“On African Soil, Yet Africa Off the Agenda: The 2025 G20 Summit."

By Youngerson Matete 

For the first time in its history, the G20 Summit convened in Africa, bringing together the world’s major economies in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 21–22 November 2025, albeit in the conspicuous absence of the United States. When the G20 convened in Johannesburg for the first time, the moment carried significant symbolic importance. Africa, long spoken for yet rarely listened to, finally hosted the world’s most powerful economic forum. The African Union, now a full G20 member, stood as evidence of the continent’s rising geopolitical relevance. Yet symbolism is not power, and presence is not influence. Once the applause faded and the Leaders’ Declaration was released, it became clear that the Johannesburg Summit, held under the theme “Solidarity, Equality and Sustainability”, was a global event located in Africa rather than an African agenda elevated to the global stage.

The conflict between symbolism and substance was visible from the outset. The United States President Donald Trump’s decision to boycott the Summit cast a political shadow over the proceedings, signalling Washington’s disregard for Africa and subtly undermining its historic moment. Even more striking, however, was the behaviour of World leaders who did attend. While they posed for photographs and spoke warmly about unity and shared development, their priorities were imported from Europe and North America. The strongest message they delivered was communicated through omission. Africa could host the G20, but African priorities would not define its agenda.

Similarly, African conflicts were marginalized and largely ignored. Nothing illustrated this dynamic more clearly than the treatment of global conflicts. The war in Ukraine dominated Western speeches, side meetings, media briefings, and diplomatic messaging throughout the Summit. Meanwhile, the devastating conflicts burning across Africa, including Sudan’s catastrophic civil war, the unending violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the insurgencies destabilising the Sahel, and the humanitarian crises in the Horn of Africa, scarcely registered in the conversation. The official Declaration mentions Sudan and the DRC only briefly, buried beneath extended commentary on Ukraine.

The leaders gathered on African soil but did not prioritise African lives. Within the Summit hall, there was an unspoken but unmistakable agenda of boycott. Trump might have refused to attend physically, but several World leaders effectively boycotted Africa’s security concerns while seated inside an African-hosted forum.

Beyond conflicts, the structural inequality in global economic governance was largely left unaddressed. This selective attention reflects the broader imbalance that shapes Africa’s engagement with global economic governance. The Declaration, like many before it, is filled with reassuring language about cooperation, partnership, and shared prosperity. Yet beneath this diplomatic vocabulary lies a persistent refusal to confront the structural injustices that continue to constrain African economies.

In the same vein, the debt crisis and biased credit ratings conversation was sidelined. More than half of African countries are in or at high risk of debt distress. This situation is not the result of domestic governance alone. It stems from a global financial architecture built on biased credit-rating practices that penalise African economies with inflated borrowing costs. The African premium has little basis in economic fundamentals and is instead tied to outdated assumptions about instability and risk.

The Declaration offers no plan to reform credit-rating systems, no mechanism for fair debt restructuring, and no acknowledgement of the structural biases that entrench dependence and austerity. It relies instead on phrases such as “strengthening implementation” and “enhancing coordination,” language that maintains rather than transforms existing structures.

Climate financing followed the same pattern. Africa contributes less than four percent of global emissions but bears the brunt of climate impacts. African states have consistently demanded climate justice, including adaptation funding, fulfilment of the long-promised climate finance commitment, operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund, and substantive discussion of climate reparations. Yet the Declaration recognises the problem without offering new funding, timelines, or accountability mechanisms. It provides climate diplomacy without climate responsibility.

Equally, global tax reform received little attention. The Declaration is silent on Africa’s longstanding calls to reform the international tax system. The continent loses approximately 88 billion dollars annually through illicit financial flows driven by profit shifting and tax avoidance by multinational corporations. African leaders have advocated for a UN-led tax convention to address this, yet the Declaration remains aligned with OECD-driven processes that favour powerful economies. Core demands repeatedly raised by African states and civil society remain unaddressed.

Trade architecture and industrial constraints were also left largely untouched. Although the Declaration references the need for WTO reform, it provides no commitments to address structural trade barriers or support African value addition. References to the African Continental Free Trade Area appear supportive but are unaccompanied by meaningful commitments to make African production globally competitive.

Coupled with this, resource extraction and the absence of justice remains a huge concern for Africa. Natural resources illustrate one of the most striking contradictions. Africa’s minerals, including cobalt, lithium, and manganese, underpin the global green transition. Yet the communities producing these minerals remain impoverished, while profits largely flow to multinational corporations. For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite possessing the majority of the world’s cobalt reserves, remains a site of entrenched poverty and violence. The G20’s new Critical Minerals Framework, introduced in Johannesburg, contains no binding requirements for local beneficiation, no value-sharing mechanisms, and no accountability measures for exploitation. It is designed to stabilise global supply chains rather than promote resource justice.

As a result, the persistence of Western priorities during the first G20 Summit in Africa made South Africa's hosting more symbolic than significant. The language of the Declaration confirms that the Summit was global in name but Western in substance. Africa’s inclusion is acknowledged, and the document celebrates the African Union’s membership and the continent’s growing role in international affairs. However, visibility does not translate into meaningful influence. The Declaration amplifies Africa’s voice rhetorically but does not redistribute power or meaningfully reshape decision-making.

In short, the Johannesburg Summit was a moment Africa had long awaited. Yet instead of using that moment to recalibrate the relationship between Africa and global governance, the G20 largely reproduced existing hierarchies. Trump boycotted the Summit physically, and many Western leaders boycotted African priorities politically. The result was an African-hosted event dominated by Western concerns and European crises.

Nevertheless, the Summit revealed an important shift. Africa is increasingly assertive in its demands for structural reform. The African Union’s full membership and South Africa’s leadership reflect a continent unwilling to remain a peripheral actor. Yet symbolic milestones must now be matched by substantive outcomes.

If the G20 is to serve as a genuine forum for global cooperation, it must confront Africa’s debt crisis with comprehensive restructuring, reform the credit-rating system, implement meaningful climate finance, address illicit financial flows, transform the trade system, and end exploitative resource extraction. It must also treat African conflicts with the same seriousness afforded to those in Europe.

Until such changes occur, Africa will continue to press for a fairer global order rooted not in rhetorical solidarity but in structural justice, shared prosperity, and equitable governance. Africa welcomed the G20, yet the G20 has not fully met Africa at the level of its aspirations or its urgent realities.

Youngerson Matete is a multi-award-winning pro-democracy and Human Rights activist, a Mandela Washington Fellowship Alumni, and a student of human rights and Politics. He is the founder of the African Institute for Young People. He writes in his own capacity. His views don't represent any organization.

Cell: +263 773 622 044

Email:youngmatete0@gmail.com/ director@aiyp.org.zw