In a moment that felt like an old-world diplomatic drama playing out anew, the G20 summit in Johannesburg handed multilateralism a surprising win. Against a backdrop of rising nationalism and fracturing alliances, nearly all of the group’s members—except the United States and Argentina—came together and issued a joint declaration, defying Washington’s objections and reigniting hopes for collective global action.
The summit, held for the first time on the African continent under the presidency of Cyril Ramaphosa’s South Africa, seemed headed for an anticlimax. The U.S. had boycotted, citing allegations against the host nation, and doubts were rife about whether a meaningful outcome was possible. But the hosts dug in, rallied the other members, and crossed the finish line with a declaration that tackled thorny issues such as climate change, renewable energy, external debt and, for the first time in G20 history, forged a global panel to address inequality.
There’s a crispness to this moment that makes it feel emblematic. The era when the U.S., as the dominant power, could call the shots in forums like the G20 may be under strain. Analysts pointed out that this was not just about one declaration: it was a message. The world’s major economies were saying they would move together even if the most powerful among them sat out. The White House, notably, criticized South Africa’s presidency for “undermining” the G20’s founding principles of consensus—yet the building held firm.
Behind the scenes, negotiators described visible relief when the draft of the declaration was finally agreed, and someone quoted the Atlantic Council’s Josh Lipsky saying, “News of the G20’s demise is greatly exaggerated.” The declaration may carry the usual diplomatic vagueness—words carefully chosen to hold as many parties together as possible—but the symbolism is vivid: a cohesive front among diverse nations, stepping up in the face of dissent from the world’s superpower.
That said, the story doesn’t end here. As Washington gears up to host the G20 next year, it is expected to scale back what many saw as the more ambitious agenda—focusing only on the leaders’ summit and financial forum, possibly sidelining working groups on energy, health and environment, and even excluding some U.N. agencies. So while Johannesburg may have secured a rare victory for multilateralism, the hard part—sustaining momentum and turning words into action—lies ahead.
What does this mean for the global order? At minimum, it suggests that multilateral platforms are not dead; they’re evolving. Countries are beginning to insist that their voices matter in shaping global outcomes, and that they may not always wait for the U.S. to lead. At the same time, the U.S. retains massive leverage and may choose to respond with its own playbook next year—meaning the question will be whether this moment represents a brief flaring or a turning point.
For citizens watching from Hyderabad, from Delhi, from anywhere really, the takeaway is that global governance might just be waking up to a more multipolar reality. The question now is whether this declaration will be a milestone or just a footnote.
Reviewed by Aparna Decors
on
November 24, 2025
Rating:
