G20 on African soil

For the first time in its history, the G20 Leaders' Summit was held on African soil, with South Africa wielding the rotating presidency. This landmark event has placed the continent squarely in the spotlight, prompting a critical question: Is this a fleeting moment of prestige, or can it be leveraged into a genuine turning point for Africa's development?

Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics at the University of International Business and Economics and Thembisa Fakude, Senior Research Fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues, share their perspectives on this historic moment.

A historic moment

Mr. Fakude emphasized the immense symbolic prestige of the event. He noted that while the G20 creates a platform for discussion, its decisions are non-binding. The real challenge, he argued, is ensuring the summit moves beyond high-level talks and translates into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary Africans.

"For very long time Africans and the developing world has always been… short changed when it comes to business," Fakude stated. He sees this as a moment for Africa to "stand firm" and dictate the terms of a new business relationship, particularly concerning its vast reserves of rare earth minerals, critical for artificial intelligence and electric vehicles. The key, for him, is moving away from the historical pattern of exporting raw materials and importing finished goods at high cost, towards local beneficiation and value addition.

From rhetoric to concrete outcomes

Professor Liu outlined a more optimistic, yet pragmatic, vision. He highlighted Africa's stated priorities for the summit:

1.   Inclusive economic growth, industrialization, and employment.

2.   Food security.

3.   Artificial intelligence and innovation for sustainable development.

Professor Liu hoped that the summit would elevate these priorities "from mention to concrete agenda."

For the event to be a true turning point, Professor Liu argued for concrete deliverables: restructured finance mechanisms with clear timelines, time-bound pledges for technology transfer, and investment initiatives that prioritize African value creation and long-term jobs over short-term extraction.

"The political symbolism really matters," he said, "but what really converts the symbolism into the turning point is a more predictable financing implementation structure."

A theme for all?

The summit's theme, "Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability", was met with different interpretations.

Mr. Fakude viewed it as "activist" and typical of South Africa's foreign policy, expressing a preference for more prominent themes like "economic development" and "business corporation."

He was skeptical of a "blanket solidarity" and anticipated more one-on-one agreements between nations.

Professor Liu, however, saw a strong alignment between these principles and the vision championed by China and other Global South countries. He connected them to China's emphasis on "equitable access to capital and technology" and its focus on infrastructure building through initiatives like the Belt and Road, now evolving towards "small and beautiful projects" that deliver tangible community benefits.

The U.S. absence

The anticipated absence of the U.S. President was a key point of discussion. Mr. Fakude downplayed its impact, attributing it to a "very imperialistic mentality" and affirming that the summit would proceed successfully with other global leaders.

Professor Liu saw the absence as a "pity, but not a surprise," reflecting a U.S. shift towards protectionism. He suggested this could open space for emerging powers to push alternative agendas without needing Washington's approval. However, he cautioned that ambitious reforms in areas like debt architecture or technology governance might be harder to achieve without deeper U.S. coordination. Ultimately, he viewed it as accelerating a multipolar global narrative.

What should Africa do next?

Looking beyond the summit, both experts agreed that Africa must leverage this moment to change the narrative.

Mr. Fakude was unequivocal: Africa must unite and take a firm, educated position on its critical minerals. "This is our oil moment," he asserted, urging leaders to avoid past mistakes and insist on beneficiation and fair deals with new clientele.

Professor Liu focused on institutionalized influence. The legacy, for him, should be a "narrative shift from being a recipient of decisions to be able to co-author some of the solutions." This requires embedding Africa's priorities into global governance through new finance windows, formal consultative processes, and durable mechanisms that ensure commitments are followed through.