South Africa, [rump and the future of multilateralism

IN THE aftermath of what many considered a successful G20, the first on African soil, and the subdued Tuesday handover ceremonies, held quietly far from the glare of the media, the US responded.

- DR CLYDE RAMALAINE

MIAMI Mayor Francis Suarez (right) speaks as U.S. President Donald Trump announces plans for the 2026 G20 summit in the Oval Office of the White House on September 05. President Trump's exclusion of South Africa from the 2026 summit is provocative and a test of the global order, says the writer.

(AFP)

Washington’s reply was swift, voiced through the mouth and pen of US President Donald Trump, who declared that South Africa “will not receive an invitation” to the 2026 G20 Summit in Florida, a statement that reverberated far beyond Washington. On its surface, it is provocative — beneath it, a test of global order, forcing a reckoning between multilateral norms and unilateral prerogatives, between what the G20 was designed to be and the reality that raw power sometimes imposes.

At first glance, this appears as a clash of personalities. But beyond the headlines, the dispute exposes a deeper paradox at the G20's heart: a forum without codified rules yet guided by precedent and consensus. It is neither a treaty-based organisation like the UN nor an institution with formal statutes.

There is no charter, no expulsion mechanism, no legal membership criteria and no sanctions framework. Its authority derives from precedent, mutual recognition and the consent of its members. South Africa’s seat is historical, acknowledged and effectively permanent. Membership was never a gift to be revoked at whim.

Ye, the host state wields tangible powers. Visa approvals, venue access, accreditation and formal invitations fall within sovereign discretion. Through these levers, a host can effectively bar a state or its representatives from participating even when membership is secure.