Debrief by Jayati Ghosh on 4th December 2025 (Transcribed)
The G20 Summit is often seen as a self-declared club of the world’s most powerful countries. Over the past 20 years, it has delivered concrete results only on a few occasions. The most notable were the coordinated response to the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2013 decision to address flaws in the global taxation system. Outside these moments, the G20 has struggled to act in meaningful ways. Developing countries, in particular, have found it difficult to push their priorities onto the agenda, largely because G7 countries tend to resist issues central to the Global South.
These limits are even sharper when a developing country hosts the summit. For such hosts, the challenge is often not to secure agreement, but simply to get key concerns acknowledged in official discussions. Issues like debt, inequality, high costs of capital, and development finance are routinely sidelined. Against this background, South Africa’s presidency of the 2025 G20 Summit in Johannesburg marked a clear break from past practice.
South Africa built on the approach taken earlier by Brazil, using the G20 platform to raise issues that are usually ignored. This was done in the face of strong resistance. The United States signaled early on that it intended to undermine the Johannesburg summit. Its shifting position on participation ended in a boycott, publicly justified by unfounded claims of “white genocide” in South Africa. The real reason lay in South Africa’s firm position on Israel and Palestine, including its decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice over the situation in Gaza.
These developments created serious diplomatic challenges. The US insisted that no formal resolution should be adopted if it was absent. Within South Africa and among other countries, there was debate over whether to settle for a chair’s statement, a weaker option that would have avoided confrontation. South Africa chose instead to push for a resolution, a decision that led to difficult and prolonged negotiations.
Objections came from several countries. Saudi Arabia opposed the use of the word climate. Russia objected to the phrase “all gender,” arguing that it implied recognition of transgender identities. Argentina rejected references to women or women’s rights. Some delegations also reported direct pressure from Washington, including phone calls urging them not to support the resolution. Overcoming these objections required compromise, careful drafting, and sustained effort by the Sherpas leading the talks.
The outcome was unusual. President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the resolution in his opening statement rather than at the end of the summit, reducing the scope for last-minute disruption. Many delegations openly supported the move. Argentina’s objections were noted, but the resolution stood. This firm stance changed the mood in the room, and several governments that had previously deferred to US pressure, including some European countries, fell in behind the presidency.
The Johannesburg summit also stood out for its scale and inclusiveness. While the G20 formally includes 19 countries and the European Union, South Africa invited many additional leaders. In total, 48 countries were represented. The African Union participated as a member for the first time, and several preparatory meetings were held across African countries. This gave Africa a stronger collective voice and reinforced the summit’s African character. Although critics dismissed the expanded gathering as a “G110,” it added to the summit’s legitimacy and reach.
One of the most important outcomes of the summit was its focus on inequality. An expert committee was formed late in the process and given very limited time to produce a report. Despite this, the committee proposed setting up an international panel on inequality. The reasoning was straightforward. Inequality today is an emergency on par with climate change. While poverty remains serious, the more destabilizing trend is the extreme concentration of wealth and power at the top.
The proposed panel would not carry out new research. Instead, it would bring together existing studies, examine the quality of available data, identify the main drivers of inequality, and assess which policies worsen or reduce it. The aim is to create a trusted, evidence-based resource for policymakers, civil society, and global institutions, similar to the role played by the IPCC on climate change.
The response to the proposal was stronger than expected. At the Sherpas’ meeting, there was little opposition and some positive engagement. At the leaders’ meeting, several heads of government referred to the report and supported the idea of an independent panel. Backing came not only from South Africa, Brazil, and Spain, but also from the African Union, the European Council, and the United Nations. The UN indicated that it was open to supporting and possibly hosting the initiative.
While some governments remained cautious, the level of support suggests that the panel could begin as a plurilateral effort under a UN umbrella. With continued advocacy and follow-up, it has the potential to shape global debates and policy on inequality.
The Johannesburg G20 did not remove the structural limits of the forum. But it showed that clear leadership can widen participation, withstand external pressure, and place urgent issues firmly on the global agenda. In doing so, South Africa demonstrated that the G20 need not remain a closed space for the powerful, and that inequality, debt, and development can no longer be treated as secondary concerns in global economic governance.
The above text has been transcribed from the webinar held on 4th December 2025 and has been subjected to minor edits for clarity and readability.
