The G20 summit in Johannesburg closed with a diplomatic flair. The president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, banged the ceremonial gavel to signal the end, but on the other side, there was no representative from the United States to accept the handoff.
The United States entirely boycotted the proceedings based on unsubstantiated claims about South Africa, and the absence of its government and leaders loomed over the two-day session — an event South Africa hoped to benchmark as a success of multilateralism.
Dispute over handover process sparked tensions
The United States had suggested that Ramaphosa allow a junior diplomatic official from the embassy to put the gavel down for the G20 presidency. Nevertheless, South African leaders vetoed the gavel handover, citing that they viewed it as a breach of protocol. South African officials insisted that the president could not be seen handing over the G20 presidency to an acting charge d’affaires without a senior representative.
The handover of the gavel did not happen, as the president stated with the leadership from the United States not present, that he would switch to the handover at South Africa’s foreign ministry later. The conclusion of Ramaphosa’s speech mentioned the Lawndale United States briefly and did not mention the boycott at all.
Leaders declare despite US diplomacy
The summit deviated from the tradition of revealing its leaders’ declaration at the beginning. The leaders’ declaration prioritized climate change, gender equality, and the priorities of developing countries. South Africa ensured it centered both African and Global South priorities within the G20 agenda, welcomed by many countries; however, the United States strongly opposed.
The White House accused South Africa of “weaponizing” its presidency. Argentina also objected to the declaration based on US objections.
Global divides foreshadow G20 difficulties
Despite most of the largest countries supporting the declaration, significant divides were clear. A number of key leaders, China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, among them, notably were not a part of this session, increasing a number of uncertainties about the G20’s ability to effectively respond to urgent world crises.
Some critics suggested that the Johannesburg declaration was not terribly innovative when it came to offering a variety of solutions, only mentioning the war in Ukraine once when broadly calling for “peace.” European leaders indicated unity could not be found on geopolitical conflicts.
South Africa highlights symbolic importance
Regardless of the tensions, South Africa framed the summit as historical, as this is the first G20 summit in Africa. For South Africa, Ramaphosa noted, the location symbolizes the role of the African continent as a part of a national conversation.
Leaders from many smaller states also praised the acknowledgment of the aims of inequality, development, and climate rehabilitation at the summit. Observers indicated that despite the summit serving as a strong demonstration of symbolism, to what extent this will result in action remains unclear.
The next summit is on the horizon
The United States is preparing to welcome the G20 summit in 2026 at Trump National Doral Miami, but disputes linger between Washington and Pretoria before the next meeting. Ramaphosa announced the decidedly nuanced result of the summit of leaders by saying they would meet again, next year, in Florida. The closing remark was as much reflected of optimism by some at the summit, as it was the challenges that now characterize the G20.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/international-news/
About the Author
1 thought on “How US’s G20 Boycott Triggered Protocol Disputes and New Diplomatic Tensions”