G20: What will triumph – Trump’s policies or multilateralism?

The G20, which was formed in 1999, comprises 19 industrialised countries, the European Union and the recently admitted African Union.

As such, it is the first group that bridges the polarity between the Global South and the Global North.

It is not a multilateral organisation or formed by a Treaty, nor is it an institution, but a grouping.

It is an orbit of global power that seems to encompass all orbits of power: the Western bloc in the form of the G7/8, the East led formerly by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and now led by the Peoples Republic of China, and what was formed in 1955 in Bandung, which we characterise as the Global South (non-Aligned Movement).

It is also important to stress the nuance between what we loosely and interchangeably characterise as multilateralism and multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to centres/orbits of power in the global system, while multilateralism refers to centrality and importance of international institutions in international relations.

It is also important to note that there are multilateral institutions that champion the narrow interests of certain groupings of states, thus not global in outlook.

Multilateral institutions with a global outlook in terms of their agenda and membership, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization (WHO), exist with the logic to curtail excesses of power of states and provide norms and rules for how states can action their foreign policies.

The G20 started as a group of finance ministers and central bank governors.  Its summits  were never attended by Heads of States, until the 2008/9 global financial crisis.

I think this was important for one reason; to avoid the clash of politics and keep the group strictly on economic and financial matters.

Currently, it is organised along two important tracks; the sherpa and finance tracks.

South Africa took over the presidency of the G20 from 1 December 2024 and would host the Summit of the Heads of States between 22 and 23 November 2025.

This presidency coincided with the start of the second term of  Donald Trump as President of the United States of America.

In his inaugural speech of 20 January 2025, President Trump made a statement that would hint at how US foreign policy would be fashioned: “From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world. We will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. During every single day of the Trump administration, I will, very simply, put America first”.

In short, the foreign policy of the Trump administration is more unilateral than multilateral in theory and practice.

Not only is it solely unilateral in relation to multilateralism, but unilateral to even the issues that are of concern to some of the orbits of power in global politics such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the G20.

The G20’s theme under the South African presidency reflects important considerations of how the world is shaped and how it should be reconfigured.

Firstly, in my opinion, we are seeing the demise of the divide; the Global North and the Global South in terms of global challenges we all face: pandemics, migration, terrorism, peace and security.

In place of this demise of multipolarity, multilateralism should take centre stage. Here reference is made particularly and solely of multilateral institutions with a global agenda and membership open to all nations of the world.

Secondly, multilateralism should ensure a “rules-based” global order and encompass the agenda to democratise particularly the UN Security Council.

The UNSC is made up of 15 member-states, of which five wield a veto power. Yet it is a significant organ of the UN that makes resolutions on matters of international peace.

The veto doesn’t only superimpose the power of the Permanent 5 (P5) but limits the ability of the UNSC to take resolutions in cases where one of the P5 is engaged in behaviour that undermines global peace.

Thirdly, global politics are shifting towards common values and principles, although foreign policy of hard power is still being championed by big powers.

One of the markers of this shift is the fact that the UN held a Summit of the Future in 2024 that resulted in the Pact for the Future.

This Pact for the Future could serve as a basis for the next sustainable development goals when the SDGs end in 2030.

The true test of the G20’s significance and continued relevance would be seen in its final declaration of heads of States.

It’s in the Declaration that one can distil whether the Trump administration has triumphed with its foreign policy outlook or the members of this important grouping managed to rein in the US's unilateral policy posture.

The US unilateralism is demonstrated by the nature of executive orders President Trump signed shortly after becoming president.

Firstly, the executive order that withdraws the US from the Paris Agreement and, secondly, the withdrawal from the WHO.

Global health was first included in the G20 agenda in 2017, during Germany’s presidency.

The 2017 G20 Health Ministers' declaration reiterated the WHO’s central role in global health diplomacy.

The Paris Agreement is important for the Environment and Climate Sustainability Sherpa.

It will be interesting to witness how the G20 Summit will approach these two and other important matters of global significance.

This article was first published on the ENCA website.