The G-20 summit taking place in Johannesburg this weekend is a stark portrait of the bloody battle between those who wish to keep alive a rules-based multilateral order and those who are staging an undisguised attempt to demolish it in order to shape the future of the world on the basis of force in an even more ruthless way than before.

The US boycott of the summit, Russia's disdain (which sent a third-rate official), the eloquent absence of the Saudi crown prince—freshly received at the White House, where Trump endorsed him by saying that the dismemberment of a Saudi journalist in a consulate of the Desert Kingdom in Turkey is part of the things that happen in life—or of the president of Argentina—a country that just received an economic bailout from Washington and refused to sign the joint declaration—are the emblem of the assault.

This took on an even more stark tone when a peace plan for Ukraine, concocted by Trump's advisors without involving either the invaded country or the Europeans, surfaced shortly before the summit. This is a unilateral initiative that replicates transactional schemes based largely on a logic of material gain for Washington. In the case of Ukraine, the US seeks to profit from reconstruction efforts and mineral resources. In the case of Gaza, this same objective is emerging, along with an interest in doing business with the wealthy Sunni autocracies that Israel challenged with an attack on Qatari territory. The same applies to the mediation between Azerbaijan and Armenia, where the exploitation of a lucrative transport and energy corridor is being secured.

On the other hand, a heterogeneous galaxy of countries is emerging, attempting to resist demolition, either on principle or because it suits their interests, given their current lack of military and technological power. Thus, in Johannesburg, countries from the Global South and Europe converged to try to salvage a joint declaration that the United States attempted to sabotage.

Washington, which left its chair empty under the fallacious argument that a genocide was being committed against the country's white population in South Africa, tried to argue that, since the G-20 operates by consensus, a joint declaration could not be adopted in its absence. But the South African presidency refused and, actively supported by others—including the Europeans—pushed forward with the option of a joint declaration.

“We cannot allow anything to diminish the value, stature, and impact of Africa’s first G-20 presidency,” said Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa. His Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola, was more explicit in statements to the public broadcaster SABC: “The multilateral platform cannot be paralyzed based on the absence of someone who was invited. The G-20 is not about the United States. It is about all its members. We are all equal members of the G-20.”

The declaration is a 30-page document devoid of major political commitments. Like the agreement reached this Saturday at COP-30 in Bethlehem, which also rests on a low common denominator, it shows that multilateralism is not dead, but its effectiveness is seriously undermined by the current geopolitical configuration of the world.

Different fronts of the assault

The assault is clear and is being waged on several fronts. It involves weakening international institutions—sabotaging their functioning through structures or funding—; violating UN principles, whether territorial integrity, sovereignty, or human rights; democratic backsliding; climate change denial; and regressive policies on civil rights.

The struggle is not between two clearly defined blocs. The EU and some of its member states did not mobilize to defend a rules-based world in the case of Gaza. China—whose leader, Xi Jinping, also did not travel to Johannesburg—declares itself a supporter of the rules-based multilateral order, but does not hesitate to disregard rulings of international courts when it suits its interests, or to impose coercive economic measures when it benefits from a position of strength.

“Using dependency as a weapon only creates losers. We need to return to a rules-based system,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a speech at the summit’s opening session that undoubtedly referred to China, but could just as easily apply to the United States.

The joint declaration is based on the key areas promoted by the South African presidency to advance issues of concern to the Global South. It includes sections dedicated to resilience and response to climate disasters, debt sustainability, and the fair and sustainable exploitation of strategic minerals. The text also addresses concepts such as gender and climate change, which were considered taboo by the Trump Administration.

However, the wording of the 30-page document and the political stance of many of the signatories do not bode well for significant concrete progress based on the agreement. The text, for example, includes a reference to states refraining from using “force to achieve territorial acquisitions against the integrity and sovereignty” of others. This passage was undoubtedly unwelcome to Russia, which, nevertheless, did not explicitly refuse to sign it. This reflects the lack of commitment—bordering on nonexistent—of many who have not gone so far as to explicitly withdraw from the forum.

“It’s a major blow (to multilateralism),” says John Kirton, director of the G-20 Research Group, who was in Johannesburg, referring to all the absences. “Never before has the most powerful leader of the G-20, the US president, missed the summit. And even if the reason for the absence is bilateral, due to unfounded accusations against South Africa, this has an impact on the functioning of the G-20 because it disrupts the operation of the troika of countries that take turns holding the presidency,” Kirton says. The United States assumes the rotating G-20 presidency after this summit.

Kirton recalls that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the G-20 will"return to basics," which, according to the expert, will mean, among other things,"fewer ministerial meetings," likely a narrower range of topics, and possible discretion in inviting members. Trump, for his part, has announced that the 2026 summit will be held at one of his golf courses in Miami. These hardly seem like the best conditions for a forum that, while lacking executive power, is an important mechanism for international cooperation.

After the end of the Cold War, the world took significant steps toward the dream of a rules-based multilateral order. The World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court were founded, the newly created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was consolidated, and other initiatives flourished. But the pendulum of history has swung back before that dream could be realized. The G-20 summit in South Africa highlights the global battle between those seeking to dismantle multilateral cooperation in this era and those defending at least parts of it.