The G20 summit kicked off in Johannesburg, South Africa, on Saturday with an “opening statement,” despite a notable absence from the US and several other world leaders.
Interestingly, even though he wasn’t there, Chinese leader Xi Jinping made statements prior to the summit. The state-owned Global Times reported on this with what some may call a triumphant tone.
Even with boycotts and pressures from the US, attendees at the summit found common ground on issues like disaster resilience, debt sustainability, energy transitions, and critical minerals. They adopted the G20 South Africa Leaders’ Declaration on the summit’s first day.
Chinese analysts pointed out that the successful adoption of this joint declaration, despite US opposition, highlights the rising influence of China and other Global South nations in global governance. They emphasized that there’s substantial support for China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI) among Global South countries, which aims to foster genuine multilateralism.
According to Global Times, other Chinese media outlets celebrated the summit as a significant opportunity for Africa to elevate its role in global governance and pursue shared development goals.
On a somewhat awkward note, the G20 summit’s conclusion was less than smooth, as it was supposed to formally pass the rotating presidency to the US. However, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa declined to conduct the handover ceremony due to the US only sending its chargé d’affaires to the event.
The closing remarks at the summit deviated from the usual protocol, omitting customary references to the next host country and instead vaguely looking forward to “cooperation” with the US.
Other international news outlets, like Reuters, echoed the sentiments of the Chinese state media, portraying the summit as a “rare victory for multilateralism over US boycotts and opposition.”
This outcome apparently angered the US, which will take over the G20 Presidency next year. The White House accused South Africa of jeopardizing the G20’s foundational principle of unanimity. President Trump has stated he plans to restore “legitimacy” during next year’s proceedings.
Michael Bokulkiw from the Atlantic Council noted that many G20 leaders are “sick and tired” of Trump and suggested that presenting a united front against the US boycott might create a new way of engaging with him.
“The overarching message from this G20 is that, despite US power and geopolitical tactics, countries can unite and achieve their objectives,” remarked Nabil Ahmed from Oxfam America.
However, the account by the New York Times provided a more skeptical view. Ramaphosa struggled to address concerns over the US’s last-minute attendance changes, which had led to misunderstandings about the summit’s approvals.
“We acknowledge Argentina’s concerns with respect. As supporters of multilateralism, we do not sound particularly ‘multilateral’ but will adhere to the declaration accepted by the G20,” remarked Ramaphosa.
Amid the enthusiastic media coverage, other G20 leaders seemed apprehensive about the upcoming presidency under Trump next year. Concerns were raised about potential changes, including the scrapping of controversial working groups focused on “income inequality” and the risk of excluding UN agencies from future summits.
From the perspective of the New York Times, leaders seemed realistic enough to know they couldn’t simply “denounce Trump.” They all understood that the declaration they endorsed lacked binding legal power—essentially, just political theatrics.
