“Appearances constitute reality,” Nelson Mandela once told the ghost writer of his book, Long Walk to Freedom.
His protégé must hope that holds true of this past weekend.
The G20 Summit in Johannesburg wrapped up last Sunday in an orgy of bear hugs and back slapping. Commentators lauded President Cyril Ramaphosa for deftly treading a geopolitical tightrope over the US boycott and forging a consensus on a Leaders’ Declaration. So too did other world leaders.
Everyone agreed that South Africa put on a great show. For once, government and local media were on the same page: both framed the summit as a big diplomatic win.
The government invested heavily in the year-long programme of events, outreach and workstreams that culminated in the summit. Within South Africa, it had the feeling of a once-in-a-generation chance to show the country’s best face.
For much of 2025, it seemed almost certain that Ramaphosa and his team would struggle to control the narrative. Washington had been aiming a wrecking ball at the hosts for months.
In the end, the US boycott proved a blessing for them. South Africa was given a wide berth to define the message and explain to the world what this year’s G20 had achieved.
Within hours of Ramaphosa banging the gavel, government officials and many local analysts enthused that the event marked a turning point for South Africa’s global reputation and influence. Others revelled in the country’s arch menace, US President Donald Trump, getting a “bloody nose”. Some even heralded a recalibration of the world order, with middle powers and the global south ascendant.
Regardless of whether any of this is true, South Africa’s soft power will rise if enough people believe it is. Appearances, per Mandela, help create the change you seek.
The world moves on – except Trump
The challenge, as Mandela also understood, is that moments like the G20 Summit are fleeting. Even the best images become tawdry if there are no actions to sustain them.
This is where reality will bite back for South Africa.
Most obviously, there is Trump. His administration is currently absorbed by their faltering peace plan for Ukraine and widening fissures within the Maga movement. But he will come for South Africa.
Ramaphosa’s officials could have played nice in advance of the summit. Instead, they poked the bear. International Relations minister Ronald Lamola said that the world can “move on without the US” at the gathering, using the same “white supremacy” critique that got the last South African ambassador to Washington ejected.
Poking the bear is a perfectly sound strategy, so long as you’re prepared to own the consequences. It is often used in the United States by Trump’s political adversaries, like Governor of California Gavin Newsom, who seems to relish giving Trump as good as he gets.
South Africa is not California, however. Its power imbalance with the US is vast. In time, questions will be asked of Pretoria’s decision to reject Washington’s request for its charge d’affairs to receive the G20 handover in the summit hall.
South Africa may have felt that it could get away with it. Most G20 members are exasperated with the US’s erratic behaviour. Ramaphosa clearly felt the wind in his sails when he declared that South Africa “would not be bullied” by America.
Yet the G20 is an informal mechanism, light on rules, comprised of sovereign states. There was nothing legal or otherwise to prevent a lower-level official from accepting the handover from a state president. The scene in the hall would have told its own story. Its absence foretells another.
South African officials accept that the Trump administration might move to disinvite President Ramaphosa to next year’s summit in Florida. On this, they are probably correct. But they are wrong to assume that other G20 members, however strong their objections, will do much to stop it.
The past 10 months have shown that on most matters other than collective security, you are essentially on your own when dealing with the Trump administration.
G20 mission creep
The US boycott has only deepened unease about the direction of Trump’s foreign policy. That fact should not obscure valid concerns about the direction of the G20, on which the US has been especially vocal, but not alone.
The G20 was established in 1999 to address acute financial shocks affecting the global economy. Several norms for collective action have since been created through the intergovernmental forum, especially around crisis response.
But the G20 has no legal personality under international law. It has no means to ensure compliance with its recommendations. Its relevance is grounded in real solutions, which the United States – as the world’s most powerful economic actor – must play an integral part for them to be effective. Hence, its absence this year is only to be regretted.
Few would quibble with the main aspirations highlighted in the G20 declaration around inclusive economic growth, responsible mineral resource management, climate change action or addressing global inequality.
The danger, as US officials emphasised early on, is that in expanding its mandate – perhaps at the expense of the United Nations, even if this administration wouldn’t say so – this G20 risked becoming a virtue-signalling platform and nothing more.
We’ll know if they were right once the legacy of the Johannesburg G20 summit takes shape. The relative uninterest shown by global media towards it compared with previous editions is telling. It wasn’t just for the lack of Trumpian theatre. Many questioned if anything meaningful could emerge without the buy-in of the US.
African leadership before global role
Much was rightly made of this year’s G20 being the first summit on African soil. In that respect, its historic significance is assured.
In expressing gratitude to his fellow G20 leaders for their contributions to the final agreement, Ramaphosa explained that “as South Africa, we have sought to place Africa’s development firmly on the agenda of the G20. We have done so not only because this is the first time the G20 is being held in Africa, but because Africa’s success is so important to progress and prosperity across the globe.”
Ramaphosa is right about Africa’s success. And there is no reason to doubt his sincerity. But there are strong grounds to question his strategy.
For nearly 20 years, South Africa has sought an ever-greater role on the global stage, and for many, this summit will seem like an apogee. Yet this ambition has been pursued with diminishing regard for where South Africa’s core strengths are rooted and from which the country could develop genuine global influence and power: the African continent.
In my own research and that of many other scholars studying the impact of “big states” like South Africa, it is clear that they will be unable to galvanise regional or continental consensus around the key issues of our time if they are not acknowledged as leading nations, which, on some level, can represent and advance certain shared values and interests. And most importantly, if they do not show up where leading nations are needed.
For all the commentators hailing South Africa’s newfound global stature emerging from this summit, they must first reckon with the idea that SA’s global role can only be strong precisely because its role in Africa is strong.
One of the continent’s most respected voices in international diplomacy explained to me the day after the summit:
“South Africa is trying to project a global role when it is not exercising power where it can genuinely make a difference – in peace and security of its own continent. Where is South Africa on Tanzania, on Sudan? Its power and influence derive not from platforms like the G20 but in leading collective action through regional bodies and the African Union.”
This was not sour grapes. He has observed first-hand how strength in your region is what allows you to play effectively at the global level.
For all the good this summit might have delivered for South Africa, the country’s leaders still get this the other way round. DM