Mr. Mohanasakthivel J., Research Analyst, made a presentation on “G20 in Johannesburg: Outcomes and Assessment” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 01 December 2025. Dr. Rajeesh Kumar, Research Fellow, moderated the meeting. Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and the scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary:

The presentation offered a detailed analysis of the G20 Summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa on 22 November 2025 and 23 November 2025. This Summit was historic, marking the first time an African nation held its Presidency. It also highlighted the Global South’s ability to set action-oriented agenda at multi-lateral Summits.

Detailed Report:

In his opening remarks, Dr. Rajeesh Kumar provided the details of the proceedings of the G20 Summit held at Johannesburg. He highlighted the importance of this year’s Summit as it was the first time an African country held its Presidency. This G20 Summit also marked the end of Presidencies of Global South countries. He pointed out the absence of global leaders during this Summit and the complications in handing over the Presidency to the United States. The complications in the handover of Presidency have resulted in the U.S. barring South Africa from attending the G20 Summit to be held in 2026. Dr. Kumar also commended the ability of the nations to release their ‘outcome documents’ in lieu of conflicts.

Mr. Mohanasakthivel, elaborated on this year’s G20 theme—Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability. Alongside it being the first year of an African Presidency, this year also marked the second year of African Union’s presence as a permanent member. He also highlighted that “Africa” was mentioned fifty-two times in the official G20 Leaders’ Declaration. He emphasised that the absence of world leaders did not affect the commitment-compliance trends of G20 with average attendance being 90% and illustrated this with the example of the 2022 G20, under the Indonesian Presidency, which marked the lowest attendance without it affecting the compliance rate of commitments.

Mr. Mohanasakthivel elaborated that the commitment trends varied across the years with highest being in 2017 and lowest in 2010 — also the year of global economic slowdown. On an average there are 197 commitments per Summit, however there has been a dip in the same since 2017. On the other hand, the compliance rate was at 70-75%, with lowest being 60% during the 2010 Toronto Summit. The highest implementation was during India’s Presidency in 2023. He attributed the highest compliance during India’s Presidency to its preparatory process for commitment setting. It included policies and agendas in which the G20 countries already had a momentum, were aligned with the major power’s interests, and had international obligations.

Mr. Mohanasakthivel’s observations marked that higher attendance did not equate with compliance. G20 commitments connected to external frameworks showed higher levels of implementation, whereas compliance generally declined when the total number of commitments increased. When there was involvement of engagement groups, there was higher compliance.

The Speaker further expanded on this year’s G20 priorities — debt sustainability, climate change and energy efficiency, disaster resilience and response, and harnessing critical minerals. He stated that the African nations owed most of their debt to private creditors, which was the main driver of debt crisis in Africa. In the recent years, the borrowing from multilateral banks has reduced and private lenders have increased, leading to a debt trap in Africa. Factors like Covid-19, Russia-Ukraine War, and slow restructuring processes have further slowed the economies. He also drew attention to unfair treatment of the credit agencies towards the Global South. A major step towards dealing with this crisis was G20’s Declaration on Debt Sustainability.

In terms of climate and energy, Mr. Mohanasakthivel stated that climate financing is low. He also asserted that climate change exacerbated debt distress in the region. The G20 promoted energy-efficiency gains and also held discussions on zero emissions. Regarding critical minerals, Africa holds 30% of global reserves. It is predicted that the demand of these will surge by 500-700% in the coming years. He also pointed that weak governance affects the harnessing of free elements and green transition. For this, G20 presented the Critical Mineral Framework. In terms of developing disaster resilience and response, there was a need to explore the intersection between human security and geopolitics. Highlighting the loss and damage, this year’s G20 agenda called for action towards identifying vulnerable regions and protecting them.

The Speaker stated that in his assessment, the U.S. commitments this year remain vague. According to him, the G20’s focus on industrialisation was a missed opportunity for South Africa to present a new economic order. He also stated that the prior Summits, alongside this year’s Summit have insufficiently dealt with debt sustainability.

In terms of U.S.-South Africa relations there was a rupture, as the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa accused Johannesburg of supplying weapons to Russia. U.S. also accused Johannesburg of committing genocide against white Africans. To pressurise South Africa to take action against genocide, the U.S. is using economic pressure points like excluding Johannesburg from the African Growth and Opportunity Act and G20 Summit 2026. The U.S. also revoked the visa of former South African Foreign Minister, Naledi Pandor. Nevertheless, South Africa has continued to defend its right to be in the G20.

The U.S. administration under President Trump (2016–2020) demonstrated a relatively stable compliance trend within the G20. While compliance scores are not a definitive measure of policy effectiveness, they do offer some indication of the administration’s engagement with G20 commitments during that period. However, this may not necessarily be replicated in 2026, especially as the current administration has signalled a “back to basics” approach, though what this actually entails remains unclear. The G20 Troika, currently constituted by South Africa (2025), United States (2026) the United Kingdom (2027), is likely to encounter considerable difficulty in navigating the growing divergence in priorities and preferences between Washington and Johannesburg.

Moreover, he remarked that the Global South has not been afforded the policy space required for industrialisation. He argued that the Summit represented a missed opportunity for South Africa to propose a “New Global Economic Order,” which would have been particularly advantageous for developing countries. According to him, the impetus for such an order lies in the collapse of the current neo-liberal structures. He further noted that existing global economic rules, such as Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS), and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, disproportionately favour the Global North and remain major impediments to industrialisation in the Global South.

He also observed that the “Dutch Disease” continues to be widespread across the African continent. Illustrating this point, he cited examples from Nigeria, Angola, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, and Mozambique, explaining how the extraction of natural resources like oil, copper, cocoa, and gas has produced adverse economic consequences and hindered these countries’ industrialisation prospects.

While concluding his talk, Mr. Mohanasakthivel noted that this year’s G20 Summit was nonetheless a success, as it brought critical attention to the challenges faced by the Global South and went a step further by proposing initiatives aimed at addressing these structural issues.

Q&A Session:

In the discussion that followed the Q&A session, Dr. Kumar emphasised India’s role in aiding South Africa convening their Presidency. He also elaborated on Prime Minister Modi’s six point agenda presented at the Summit. He remarked that the absence of world leaders during the Summit is an extension of the current geopolitical situation.

Furthering the discussion, Amb. Sujan Chinoy stressed on the focus of G20 Summits on economic issues especially during 2009 to 2012. He mentioned that the second phase was marked with major power contestation, supply chain politics, and post-Covid recovery. He also opined that the normative structures were subpar and G20 provided a platform for a uniting and equal structure for the nations. He also remarked that the forthcoming G20 could be an opportunity for the U.S. to reset its economic relations with the world. The discussion also touched on trilateral talks held alongside the Summit, the issue of global climate financing, the Ubuntu legacy initiative, and power contestation in multilateral forums. Lastly, he discussed India’s role as a bridge between the West and the Global South.

The Report has been prepared by Ms. Sharvari D. Patil, Intern, ALACUN Centre.