South African President Cyril Ramaphosa slammed the gavel shut on the G20 summit in Johannesburg yesterday, closing the two-day event amidst a boycott by the US. The US had refused to hand over the presidency of the group of 20 major economies to South Africa at the foreign ministry, citing protocol violations and accusations that South Africa discriminates against white-minority Afrikaners.
Ramaphosa's decision was seen as a victory for multilateralism in South Africa, but it came at the cost of excluding one of its founding members - the US. The country's absence was notable given the contentious issues surrounding its president, Donald Trump, including his administration's withdrawal from climate change agreements and reversal of policies aimed at combating sexism, racism, and homophobia.
Despite this, Ramaphosa emphasized the need for global cooperation in tackling challenges like climate change and promoting gender equality. However, his efforts were undermined by US criticism, which accused him of "weaponizing" South Africa's presidency to undermine the group's founding principles.
The issue highlights the deep-seated tensions between South Africa and the US over issues of identity politics and representation. Ramaphosa's decision not to hand over the presidency to a junior diplomat was seen as a pragmatic move to maintain diplomatic relations with the US, but it also reinforced accusations that South Africa is trying to limit the influence of white-minority Afrikaners.
As the G20 moves on to its next president, which is set to be the US in 2024, Ramaphosa's comments left an ambiguous legacy for multilateralism. The summit's declaration on Saturday emphasized the need for global cooperation, but it was a fragile consensus forged in the shadow of deep-seated divisions between major economies.
Ramaphosa's decision was seen as a victory for multilateralism in South Africa, but it came at the cost of excluding one of its founding members - the US. The country's absence was notable given the contentious issues surrounding its president, Donald Trump, including his administration's withdrawal from climate change agreements and reversal of policies aimed at combating sexism, racism, and homophobia.
Despite this, Ramaphosa emphasized the need for global cooperation in tackling challenges like climate change and promoting gender equality. However, his efforts were undermined by US criticism, which accused him of "weaponizing" South Africa's presidency to undermine the group's founding principles.
The issue highlights the deep-seated tensions between South Africa and the US over issues of identity politics and representation. Ramaphosa's decision not to hand over the presidency to a junior diplomat was seen as a pragmatic move to maintain diplomatic relations with the US, but it also reinforced accusations that South Africa is trying to limit the influence of white-minority Afrikaners.
As the G20 moves on to its next president, which is set to be the US in 2024, Ramaphosa's comments left an ambiguous legacy for multilateralism. The summit's declaration on Saturday emphasized the need for global cooperation, but it was a fragile consensus forged in the shadow of deep-seated divisions between major economies.
I mean, what's up with this whole thing? It feels like the US is trying to stir up drama where there isn't any. I'm all for multilateralism and global cooperation, but come on, can't they just get along? 
The fact that it came down to identity politics and representation is really annoying. South Africa's got a history of fighting against inequality and racism, so it feels like the US is trying to turn that against them.
Still, it's a weird precedent to set for the G20, especially given what happened with Trump and all that drama.
. I mean, they're always going on about how we need global cooperation, but then they don't wanna play by the rules 
. And what's with all the drama over Afrikaners? Can't we just focus on getting along and solving problems instead of stressing about identity politics? 
Anywayz, itsnt about whether or not ur country supports u 2 b in charge, its bout getting things done 4 the ppl & makin the world a better place 
they can't even agree on who gets to be the big cheese without all the drama and politicking 
and meanwhile, ramaphosa just had to deal with the fallout from trump's admin being super toxic for women and minorities...anyway, i guess it's good that south africa stood firm and tried to promote global cooperation, but ugh, the way it was all framed as a battle between identity politics and whatnot just feels so petty 
It shows that even when you're trying to promote global cooperation, there are still gonna be some folks who wanna stir up trouble 
. I mean, come on, a boycott by the US over some protocol thingy and accusations of discrimination? That's just not cool 
. It's about time we saw more countries taking control of their own agendas instead of letting the big players dictate everything 
.
. It's like, we can't have our cake and eat it too, right? We gotta make some tough choices between being PC and doing what's best for our country 
.
