On November 22 and 23, world leaders from the most economically developed countries met in South Africa for the G20’s 20^th summit. Although traditionally a highly institutionalized practice, this year’s summit unfolded under unusually strained circumstances, shaped by tensions and threatening power dynamics.

For the first time since its establishment, the G20 meeting was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, marking the first time an African country has been the G20 president and hosted the summit. Despite its symbolic significance, the meeting ultimately revealed tense dynamics in the international arena, showing the fragile balances on which its stability relies.

The key factor that destabilized the summit was the absence of US President Donald Trump, who refused to attend. Such a decision was taken after Trump’s declarations about South Africa’s treatment of white farmers, labelled by the president as a “genocide”.

This harsh decision, seen by many as a boycott, sparked a strong reaction in South African President Ramaphosa, who claimed the US was “giving up the very important role that they should be playing as the biggest economy in the world.” President Trump did not take long to reply, stating in a social media post, “South Africa will NOT be receiving an invitation to the 2026 G20, which will be hosted in the Great City of Miami, Florida next year.”

Despite these tensions, the summit’s attendance rate has been declared “a success for South Africa” by Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola, as key global powers such as China and the EU sent high-level representatives to attend the meeting. These dignitaries not only reinforced the summit’s political relevance, but, as Al-Jazeera reports, opened new strategic perspectives, especially for China, which, thanks to the US president’s absence, may have found an opportunity to “expand its global influence.”

If, on the one hand, the U.S. president’s absence strongly undermined the summits’ legitimacy- especially given its focus on solidarity, equality, and sustainability-on the other, it might have opened a new phase for global dynamics.

The undeniable crisis of multilateralism and cooperation, now clearer than ever, has in fact stressed the ability of leading powers to rethink their roles, while leaving space for growing powers to emerge. While the US president undermines global stability, China builds a strategic network, increasingly affirming its leadership and showing the world its readiness to undertake a new role in the global order.

The superpowers, however, were not alone in asserting their voices at the G20 summit. South Africa, as the G20 president, strengthened its strategic role in shaping global politics and the economy. President Ramaphosa took full advantage of the G20 presidency to embed development priorities for Africa and the Global South in the global agenda. He insisted on the pressing necessity to renew multilateralism and cooperation. Pretoria’s leadership abilities, especially considering the tense conditions in which the summit took place, strongly affirmed the country’s ability to play a more influential role in the global arena, and more broadly, opening a new era for the African powers.

In conclusionis years’ G20 strongly reshaped global dynamics, underlining the malleability of today’s international system. South Africa’s leadership signals a new era for the African continent, which is no longer perceived as a minor actor, but rather, as a key strategic partner. China, likewise, leaves the summit with reaffirmed leadership and the consciousness of its increasing influence. Conversely, US leadership has been strongly questioned and appears increasingly inadequate in a world where global powers still value multilateralism.