9 October 2025 - Donald Trump, the godfather of modern ‘anti-globalism’, has injected a dose of toxic precarity into international multilateral and trade relations, including the G20.
As the world stares down a vortex of geopolitical instability, the challenge facing South Africa during its presidency of the G20 is not simply one of technical diplomacy.
It is existential; the future of multilateralism is at stake.
As a senior foreign diplomat in Pretoria put it to me recently: “It is South Africa’s destiny to have the G20 at this moment in history.”
We live in an era of simultaneous, overlapping crises — climate change, inequality, war, debt, misinformation. But perhaps the most dangerous of all is the corrosion of international legal norms and standards and companion institutions that were established to manage such crises in the first place.
That system, born in the ashes of World War 2 and further entrenched during the post-Cold War years, is now unravelling under the weight of double standards, exceptionalism and populist disdain.
Donald Trump, the godfather of modern “anti-globalism”, has injected a dose of toxic precarity into international multilateral and trade relations, including the G20, whose presidency the United States is supposed to take over from South Africa at the end of this year.
His approach to geo-economics — cynical, transactional, inward-looking — has metastasised across the globe, with numerous copycat nationalist extremists galvanised by the political cover Trump provides.
Against this bleak backdrop, the “great powers” — the US, China, and Russia — are locked in a grim tug-of-war for global influence and control, although it is important to recognise that of the three, China now represents the “adult in the room”: the only serious, rational actor, and a pillar of relative stability in a sea of uncertainty.
What does this mean for the G20? Well, the traditional engine room of economic diplomacy now risks becoming just another forum for geopolitical point-scoring. The possibility of consensus — let alone coordinated action — has never looked so tenuous.
So here we are: South Africa, as the current G20 president, presiding over an increasingly dissonant chorus, with the risk that next year’s chair, the US, might simply abandon the entire ensemble if the domestic political winds shift.
The famed G20 “troika” — the trio of past, present, and incoming chairs meant to ensure institutional continuity — may not survive the year.
A new typology
And so South African diplomats and officials will be advised to prepare for a number of possible scenarios, ranging from complete failure on the back of US obstructionism or boycotting, to a reasonably successful outcome, potentially achieved by the use of a uniquely South African negotiating concept from the early 1990s, namely “sufficient consensus”.
In this context, this may be the moment that “middle powers” have been waiting for. It is far from being a new concept, but in looking towards those middle powers, it is worth recognising that the landscape has shifted and a new typology is needed.
Between the three “great powers” tussling for supremacy and the true middle powers, sits a “mezzanine tier” of five former and emerging great powers: France, the UK, Germany, Japan and India — major economies with global reach, but tethered by domestic fragilities or preoccupations and inconsistent leadership.
Between them and the rest — the bulk of the global community, often marginalised, frequently ignored, but deeply affected by global decisions — sit the true middle powers: states with shared values and enough legitimacy, capability and regional credibility to convene, broker and lead.
In this four-tiered world, it is Tier Three — these middle powers — that must now carry the baton of multilateral renewal. They are neither so dominant as to provoke resistance, nor so weak as to be ignored. If anything, they are uniquely positioned to reclaim or reset the normative core of international relations.
Moreover, South Africa, despite its domestic weaknesses and contradictions, is well-positioned to play a leadership role. As the respected veteran international relations professor Garth le Pere, now associated with the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (Mistra), will argue in a forthcoming paper, the country “has certainly registered impressive gains as a respected ‘norm entrepreneur’ on the global stage, which has burnished its multilateral credentials”.
Global governance crisis
A primary example of this has been South Africa’s principled stand on the genocide in Gaza and its extraordinary leadership in litigating the matter at the International Court of Justice.
There is perhaps no more stark illustration of the global governance crisis than the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza. The relentless assault on civilians, the mounting evidence of war crimes and the studied silence — or, worse, complicity — of many Western capitals have shattered any illusion that the “rules-based order” is universally applied.
It has become clear that for some states, “rules” are for others. In this context, the emergence of the Hague Group — a coalition of countries pushing for international accountability for Israel — represents a watershed moment. At long last, a group of states is willing to act not on the basis of geopolitical calculus, but on the foundations of international law and moral consistency.
If Gaza is the acid test — of values and commitment to the equal and consistent application of principles of international law — the test for middle powers is clear: can they sustain this moral clarity, not just on Gaza, but across the spectrum of global crises? Can they model a new kind of leadership, grounded in principles rather than power?
Amid the dysfunction, there are glimmers of what a middle-power-led agenda could look like. The recent agreement between Spain, Brazil and South Africa to explore a global wealth tax is one such example — bold, values-based and aimed at tackling structural inequality head-on.
But more is needed. As the G20 presidency progresses, South Africa could convene a group of like-minded middle powers — let’s call it the M10 — to build consensus on the core issues of sustainability, equality, and solidarity, the three pillars of South Africa’s G20 agenda.
An M10, comprising Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Canada, Spain, South Korea, Australia, Norway, Ireland and South Africa itself (all of whom are either G20 countries or invited guests), could work to salvage and advance at least 10 priority deliverables from this G20 cycle.
These might include ideas and principles such as:
- A framework for global wealth taxation;
- A new global agreement on loss and damage finance;
- Strengthened climate finance targets for adaptation in the face of climate breakdown;
- Global standards on just transition planning;
- A roadmap for debt reform for climate-vulnerable countries;
- A moratorium on fossil fuel subsidies;
- A commitment to reform the Bretton Woods and UN Security Council governance structures;
- Global norms on AI and digital rights;
- A joint statement on Gaza and international law; and
- A global compact on youth and intergenerational equity in climate policy.
Or it could be focused in a more granular way on affirming the specific recommendations of the myriad G20 working groups and task forces that are now concluding their work and entering what is known as the “advocacy phase” of the year.
It will be about what such middle powers decide they can most usefully agree upon and drive a wider consensus in support of, with or without US cooperation. This is not about forming a new geopolitical bloc. It is about making multilateralism work again — through pragmatic cooperation, moral clarity and inclusive leadership.
At this hinge moment in human history, we sit at that delicate Gramscian moment when the old order is dying, but the new has yet to be born.
If great powers cannot be relied upon to steward the international system responsibly, then the middle powers must step into the breach.
For South Africa, the G20 presidency is more than a diplomatic milestone. It is a chance to reimagine leadership in a fractured world — to prove that solidarity is not a slogan, but a strategy.
And that middle powers, acting in concert, can help bend the arc of global governance back towards justice, sustainability and peace.
Perhaps the M10 can lead the way.
