The decision by the US to challenge South Africa’s ambition for a declaration at the G20 leaders summit acts as a litmus test for the future of global politics, placing Pretoria at the centre of diplomatic tensions between Washington and its allies.
The Sunday Times was first to report on Wednesday that the US had written to Pretoria, warning against making a G20 declaration without its presence at the leaders’ summit this weekend.
This is a last-ditch attempt by the US to undermine South Africa’s G20 presidency. Negotiations have been ongoing between Pretoria and other G20 member states to agree on a summit declaration.
The Sunday Times understands that the US has made attempts to bully allies not to agree to a leaders’ declaration during the summit. In a diplomatic note seen by the Sunday Times and dated November 15, Washington said it “opposes issuance of any G20 summit outcome document under the premise of a consensus G20 position, without US agreement”.
Essentially the US is stating that without its cooperation and formal representation, a summit declaration cannot be adopted. The US also argues that no leaders’ statement can be adopted without its input.
In response, the international relations & cooperation ministry told the Sunday Times that Washington’s absence negates its role over the G20’s conclusions. “But we cannot allow coercion by absentia to become a viable tactic; it is a recipe for institutional paralysis and the breakdown of collective action,” said Chrispin Phiri, the minister’s spokesperson.
Government insiders said they expect the note by the US will kick-start another debate over its waning influence in world politics. Already, Paris and London, two of the US’s historical allies, told journalists in the lead-up to the summit that they plan to support South Africa’s agenda.
We’ve never had a situation where there hasn’t been a declaration adopted under the G20 Summit. We’re sitting at a crossroads, because all of the rhetoric [of South Africa] around ‘we don’t give a damn, they’re not here’ doesn’t really talk to the technicalities of what this means.
— Sanusha Naidu, foreign policy analyst
Government officials in Pretoria are expecting this to be the posture taken by the European Union and its Brics partners. They said that the US’s actions may further alienate it from its allies, instead of its desired effect to further undermine South Africa.
Foreign policy analyst Sanusha Naidu said Pretoria was facing “unprecedented, uncharted waters at the moment”.
“We’ve never had a situation where there hasn’t been a declaration adopted under the G20 Summit. We’re sitting at a crossroads, because all of the rhetoric [of South Africa] around ‘we don’t give a damn, they’re not here’ doesn’t really talk to the technicalities of what this means,” she said.
“You do have certain meetings in the finance track, where they haven’t been adopted by consensus. They’ve had a chair’s statement or a summary, that’s an important point. So without them being there, will the other countries go against the US and say we adopted this?”
Business Day reported on Wednesday that the UK intends to press ahead with its full G20 agenda in South Africa despite the US boycott, with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer expected to attend the leaders’ summit.
UK high commissioner Antony Phillipson told Business Day that Washington’s decision not to send anyone — followed by a formal notice that it will accept only a chair’s summary, not a negotiated declaration — “changes the dynamic” but does not diminish the value of the forum.
Naidu said another point to bear in mind was that the G20 was not a binding organisation. It’s not a formal institution that has a secretariat, she said.
“It’s an informal structure, but because of the way it’s structured in terms of the 18 richest countries in the world, by implication we say these are the ones that underpin the global norms, global rules.”
A government insider said the US was throwing curveballs, which may become the litmus test for the member states to take more stock in the consensus approach. They said the consensus approach would also mean that Argentina loses its power in its objection to the declaration.
Naidu agreed, adding that the G20 could produce an outcome where countries want to adopt a declaration without the US.
“There could be pressure on South Africa not to do that, but what is interesting if South Africa has done enough lobbying with the Chinese, they will have enough traction. This is the politics of politics.
“We can’t be reductionist and pin it to whether South Africa wins or loses this fight. Even if we don’t get a declaration, the question has always been: have these declarations had traction and implementation, and we haven’t seen that. They have taken on a few issues, but it hasn’t been at the point where we see a cohesive implementation.
“South Africa could sit with a situation where it does not get a leaders’ declaration, but at the same time South Africa has put the cat among the pigeons because it has set an implicit precedent where it can take further this notion that the US is an unpredictable actor, and then you can get a legacy project you can put forward because of the precedent set in Johannesburg,” she said.
But we are forging ahead to pursue with the countries that are present that we must adopt the leaders’ declaration, because the institution cannot be brought down by anyone. Because if I am absent for whatever reason, if I don’t agree with the agenda and so forth, I must come to the platform and raise my issues with the agenda.
— Ronald Lamola, international relations minister
At a briefing on Monday, finance minister Enoch Godongwana and international relations minister Ronald Lamola criticised the US, but argued that it would not deter the G20 agenda.
The two ministers insisted the US could not wish South Africa away, claiming that the only way Washington would bar them from attending the G20 next year would be by denying them visas.
“The sherpas are negotiating the leaders’ declaration. We are moving towards deciding the terms of the leaders’ declaration. Negotiations are happening, and in the later stage, in the course of the week, you will hear the outcome,” Lamola said.
“But we are forging ahead to pursue with the countries that are present that we must adopt the leaders’ declaration, because the institution cannot be brought down by anyone. Because if I am absent for whatever reason, if I don’t agree with the agenda and so forth, I must come to the platform and raise my issues with the agenda.”
While South Africa seemed to be putting on a brave face, the two ministers were less than confident that a declaration would be agreed by the heads of state.
Godongwana explained that two forms of documents could emerge from the meeting, a declaration or a chairperson’s statement. He said the chairperson’s statement did not mean that the South African agenda had failed, arguing that the same process was achieved by other countries during their presidency.
“We may take a soft approach and say, OK, the other colleagues feel differently, chairpersons send us a statement. It’s got the same effect as a declaration, because the only thing is that nobody can contest you much on your content, because the content comes from you as a host country. In that sense, there will be a declaration or a chair’s statement one way or another out of the meeting,” he said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.