Onome Amuge
Geopolitical analysts have warned that the G20, long regarded as the premier forum for the world’s largest economies, risks fragmenting into competing blocs amid escalating tensions between the United States and South Africa. The warning follows the US’ controversial decision to exclude South Africa, a full member since the bloc’s inception, from the 2026 G20 Summit, instead extending an invitation to Poland, a key European ally of the United States.
The decision comes after months of deteriorating bilateral relations. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused South Africa of genocide against White Afrikaners, a claim vehemently rejected by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa during a visit to the White House in May. The rift has intensified after the U.S. boycott of the 2025 G20 Summit in Pretoria, the first-ever G20 meeting hosted on African soil. The absence of the U.S., alongside other major powers, left the summit’s impact and credibility in question, even as South Africa sought to foreground the priorities of the Global South.
Speaking recently on Nairametrics’ Drinks & Mic podcast, Cheta Nwanze, CEO and lead partner at SBM Intelligence, said the G20’s cohesion is now “all but collapsed.” According to Nwanze, the world is drifting toward an emerging West versus the rest situation, where smaller, historically non-aligned countries face mounting pressure to choose sides. “The cohesiveness that the G20 used to have is gone. The forum is going to split into various blocs over time, aligning along geopolitics,” he said.
Arnold Dublin-Green, chief investment officer at Cordros Securities, described the U.S. exclusion of South Africa as emblematic of a broader shift in global power dynamics. “It is definitely the West versus BRICS,” he said, noting that the boycott may mark a historical turning point. “This is probably something we’ll look back on and say, okay, this is when we knew things were exacerbated,” he added.
The G20 comprises the world’s largest economies, along with the European Union and the African Union, representing approximately 85 per cent of global GDP and two-thirds of the world’s population. Historically, the bloc has acted as a platform to coordinate policies on trade, finance, energy, and climate change. Yet the recent Johannesburg summit hints at deep divisions, both in terms of participation and policy priorities.
The Johannesburg Summit: Ubuntu and the Global South
The 2025 G20 Leaders’ Summit, held on November 22–23 in Johannesburg, is considered a milestone in symbolic terms. For the first time, the African continent hosted the forum. South Africa infused the summit with the African philosophy of Ubuntu (I am because we are), highlighting the importance of collective action and global cooperation. The 122-point Johannesburg Declaration, released at the summit’s close, emphasised climate finance, debt relief, equitable digital and energy transitions, food security, human capital development, and the reform of global governance institutions such as the UN Security Council and the IMF.
The summit’s agenda clearly reflected the priorities of the Global South. Delegates urged the operationalisation of climate finance mechanisms, including the Loss and Damage Fund, and advocated for the expansion and simplification of the G20 Common Framework for debt relief, incorporating innovative debt-for-climate and debt-for-development swaps. African nations and other developing countries stressed that high borrowing costs and opaque debt structures continue to impede investment in infrastructure, health, education, and other development priorities.
In the energy sector, the Johannesburg summit prioritised a Just Energy Transition, calling for increased investment in renewables and expanded access to clean technology. Digital governance and AI ethics were also foregrounded, with leaders seeking a framework for safe, transparent, and inclusive adoption of emerging technologies. Food security and human capital development were similarly emphasised, with African delegates pressing for climate-resilient agriculture, youth skills development, and women’s empowerment.
Despite these aspirations, many analysts have questioned the summit’s effectiveness. Nwanze described the Johannesburg Declaration as “mal-fed,” noting that the absence of key leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and U.S. President Donald Trump, diminished the summit’s impact. “I had hoped that being the first G20 in Africa, we would see more concrete outcomes for the continent. That did not happen,” he said.
The United States and South Africa: A fracture in global governance
The exclusion of South Africa from the 2026 G20 Summit in Florida represents an unprecedented challenge to the bloc’s cohesion. The U.S. has historically been a dominant voice in the G20, and its boycott of the 2025 summit, and subsequent refusal to invite South Africa next year—signals a sharp deterioration in bilateral relations. The Trump administration has previously expelled South Africa’s ambassador and imposed 30 per cent trade tariffs, which Pretoria continues to contest.
Observers noted that these moves could have broader implications for emerging markets and the Global South. The U.S. exclusion of South Africa is widely interpreted as a warning to other non-aligned nations, compelling them to consider which side of the emerging geopolitical divide they will support. Some analysts see this as part of a wider pattern in which global powers pursue selective engagement, often undermining multilateral forums in the process.
“The prolonged Russia–Ukraine war and the ongoing Israel–Palestine conflict have exposed deep inconsistencies in the actions of global powers. We are returning to a world where the strong do what they will, and the weak support what they must. And it’s not good for business,” Nwanze said.
Dublin-Green echoed this sentiment, highlighting the silence of Western nations over the U.S. boycott of the first African-hosted G20 summit. “It is indicative of shifting power dynamics. Emerging markets now need to assess whether they can rely on the G20 for collective action or if they must seek alternative platforms,” he remarked.
Global investment implications
From an investment perspective, the fragmentation of the G20 introduces significant uncertainty. Multinational corporations and institutional investors often rely on the forum for policy signals and global economic coordination. There are concerns that an absence of consensus within the G20 may hinder the formulation of coordinated responses to energy security, climate finance, digital governance, and supply chain resilience.
For African economies in particular, the discord raises questions about access to finance, debt relief, and climate adaptation resources. South Africa’s emphasis on the Global South agenda in Johannesburg reflected a desire among emerging markets to secure equitable treatment in global governance structures. However, U.S.–South Africa tensions threaten to slow the operationalisation of key mechanisms such as the Loss and Damage Fund and expanded debt-for-climate swaps.
Analysts also caution that the U.S.’s hardline stance risks isolating African nations within a forum that has traditionally served as a bridge between the Global North and South. As the rotating presidency shifts from South Africa to the U.S., the legitimacy of the Johannesburg summit’s outcomes may be undermined, raising doubts about the G20’s capacity to address pressing global challenges.
The G20’s future now appears uncertain. Its traditional role as a platform for coordinated economic and political action is increasingly challenged by geopolitical fractures and unilateralism. Without robust mechanisms to enforce commitments and ensure accountability, declarations risk remaining aspirational rather than transformative.
South Africa has indicated that it is prepared to sit out the 2026 summit, indicating that the G20 may lose one of its few representatives from the African continent. If other non-aligned countries follow suit, the bloc could increasingly resemble a forum dominated by Western interests, undermining its claim to global representation.
For investors, policymakers, and emerging market leaders, the Johannesburg summit may be remembered not only for its ambitious Global South agenda but also as the moment when the G20’s internal cohesion began to unravel. The forum faces a critical choice: adapt to a multipolar world with competing interests or risk marginalisation as global governance structures evolve.
Cheta Nwanze warned, “The G20 is heading toward a new configuration. Smaller nations must choose sides. Those that fail to navigate this emerging West versus the rest paradigm risk being left behind.” For the Global South, and particularly Africa, the stakes could not be higher.”
