The G20 countries concluded their 2025 summit in Johannesburg by agreeing on a set of measures aimed at creating a more sustainable and equitable world order.

This summit, held against a backdrop of deep geopolitical divisions and the growing influence of Southern voices, stands out as a pivotal moment, not only because it adopted an ambitious declaration despite the notable absence of the United States, but also because it signals a shift in the international order towards multipolarity. The Russian delegation, led by Maxim Oreshkin, welcomed the consensus reached in Johannesburg and the adoption of a strong declaration. It strongly denounced unilateral sanctions and asset seizures as illegitimate and warned against the ‘militarisation’ of international aid.

Moscow called for reform of global financial institutions to strengthen the voice of the South and highlighted concrete offers of cooperation from nations even described as ‘unfriendly.’ All of this reaffirms Russia’s commitment to balanced multipolarism. This analysis deciphers the global issues, tensions, differences, and geostrategic significance of these decisions and their impact on Africa and the world.

The affirmation of the South and the consolidation of a new geopolitical grammar

Clearly, the twentieth summit of G20 heads of state was not just a diplomatic summit. It was a founding act. For the first time in the forum’s history, the meeting took place in Africa, and Pretoria turned this opportunity into a demonstration of strategic leadership. The adoption, on the first day, of a final declaration containing 122 points and 195 specific commitments marked a major turning point, made all the more resounding by the notable absence of the United States – Donald Trump having opted for a total boycott – proving that the G20 can function without Washington’s blessing. This adoption, supported by a solid coalition from the Global South, sent a clear message: the world will no longer wait for the West to make up its mind.

The declaration itself profoundly repositions international priorities. At South Africa’s instigation, developing countries’ debt is presented not as a technical matter, but as a systemic threat to global stability, as Cyril Ramaphosa hammered home during the closing session. The summit also gives a decisive boost to climate finance, with the goal of tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030, but above all, it puts Africa back at the heart of the global agenda through concrete initiatives such as Mission 300, which aims to connect 300 million Africans to electricity.

This shift in the geopolitical centre of gravity was also evident in the stated desire to rethink supply chains for critical minerals: no longer simply materials to be extracted to fuel industrialisation in the North, but levers for local industrialisation, employment, transformation and economic sovereignty for African nations. The commitments on ethical AI, brought forward by South Africa at UNESCO, have shown that the continent is no longer content to be a spectator of the technological revolution. It intends to become a co-producer of standards.

Thus, with rare clarity, Johannesburg revealed that Africa is no longer a backdrop on the international stage. It is becoming one of its new focal points. Ronald Lamola, South African Minister of International Relations, summed it up forcefully by describing the declaration as a ‘revolutionary act’ for the Global South. For the first time, a G20 summit has made Africa not a peripheral chapter, but a central one, demonstrating that multipolarity is no longer a distant horizon, but a reality in the making.

Between absences, differences, disputes, geostrategic issues, and normative clashes, the reshaping of the world order is accelerating

While the summit marked a political victory for South Africa and its allies in the Global South, it also exposed the deepest divisions in the international system. The absence of the United States, first and foremost, was more than just a diplomatic incident. It embodied the withdrawal of a West that is now struggling to impose its pace and priorities.

Without Washington, the stage revealed a cold reality: American power can no longer demand unanimity or dictate the G20’s normative output. The absence of key leaders such as those from Indonesia and Saudi Arabia reinforced this impression of fragmentation within the traditional bloc, while Argentina’s last-minute withdrawal from the final declaration highlighted the internal divisions within the collective West.

These differences have been amplified around issues of global security. The American peace plan for Ukraine (28 points), presented as a reference text, was given a cool reception by the Europeans themselves, those whimsical and insipid elites who deemed it incomplete, insufficient, and in need of further consultation. But what consultation are they talking about if not the search for a sham agreement like Minsk 3.0?

Yet the implicit message was clear: the United States no longer dictates the terms of negotiation for international crises on its own. This Western dissonance confirmed what diplomats had been sensing for several years: American leadership is no longer automatic, nor even desired, and European positions are torn between strategic loyalty and geopolitical pragmatism.

The United States’ refusal to endorse certain parts of the final declaration, particularly on climate finance, debt, multilateral banks and global governance, highlighted the ideological divide that now separates Washington from much of the G20. The fact that the symbolic handover of the presidency – the traditional gavel – took place without the US delegation was seen as an almost theatrical breach of protocol, revealing a deep unease: the West no longer controls the architecture of the institutions it founded at will.

At the same time, the rise of the Global South, particularly China, India, Russia, and now Africa and Latin America, is consolidating an irreversible reality: multipolarity is taking shape. The countries of the South are no longer seeking merely to balance the balance of power – they want to transform the rules of the game. For Washington, Paris, and London, this dynamic is not simply unpleasant. It is threatening because it heralds a world in which their capacity for influence is automatically reduced in favour of other decision-making centres.

Ultimately, the Johannesburg summit appears to have been a turning point. It marked the end of the myth of a unipolar world order led by the West and paved the way for a new international architecture. This restructuring did not take place amid turmoil, but rather in a methodical manner: an agreement adopted without American approval, a global vision shaped by the South, concrete commitments for Africa, and above all, diplomacy that no longer plays defence but rather focuses on construction.

In short, the 2025 G20 not only revealed a multipolar world; it brought it into existence.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/11/25/the-twentieth-g20-summit-in-johannesburg-for-what-results/