The first G20 summit ever held on African soil was meant to spotlight climate justice, debt relief, and a more inclusive model of global governance.
It did ultimately do just that, but in a way shaped far more by who was absent than by who attended.
Washington’s deliberate and unprecedented boycott of the leaders’ summit created a negotiating vacuum that allowed emerging powers such as China, India, and even a constrained European Union, to exert far greater influence than usual over the outcome.
Perhaps, because of the challenge to the summit’s legitimacy, the Johannesburg Declaration was adopted on the very first day, an unusual step meant to pre-empt potential political disruptions.
However, the hurried adoption also raised questions about whether these outcomes can be implemented if the world’s largest economy does not accept the outcomes declaration from the G20 summit at Johannesburg.
The document while avoiding detailed references to conflict zones such as Ukraine and Gaza, framed the G20’s purpose around climate justice, adaptation financing, disaster resilience and debt relief for vulnerable economies.
That ambitious emphasis was made possible to a great extent because the world’s largest power, United States, was not present to dilute or reinterpret the language.
Among those who stepped into the vacuum created by that absence, was India. New Delhi championed the G20 Critical Minerals Framework, which seeks to build sustainable and transparent critical mineral value chains, enhance local beneficiation and reduce the long-standing pattern of exporting raw materials only to import high-value finished goods.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also used the summit to focus on the fight against terror, having been a victim of cross-border terrorism in the recent past as well as introduce six new initiatives, including a global traditional knowledge repository and a G20 health emergency response team, embedding a human-centric vision of development that dovetails with the summit’s broader focus on just energy transitions.
Beijing, even without President Xi Jinping at the table, also took pains to try and shape key parts of the agenda, something which the US would have watched closely from the side-lines. The Chinese team, led by Premier Li Qiang worked closely with developing countries to warn against unilateral climate-related trade measures such as carbon border adjustment mechanisms, which it sees as discriminatory against developing economies.
China’s interventions, ensured that the final language on climate retained an emphasis on equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, and opposition to policies perceived as cloaked protectionism. One has to see how the US President Donald Trump responds to the broadside Xi Qiang managed to launch in his absence.
While this may have symbolically strengthened the Global South coalition’s hand, the more powerful West was certainly discomfited. The European Union(EU) did attempt to preserve its influence by advancing critical mineral partnerships, especially with South Africa, and by retaining a strong focus on investment in the green transition.
Yet without the United States to bolster Western positions, the EU found itself on the defensive. It faced coordinated pressure from India, China and other developing states to soften its stance on trade-linked climate measures and to address long-standing grievances about delayed or insufficient climate finance.
However, the victory is ambiguous. A declaration that the United States does not recognise cannot function as a universally accepted roadmap for global economic policy.
The world will watch whether the United States re-engages, as also whether emerging powers choose to treat the G20 as a platform for shared governance or merely another arena to contest influence.
