At a pivotal moment reflecting profound transformations in the international order, the G20 Summit opened last Saturday in Johannesburg, South Africa, amid the absence of the United States following its decision to boycott the summit on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations against the South African government regarding alleged discrimination against white farmers.
اضافة اعلان
This absence was not merely a protocol-related stance; it became a headline for an escalating global struggle over the directions of development and the economy, and a moment that reveals the widening rift between the approaches of the countries of the Global North and the demands of the Global South.
From the perspective of the Global South, the summit represents a historic opportunity to reshape the rules of global economic governance, after current paths have clearly failed to address the crises of debt, climate change, unequal development, and deepening social and economic inequalities.
In this context, South Africa, as the host country, outlined an agenda based on four main pillars: doubling the financing dedicated to responding to climate-related disasters, alleviating the debt burdens of developing countries, accelerating a just energy transition, and ensuring that Africa benefits from its vital resources, particularly the strategic minerals that underpin the global economy.
This vision represents the principles emphasized by the South African President in his opening speech, where he stressed, both directly and indirectly, the right of the Global South to develop independent development models, and the need to push for reform of international financial institutions so that they play more equitable developmental roles. He also asserted that the world can no longer ignore the consequences of climate change.
South Africa supported its position with the in-depth analysis and recommendations presented by the high-level economic committee chaired by one of the most prominent economists today, Joseph Stiglitz. The committee called for a fundamental restructuring of sovereign debt, the creation of innovative financing mechanisms to support fragile economies, and the reform of the global tax system to curb the tax evasion practiced by major corporations and ensure a fair distribution of wealth. The committee’s report also stressed the need to move beyond “finance engineered on harsh conditionality,” which has proven ineffective in advancing development, calling instead for a developmental model that focuses on investment in health, education, and green infrastructure.
However, these orientations collided directly with the position of the United States. In addition to the political boycott, coinciding with continued disagreements between the two countries over climate issues, debt restructuring, and the rules of economic governance, political tensions have deepened due to the genocide complaint that South Africa filed against the Israeli occupying state before the International Court of Justice.
The absence of the United States left a vacuum that other powers sought to fill. The European Union adopted a more positive position on climate issues, China pushed to present itself as an ally of the Global South, and India and Brazil worked to strengthen calls for reforming multilateral financial institutions. Despite American pressure to block the issuance of a final declaration, participating countries succeeded in drafting an ambitious statement that includes clear commitments to renewable energy and equitable climate financing.
Despite these developments, the United States’ boycott, at a time when it is preparing to lead over the next G20 Summit, marks a defining moment. The world is changing, power structures are fracturing, and developing countries have become more willing to defend their interests and chart a new developmental path free from the dominance of a single power.
