„Ce numéro de la revue de presse n’est actuellement disponible qu’en allemand et en anglais.“

South Africa excluded from G20 meetings under US chairmanship

On Tuesday, the first G20 sherpa meeting under US presidency ended in Washington D.C. – without South Africa. The founding member of the G20, which had only handed over the chairmanship of the forum to the US on 1 December, was not invited by the US government and, as things stand, is also excluded from all further G20 meetings under US chairmanship. South African government spokesman Vincent Magwenya described the decision as an affront to multilateralism and called on the other G20 countries to take a clear stance. However, Pretoria strictly rejected a boycott by other members and announced that it would suspend its G20 activities for 2026 until the United Kingdom takes over the presidency for 2027 next December.

The US government’s decision not to accredit South Africa to the G20 formats under its chairmanship follows on from political differences that have intensified since the Trump administration took office and were already apparent during South Africa’s G20 presidency. At the end of November, US President Donald Trump posted unsubstantiated allegations of an alleged ‘white genocide’ against white Afrikaners on his social media platform Truth Social, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeated these allegations in an official statement issued by the State Department on 3 December. South Africa has repeatedly and firmly rejected these accusations, as well as allegations that it intends to arbitrarily expropriate land without compensation or to make racism against white Afrikaners a policy. Washington also criticised South Africa’s foreign policy positioning, including close relations with BRICS+ member Iran and alleged sympathies for Hamas. Furthermore, Trump and Rubio argued that South Africa had pursued a divisive agenda in setting the agenda for its G20 presidency, ignored US reservations about consensus communiqués, blocked contributions to negotiations and failed to hand over the presidency properly, demonstrating that the country was not ‘worthy’ of membership. Moreover, they announced the immediate suspension of payments and subsidies to South Africa.

Some South African and regional analyses see the accusations levelled against South Africa by the US government as only part of the reason for the expulsion of the founding member of the G20. The decision is also interpreted as political retaliation for South Africa’s decision to bring charges of genocide against Israel before the International Court of Justice and to continue to pursue these charges despite political pressure to withdraw. The revocation of the US visa of former South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor, who was responsible for filing the lawsuit in 2023, announced in November, is also seen as evidence of such retaliation.

Meanwhile, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa made it clear in an official statement that South Africa is a sovereign, constitutionally based democratic state and rejects any public questioning of its ‘worthiness’ to participate in multilateral forums. At the same time, Ramaphosa expressed disappointment that repeated attempts to readjust relations with the US were being undermined by allegations based on misinformation and distortions. Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola also emphasised that no single G20 member had the right to exclude another. The G20 is a ‘forum among equals’ in which decisions are made by consensus. Furthermore, according to Lamola, the US chose voluntarily not to attend several meetings and is therefore hardly in a position to judge the negotiations during South Africa’s G20 presidency.

There was also a strong reaction from Germany. Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended South Africa’s place at the international negotiating table and said he would lobby the US to invite South Africa to the G20 summit. The German ambassador to South Africa, Andreas Peschke, also emphasised South Africa’s important role within the G20 as the only representative of the African continent alongside the African Union, which was admitted to the multilateral forum in 2023. According to Peschke, the country had also demonstrated its importance during its successful G20 presidency. At the same time, excluding South Africa could set a precedent in the heterogeneous G20 structure and influence the participation or exclusion of other states in bilateral disputes. France has meanwhile announced that it will invite South Africa as a guest to the 2026 G7 summit, while China has reaffirmed its support for South Africa’s continued participation in the G20 in order to promote multilateralism, global growth and improved global economic governance.

South Africa’s exclusion from the G20 formats under the US presidency goes beyond a bilateral conflict and raises questions about the G20 consensus principle, but also about the functioning of multilateral forums and thus the state of multilateralism in general. In a multipolar world with increasing geopolitical fragmentation and the growing primacy of unilateral interests, predictable and stable partnerships and effective multilateral processes are crucial for jointly addressing global challenges. South Africa plays a special role in this context: it represents key interests of Africa and the Global South, for example with regard to economic stability, climate protection and justice, and reforms of the international financial architecture, and is also regarded as a player that promotes multilateral cooperation and consensus-oriented diplomacy. This makes the country a key partner for Germany and Europe, too. Regardless of the potential chances of success of such an intervention, it is important to continue to advocate for South Africa’s invitation to the upcoming G20 summit, thereby demonstrating that the pursuit of multilateral cooperation is not just lip service. Furthermore, closer cooperation between Germany and South Africa is not only necessary in these times to strengthen multilateralism and take a stand against policies based on disinformation campaigns and particular interests, but can also send an important and credible signal that, in the spirit of democratic coexistence, states do not have to agree on all foreign policy issues in order to find joint solutions to global problems.