The G20 summit in South Africa ended with an unusual diplomatic standoff on Sunday when Pretoria refused to hand over the traditional presidency to the low-level US representative. The move came after the United States boycotted the meeting
The G20 summit concluded with an unexpected diplomatic standoff on Sunday when host country South Africa refused to hand over the rotating presidency to the “junior” US representative. Tensions also come to the fore as the United States – which boycotted the two-day summit – is set to assume the presidency of the G20 in 2026.
Pretoria refused to attend the traditional handover ceremony, citing protocol norms, after a White House official warned President Cyril Ramaphosa against “talking about” the US and President Donald Trump. South Africa argued that since Washington had decided to send a low-ranking embassy official to the leaders’ summit, it would respond with a similarly ranked delegation for the symbolic passing of the G20 gavel.
The controversy followed Trump’s decision to boycott the summit, in which he accused South Africa of implementing “racist and anti-white” policies and “oppressing” its African minorities – allegations strongly rejected by Pretoria. South Africa viewed the US decision to send only one diplomatic official to Ramaphosa as a deliberate slight.
South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola underlined the alleged protocol violation, saying: “The United States is a member of the G20, and if they want to represent, they can still send anybody to the right level.” “This is a summit of leaders. The right level is the head of state, a special envoy appointed by the president of that country, or it could even be a minister,” he said.
He said the handover could take place later, possibly at the Ministry of External Affairs headquarters.
The rift between America and South Africa increased
Tensions deepened when Ramaphosa claimed that the US had withdrawn its boycott and was attempting to attend the summit at the last minute – a claim the White House denied, insisting that its officials would only attend the handover.
White House press secretary Carolyn Leavitt rejected Ramaphosa’s comments, saying he was “running his mouth a little bit against the United States and the President of the United States.”
Despite US objections to the South African agenda focused on climate change and global inequality, South Africa broke with long-standing G20 practice by issuing the leaders’ announcement instead on the opening day of the summit.
Lamola reiterated that Ramaphosa “will not hand over the charge d’affaires to the US,” stressing again that Washington must send representations “at the right level.”
Government spokesman Vincent Magwenya reinforced the stance: “The President will not hand over a junior embassy official. This is a breach of protocol which will not be accommodated or allowed in this case.” Pretoria said no such handover has ever taken place in the history of the G20 and allowing one would set an unwanted precedent.
Despite the boycott, the US sought to symbolically hand over a low-level diplomat – a request that South Africa strongly rejected on protocol grounds.
Boycott, reaction and further stress
South Africa currently holds the G20 presidency under the group’s rotating system. The United States is set to take on that role next year, with Trump planning to host the summit in Miami, Florida.
Earlier, Levitt provoked additional criticism when he confirmed that the US would not participate in formal G20 talks and again used derogatory language about Ramaphosa. “The United States is not participating in the official talks at the G20 in South Africa. I saw the South African President running his mouth a little bit against the United States and @POTUS… and @POTUS and his team don’t like that language,” he said.
His comments came after Ramaphosa claimed Washington had shown a “change of mind” on its boycott at the “11th hour”. Trump had already announced that no US officials would attend the summit, arguing that South Africa “shouldn’t even be in the GS anymore.”
They also cited claims of violent oppression of white African farmers as justification for the boycott – allegations widely rejected by South African officials.
end of article
