any support from the American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa.
This reveals a chain: A domestic lobby group presents a special interests memorandum abroad, they gain access to a powerful foreign government, and that government alters or threatens policy (in this case, via boycott) based on the narrative advanced.
From advocacy to action – the US boycott of the G20
The outcome is remarkable. US President Donald Trump announced that no US government officials would attend the 2025 Johannesburg G20 summit, citing “human rights abuses” and land expropriation enacted against white Afrikaners. US commentary specifically mentioned Afrikaner farmers as victims of state-backed discrimination.
What is striking is the timing and public framing. A major global meeting hosted by South Africa was overshadowed by a US withdrawal that was overtly linked to a demographic lobby group’s claims.
In effect, AfriForum and Solidarity helped shape public and policy narratives that led to one of the world’s most important economic summits being diplomatically undercut. At the same time, AfriForum and Solidarity have vehemently denied that the boycott stems from their influence… and took the time to liken South Africa’s government to a yapping dog versus the US government.
Stakes and implications
The G20 is premised on multilateralism, cooperation and consensus. When a civil-society lobby influences a major power to militarise policy (boycott) in favour of an ethno-nationalist narrative, it undermines the credibility of multilateral forums.
AfriForum and Solidarity’s lobby transcended domestic advocacy. They linked Afrikaner self-determination, minority rights and historical grievances to US foreign policy leverage. That they achieved measurable diplomatic action illustrates the potency of well-positioned identity politics networks.
South Africa, not Canada or Mexico, became the vacuum for the boycott. While other G20 participants may face tariffs or trade impacts from the US, none orchestrated such a boycott via domestic lobby linkages with US policy. The asymmetry is stark.
Comparison: Canada, Mexico and tariff victims
Canada and Mexico experienced significant US tariff actions in 2025, as the Trump administration imposed widespread duties and economic pressure. These states suffered direct material cost, yet their responses remained within standard diplomatic frameworks (retaliation, WTO filings), not orchestrated policy disruptions.
Meanwhile, the Afrikaner lobby’s strategic access to US decision-makers allowed a boycott decision to be shaped in favour of their narrow agenda, despite South Africa being the target and not the initiating party. This dynamic merits scrutiny.
Ethical and governance questions
From a governance and ethics standpoint, several issues require urgent attention from South Africans:
- Did AfriForum or Solidarity fully disclose the nature, funding and purpose of their US lobbying? Full disclosure should be made by AfriForum and Solidarity of all international engagements, funding, meeting minutes and lobbying purposes.
- Are these groups accountable to the South African public for influencing foreign policy in their favour? South Africans deserve scrutiny of domestic lobby groups’ role in foreign policy outcomes.
- These organisations derive domestic legitimacy via white minority rights while abroad influencing US policy, a fundamental tension between civic representation and international lobbying.
- The lobby’s advocacy for Afrikaner self-determination sits uneasily within South Africa’s constitutional and democratic order and the global governance ethos of G20. There should be civil society monitoring of multilateral forums like the G20 to ensure their integrity against narrow interest capture.
Conclusion
The US boycott of the 2025 G20-Johannesburg summit is more than a diplomatic footnote. It demonstrates that small but well-positioned ideological networks, such as AfriForum and Solidarity, can influence major global policy outcomes.
While the citizens of Canada and Mexico responded to the Trump administration’s 2025 tariff war with solidarity and pragmatism, rallying across political lines to defend jobs, rebuild trade routes and negotiate within lawful multilateral channels, the reaction of AfriForum and Solidarity stands in stark contrast.
Ordinary Canadians and Mexicans faced genuine economic pain, yet they resisted the temptation to scapegoat or fracture their societies; they stood together as nations. By contrast, the Afrikaner lobby’s campaign in Washington weaponised disinformation about attacks on white farmers in South Africa, a narrative long debunked by human rights monitors and local crime statistics.
Instead of protecting all South Africans, their lobbying produced a G20 boycott that isolates the entire country, damages trade and deepens racial polarisation.
Where Canada and Mexico sought unity against external economic pressure, AfriForum and Solidarity exported division, turning a domestic myth into a foreign policy instrument that punishes the very nation they claim to defend. DM