G20 South African Presidency: Aspirations and Expectations

Occasional Paper 12/2025

Click here to read as PDF

Copyright © 2025

Inclusive Society Institute

PO Box 12609, Mill Street

Cape Town, 8010

South Africa

235-515 NPO

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission in writing from the Inclusive Society Institute.

D I S C L A I M E R

Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views of the  Inclusive Society Institute or those of their respective Board or Council members.

OCTOBER 2025

Daryl Swanepoel

Abstract

This analysis examines South Africa’s 2025 G20 presidency as a pivotal moment of moral and strategic redefinition in global governance. Guided by the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability,” the presidency seeks to humanise multilateralism by placing values ahead of metrics. The report interprets the presidency’s agenda, which ranges from inclusive industrialisation and AI governance to financial reform, as a deliberate attempt to infuse justice into the economic discourse. It identifies both enthusiasm and resistance among G20 members, where the Global South views the presidency as emancipatory, whilst the advanced economies, particularly the United States, appear to react warily to its moral framing. The analysis anticipates a likely “19 + 1” outcome that will reflect partial consensus which suggests a new norm for diversity within unity. China’s constructive neutrality and Europe’s mediating role is predicted to sustain the dialogue amid philosophical divergence. Ultimately, the report concludes that South Africa’s leadership reorients the G20 toward a more equitable and humane multilateral order, which, if successfully concluded, will establish a precedent where solidarity and sovereignty may coexist within global cooperation

Introduction

As the world moves toward the 2025 G20 Summit under South Africa’s presidency, the tone of global governance feels both unsettled and newly alive, and it is in this context that the forum, once regarded as an engine of macroeconomic coordination, now finds itself a stage for moral and strategic realignment. The South African presidency, framed under the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability,” arrives not merely as a logistical rotation, but as a philosophical intervention, one that asks whether a multilateral system forged in crisis can evolve toward equity, justice and shared accountability.

This report offers an interpretive and anticipatory reading of that presidency, a forward-looking analysis that does not claim privileged insight, but derives its conclusions from observation, inquiry and expert inference. It synthesises the official G20 Concept Note, the tone and substance of preparatory dialogues and the broader geopolitical mood. Rather than predicting events as foregone conclusions, it reads the atmosphere, the patterns of behaviour, the calibrated silences and the language of diplomacy to anticipate how this presidency may unfold and what its eventual declaration might signify.

South Africa’s leadership emerges at a moment when the G20’s cohesion is strained by geopolitical rivalries, competing economic ideologies and divergent visions of justice. Yet, precisely in this turbulence lies its significance. The presidency has introduced a vocabulary of values into a forum that has long preferred the neutrality of metrics. It has brought back words such as solidarity and equality, words that unsettle the technocratic rhythm of G20 deliberation, but resonate deeply with the developmental aspirations of the Global South.

The analysis that follows explores the aspirations, expectations and challenges of this presidency; the dynamics among major actors, including the United States, China, Europe and the broader Global South; and the probable contours of the final declaration. The report approaches these developments not as closed outcomes, but as evolving signals, to be read, interpreted and weighed.

Ultimately, the question this assessment seeks to illuminate is not whether the South African presidency will succeed in a conventional sense, but whether it can redefine what success means: whether moral conviction, strategic inclusivity and institutional endurance can coexist within a single multilateral frame.

1. Reading the room

Few presidencies in the G20’s two-decade history have carried the emotional and intellectual weight of South Africa’s. From the moment the theme “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability” was announced, it was clear that this would not be an ordinary turn at the helm. It is a presidency animated not only by policy ambition, but by moral architecture, a determination to make the G20 mean something more than the sum of its communiqués.

In reading the room, one senses that this presidency is less about technocratic coordination and more about a quiet philosophical insurgency. It asks whether multilateralism, hollowed by transactionalism, can still feel humane. It asks whether a forum born in crisis can evolve into one capable of conscience. And it asks whether the world, fractured by mistrust, can rediscover solidarity, not as sentiment, but as practice.

These are not rhetorical questions. They are the animating logic behind every sentence of the South African concept note and the tone that underlies the diplomatic choreography captured in the year’s preparatory dialogues.

2. Aspirations: A rehumanised Global Agenda

The presidency’s concept note, both a manifesto and an agenda, lays out a triadic ethos: Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability.

Each term carries both historical weight and contemporary provocation:

• Solidarity recalls the moral economies of the liberation era, that no nation can prosper in isolation from others’ suffering.

• Equality confronts the hierarchy implicit in the global financial and technological systems.

• Sustainability refuses the notion that ecological balance can be divorced from social justice.

The note proposes to translate these into six concrete deliverables: inclusive industrialisation, food security, AI and data governance, a “Cost of Capital Commission,” a renewed Compact with Africa, and a twenty-year institutional reflection on the G20 itself.

These are not random themes. Each theme connects a moral claim to a policy lever. Food security is recast as global stability. AI governance becomes a question of sovereignty. Cost of capital turns from a technical ratio into a justice issue.

From a reading of the note, one infers a conscious inversion of the usual order: values first, economics later. It is this inversion, humane rather than transactional multilateralism, that sets the stage for both inspiration and contestation.

3. The early signals: Promise meets resistance

Observers who have followed the preparatory meetings note two simultaneous currents: genuine curiosity and cautious resistance. The Global South delegations, particularly those long frustrated by slow reforms of financial architecture, find the presidency’s framing liberating. For them, it gives language to a frustration that has simmered for years.

Advanced economies, however, appear wary. The source of tension is not the policy content, since many of the deliverables overlap with ongoing G20 priorities, but rather the lexicon. To some, solidarity sounds like obligation and equality like redistribution. The presidency’s moral language, though drawn from its own history of social negotiation, unsettles those who prefer the technocratic neutrality of “growth,” “resilience” and “innovation.”

From the pattern of reactions described in the transcript, one can infer that this is less a dispute over substance than semantics. Yet semantics in diplomacy are never trivial. Words determine ownership. To accept solidarity is to admit interdependence; to accept equality is to acknowledge hierarchy; to accept sustainability as justice is to concede moral responsibility. It is at that level — the symbolic rather than the structural — that the battle lines have been drawn.

4. Negotiating around philosophy: The US factor

The United States’ engagement with this presidency has been deliberate, but defensive.

Its representatives have participated in the working groups, but often with the stated concern that the thematic framing risks “ideologizing” the G20. In practice, this has translated into consistent efforts to reshape phrasing - “resilience” instead of “solidarity”, “inclusion” instead of “equality”.

The reasoning for predicting a non-unanimous outcome arises from several converging signs:

• Repeated textual interventions aimed at diluting the moral vocabulary.

• Lower-level participation in key tracks, signalling reduced political investment.

• Public statements that challenge the very framing of the presidency’s theme.

Put together, these signals suggest a posture of participation without endorsement, what analysts often call “engaged abstention.” The United States will almost certainly attend the summit, but is expected to disassociate from the final declaration on principle.

This inference does not stem from conjecture, but from the pattern: a year-long choreography of distance. If consensus holds among all others, the most likely outcome will be a “19 + 1” scenario, a formula already anticipated within the presidency’s own contingency planning. It is a prediction drawn not from drama, but from diplomatic arithmetic.

5. The quiet centre: China’s constructive ambiguity

If Washington defines the opposition, Beijing defines the equilibrium.

Throughout the process, China’s behaviour has been marked by strategic neutrality, neither opposing the presidency’s themes, nor championing them. Yet this neutrality is not indifference, it is calculus.

China’s interests align naturally with several of South Africa’s priorities: reform of financial institutions, cost of capital fairness and digital sovereignty. However, overt alignment would risk deepening perceptions of bloc politics. Thus, Beijing has chosen the middle ground, an enabling silence.

In negotiation terms, this posture functions as lubrication. It prevents polarisation, allowing the Global South’s agenda to mature without triggering Western defensiveness. The reasoning for this inference lies in the recurring note of “China being neutral” and in the absence of recorded disputes in tracks where its positions would ordinarily provoke. In other words, neutrality becomes a form of quiet endorsement, a subtle diplomacy of presence without posture.

6. Europe between worlds

The European members, ever the custodians of consensus, have taken on the role of textual mediators.

They are sympathetic to the sustainability and climate aspects of the presidency’s agenda, but cautious about its justice rhetoric. Their behaviour, frequent proposals to “balance” language, encourage “shared ownership” and avoid “politicisation,” suggests a genuine effort to prevent a rift within the G20.

From these actions one can infer two motives:

• A pragmatic desire to keep the G20 intact as one of the few surviving global forums.

• A self-perceived responsibility to bridge moral ambition and institutional realism.

Europe thus functions as the hinge by restraining US rigidity while moderating Global South assertiveness. It is precisely this middle-space diplomacy that has kept negotiations alive despite profound philosophical divergence.

7. Attendance as political semiotics

As the summit approaches, attendance itself has become a form of expression.

Every level of representation signals intent.

From available evidence and diplomatic briefings, it appears that all G20 members will participate, but not all equally.

• The Global South will attend in full force, at head-of-state level, projecting ownership of an agenda that speaks their vocabulary.

• The United States, by contrast, is expected to send a high-ranking representative, most probably Vice President Vance, rather than the head of state, a gesture that signifies both acknowledgement and disapproval.

• European leaders will likely attend personally, underscoring their commitment to keeping the G20 functional.

This configuration, full attendance, but unequal enthusiasm, is telling. It implies that even in dissent, no member can afford absence. The G20, for all its ideological tension, remains the only round table where the G7 and BRICS sit together.

Thus, the presidency will measure its success not only by who signs the declaration, but by who shows up. In a divided world, presence itself is a form of legitimacy.

8. Consensus without unanimity

How, then, might a declaration emerge in such an atmosphere?

Diplomatic precedent suggests that unanimity, though desirable, is not essential for legitimacy. What matters is whether the declaration reflects the shared work of the year’s process.

The reasoning follows a clear line:

1. The presidency has invested heavily in institutional discipline, strong sherpa coordination, thematic task forces and inclusive engagement groups.

2. The major deliverables are technically sound and enjoy broad (if uneven) support.

3. The textual disagreements are philosophical, not procedural.

This combination points to a partial consensus, a declaration signed by nineteen members, with one formal disassociation. In practical terms, this is the “efficient frontier” of agreement: maximal inclusion without surrendering principle. It allows progress while acknowledging plurality.

Such an outcome, rather than undermining the G20, may redefine its modern purpose, that is to reflect not unanimity, but honest diversity. The G20 becomes less a choir and more an orchestra, dissonant, but still capable of harmony.

9. Patterns beneath the process: What the presidency reveals

Through this presidency, several larger trends become visible:

1. The moralisation of multilateralism: The return of words like solidarity and equality to the diplomatic vocabulary marks a shift from managerial to moral leadership.

2. The decentralisation of influence: With the Global South commanding both agenda and attention, the gravitational pull of global decision-making continues to move away from the North Atlantic axis.

3. The normalisation of partial consensus: The “19 + 1” outcome, once unthinkable, may become a precedent, an institutional mechanism for managing irreconcilable difference without collapse.

4. The rise of inclusive diplomacy: The expanded engagement groups and the planned Social Summit broaden legitimacy beyond states, anchoring global governance in civil participation.

Each of these conclusions emerges from triangulating the presidency’s written concept, its procedural innovations and the tone of deliberations recorded through the year.

10. Looking forward: The US presidency in 2026

The next rotation, the United States in 2026, looms large in every conversation.

Observers expect a retrenchment presidency, one that will seek to “return the G20 to basics.”

This forecast rests on observable precedents:

• US interventions during the South African year consistently narrowed scope to macroeconomic stability, competitiveness and innovation.

• Early planning documents indicate a likely thematic pivot toward “Resilience, Growth and Opportunity.”

• Domestic political climate favours an agenda that is pro-market, sovereignty-oriented and sceptical of redistributive narratives.

From these elements, one can reason that the US presidency will likely re-centre the G20 around traditional economic coordination, pruning the moral and developmental expansion introduced by South Africa.

It may:

• Replace the Cost of Capital Commission with a more technocratic financial transparency review.

• Replace the AI-for-development agenda to frameworks on AI safety and innovation.

• Reframe sustainability as a market opportunity rather than a justice imperative.

However, institutional inertia ensures that not everything can be rolled back. Once a concept is anchored in G20 working structures, as South Africa’s task forces already are, it tends to persist in some form. Thus, many of the presidency’s innovations will likely survive as diluted continuities rather than reversals.

11. The structural implications: A Tale of two G20s

By late 2025, one can discern the outlines of two G20s coexisting within a single architecture:

• A Northern G20, which is driven by economic orthodoxy and institutional preservation.

• A Southern G20, which is animated by equity, reform and moral legitimacy.

The South African presidency serves as the hinge between them. Its experiment tests whether these two identities can coexist without rupture, whether solidarity and sovereignty can be spoken in the same forum.

If it succeeds in securing a declaration endorsed by nineteen, the precedent will be profound, that the G20 can tolerate principled dissent without losing cohesion. If it fails, the risk is not collapse, but trivialisation, a return to communiqués devoid of conviction.

12. Reading the road ahead

To “read the room” at this moment is to sense both fatigue and possibility.

The fatigue is palpable, years of crisis management have turned cooperation into routine. Yet the possibility lies in the presidency’s quiet insistence that meaning still matters.

The signals are everywhere:

• Delegates debate words as though they were moral propositions.

• Smaller nations speak with a confidence born of shared grievance.

• Even the sceptics seem aware that the vocabulary of equality, once reintroduced, cannot easily be erased.

From these atmospherics, the prediction emerges organically, not as prophecy, but as deduction. A declaration will likely be achieved, bearing the triad Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability, endorsed by all but one. The dissent will be loud, but the message louder: that global governance no longer belongs exclusively to its architects, but increasingly to its participants.

13. Conclusion: The experiment in motion

The South African G20 presidency is not merely an event in diplomacy, it is a mirror held up to the world.

It reflects a longing for moral coherence amid geopolitical entropy and it reclaims the words solidarity, equality and sustainability that had become uncomfortable in the vocabulary of power.

Its success will not be measured by unanimity, but by endurance. By how long those words continue to echo in the communiqués and corridors of what comes next.

As the presidency nears its summit and the United States prepares to inherit the mantle, one suspects that the most lasting outcome will be intangible: a shift in tone, a change in expectation, a sense that the G20, for all its imperfections, might still be capable of conscience.

References

G20. 2025. Concept note and calendar. G20 South Africa 2025 Presidency. [Online] Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/20241205v-FINAL-G20-CONCEPT-NOTE-SOUTH-AFRICA.pdf [accessed: 15 October 2025]

Diplomatic and policy experts. 2025. A series of interviews was conducted by the author with authoritative diplomats and policy experts.

T20. 2025. The author is a Co-Lead of the Solidarity for the Achievement of the SDGs Task Force

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This report has been published by the Inclusive Society Institute

The Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) is an autonomous and independent institution that functions independently from any other entity. It is founded for the purpose of supporting and further deepening multi-party democracy. The ISI’s work is motivated by its desire to achieve non-racialism, non-sexism, social justice and cohesion, economic development and equality in South Africa, through a value system that embodies the social and national democratic principles associated with a developmental state. It recognises that a well-functioning democracy requires well-functioning political formations that are suitably equipped and capacitated. It further acknowledges that South Africa is inextricably linked to the ever transforming and interdependent global world, which necessitates international and multilateral cooperation. As such, the ISI also seeks to achieve its ideals at a global level through cooperation with like-minded parties and organs of civil society who share its basic values. In South Africa, ISI’s ideological positioning is aligned with that of the current ruling party and others in broader society with similar ideals.

Email: info@inclusivesociety.org.za

Phone: +27 (0) 21 201 1589

Web: www.inclusivesociety.org.za