November 6, 2025 • 13 mins
In this episode we examine the bold claim by U.S. President Donald Trump that South Africa should no longer be part of the G20 — and where this leaves global geopolitics. We dig into the roots of the U.S.–South Africa diplomatic fallout, from land-expropriation accusations and refugee claims to trade tariffs and Africa’s growing voice on the world stage. South Africa, which currently holds the G20 presidency, is pushing an agenda of solidarity, equality and sustainability — while the U.S. signals resistance. We break down how informal forums like the G20 operate, why consensus matters, and what happens if a member faces potential exclusion. Whether you’re tuning in for summit coverage, U.S. foreign policy, or Africa’s role in global affairs, this episode gives you the full story with expert context. Listen till the end for key take-aways on how this could reshape the G20 and what to watch next in U.S.–Africa relations.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate. Our focus today, Well, it stems
from the considerable friction generated ahead of the recent G
twenty summit in Johannesburg. The controversy was really ignited by
former US President Donald Trump's highly public critique asserting that
South Africa shouldn't even be in the g's anymore. He
cited these widely disputed claims of discrimination against its white
(00:22):
minority and you know, contentious issues around land seizures.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Right and South Africa. They chose not to engage directly
with those specific claims, did they. Instead, they emphasize their
theme for the summit solidarity, equality and sustainability exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
And this tension, it really forces us to examine the
functional limitations of well global governance. I suppose the G
twenty is an informal forum. It operates entirely by consensus
and notably lacks any formal procedure for expelling a member.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Utes is the threat of exclusion, you know, wielded by
a leading global economy. Is that a legitimate and useful
mechanism for political accountability for maintaining institutional standards? Or alternatively,
does this kind of high level political pressure just prove
(01:13):
fundamentally disruptive. Does it ultimately undermine the G twenty's core
economic purpose.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Well, I'll be arguing that utilizing maximum political pressure is
indeed a necessary, perhaps informal, but necessary tool to hold
G twenty members accountable. It ensures or tries to ensure
a baseline of shared values among the world's largest economies.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Okay, and I'll be taking the opposing view that these
attempts to enforce disciplinary consensus within such a large, inherently diverse,
and informal economic forum are just well, they're impractical, they're
destructive to its mandate, and ultimately they jeopardize essential international cooperation.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
When we can consider the purpose of the G twenty,
particularly following its elevation to the Leader's Summit level back
in two thousand and eight, it was established to promote
stability and international cooperation after global financial turmoil. Now, ice
why you emphasize the strictly economic function, But let's maybe consider.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
The bigger picture here.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Even without a binding legal charter, if the group aims
to promote stable international relations, which let's face it, are
the bedrock of stable markets, then its members really must
adhere to certain shared governance standards that satisfy the major
global players. The high level concern raised by the US here. Look,
regardless of whether one accepts the specific evidence cited about
(02:40):
the land law or those unsubstantiated claims of persecution, it's
serious enough, I think, to demand external pressure. And we
saw this pressure translate into tangible action, didn't we. The
US use tools like imposing thirty percent tariffs on key
South African exports. That's the highest rate applied across Sub
Saharan Africa. They also publicly downgraded attendance the vice president
(03:01):
instead of the president. So the threat of exclusion requiring
a host to essentially keep a member away from the table,
it really is the only leverage point available. It sort
of has to be deployed when core principles are perceived
to be violated.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Okay, I have to push back on that immediately. The
G twenty strength and its original purpose, it's fundamentally economic.
It was created back in nineteen ninety nine following the
Asian financial crisis, specifically to be a broad coalition capable
of restoring financial stability. Its mandate covers what eighty five
(03:36):
percent of the world's wealth. Attempting to weaponize political grievances,
especially ones relying on such disputed evidence. Well, that's inherently destabilizing.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
But isn't stability predicated on certain norms.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
It's also been historically proven to fail in this context.
I mean, look no further than the calls for Russia's
expulsion from the G twenty after the twenty twenty two
invasion of Ukraine, despite near universal condemnation from the West.
Those attempts failed completely. Experts like Gothorpe confirm consensus is
(04:09):
well virtually impossible to achieve for political discipline in a
group this large key allies, including China, who would not
accept a sort of rejection of South Africa and the
European Union, which has deep financial and development commitments to
the African continent they would resist. The G twenty relies
on its breath and inclusivity, and these attempts at discipline
(04:31):
they only lead to the breakdown. We'd actually seen where
ministerial meetings have not led to declarations, It just stops
the work.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
I appreciate the historical context, I do, but I kind
of struggle with that comparison. When you dismiss the G
eight precedent so quickly, the expulsion of Russia from the
G eight after the annexation of Crimea in twenty fourteen.
That was a powerful statement. It demonstrated that even smaller,
more advanced economic groupings can, and frankly must, in worse
(05:00):
discipline when international norms are breached.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
But isn't the core difference precisely the ability to achieve consensus.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Surely, the G eight
was composed of eight highly aligned, mostly Western industrialized nations.
The G twenty, it's a dramatically larger form. It encompasses
countries with fundamentally different strategic and economic alliances. Think about
(05:24):
the Bricks members, for example, they have absolutely no interest
in aligning with Western political standards just because the US
expresses agreements. The very fact that the G twenty could
not expel Russia even after the magnitude of the twenty
twenty two invasion, it just proves that attempting political discipline
in a group this size is practically unworkable. I mean,
(05:46):
if a major war can't trigger exclusion, how can a
domestic land law issue, however controversial, possibly achieve it.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
That's a fair point about the difference in size and
alignment definitely, But let me argue for the value of
the GAD analogy just in principle. While you might not
achieve the unanimous vote needed for let's say, formal exclusion
in the G twenty, the G eight action established a
kind of moral and political precedent that a nation's economic
(06:16):
status doesn't granted impunity from geopolitical discipline. If the US,
as the world's largest economy, perceives a member to be
violating core human rights standards, even if, as you say,
the underlying evidence is contested, the political pressure must be applied.
It has to be to uphold the group's perceived legitimacy. Otherwise,
(06:38):
what are we signaling that the G twenty is just
a space where ethics and government standards simply don't matter
only GDP. Hmmm.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I wonder, though, what the ultimate cost of that legitimacy
is when you weigh it against the immediate damage to
its function. Let's talk about those tariffs you mentioned, the
thirty percent rate on South African exports. This feels like
the crucial point of divergence. If the US is forced
to use economic tools tariffs downgrading delegation size as a
(07:07):
substitute for diplomatic exclusion hasn't the disruption already occurred anyway,
regardless of whether we formally threatened to kick them out.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Absolutely, and the fact that the US can and did
apply those significant tariffs proves that the pressure mechanism works
in a way. It reveals something quite fascinating I think
about the future of accountability in these consensus driven forums.
Since diplomatic expulsion is, as you argue, likely off the table,
maybe the new standard for discipline involves immediate, targeted economic action.
(07:39):
It demonstrates that the political rift is now measurable in
trade figures. Perhaps this is far more effective than an
empty threat of exclusion that everyone knows will probably fail
due to Chinese or EU opposition. The threat, backed by
tariffs forces the member state to respond.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
But wait, if the G twenty's primary mission is to
restore economic stability and coordinate global financial policy, then using
thirty percent tariffs which actively destabilize a major trading partner,
isn't that the definition of the cure being worse than
the disease. You seem to be suggesting that economic disruption
is an acceptable means to achieve political purity. If every
(08:18):
major power starts using tariffs based on political grievances, the
G twenty ceases to be a functional form for economic management.
It just collapses into competing political alliances. It completely derails
the core mission of managing that eighty five percent of
global wealth, which requires cooperation, not constant economic sanctioning among members.
(08:40):
I'm not quite convinced by that line of reasoning, because, well,
ignoring the political rift means you're settling for a facade
of economic cooperation that doesn't really exist underneath. The material
shows South Africa recognize the gravity of the friction. They
sent a large delegation, remember including coalition members and famous golfers,
(09:02):
to the White House to try and mend relations. This
shows the pressure worked, at least in getting a reaction,
even if the tariffs were ultimately imposed. It seems better
to have measurable friction that forces a political response than
to maintain this sort of hollow economic dialogue while one
major member is actively imposing sanctions on another based on
those grievances. The silence of the G twenty as an
(09:25):
institution on the dispute, maybe that's worse than the noise
of the political fallout. Let's shift the focus slightly, then,
to the host South Africa. Their proactive agenda seems crucial here.
They're using their presidency to champion what seems like a
necessary shift in the global dialogue, centering their theme on
solidarity and sustainability and pushing to address the impact of
(09:46):
colonialism of the African continent. This is precisely the kind
of complex global inequality issue the G twenty, with its
broad membership, really should address, shouldn't it. Their unique position
allows them to try and bridge in a qualities, moving
the dialogue beyond purely Western centric political grievances.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
That's an interesting point, though I might frame their focus
slightly differently. South Africa's emphasis on our own journey from
racial and ethnic division and focusing so heavily on post
colonial issues, Well, it appears fundamentally defensive, doesn't it. It looks,
perhaps suspiciously like an attempt to pivot the international conversation
(10:28):
away from the immediate internal issues the land law, the
alleged persecution that triggered this whole controversy in the first place.
The very fact they felt compelled to publicly hit back
against those white genocide claims confirms they recognize the need
to respond to this external pressure. Their agenda, while maybe
(10:48):
laudable in theme, seems to function also as a political
shield against external scrutiny regarding their domestic policies.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
But isn't the ability to use the presidency to refocus
the dialogue actually a sign of the G twenty's resilience.
Unlike the G eight, this form is designed to accommodate
different perspectives. If the US is perceived as using unsubstantiated
claims to apply pressure, is in South Africa perfectly justified
in using its platform to highlight historically significant global imbalances,
(11:20):
thereby maybe neutralizing the pressure by shifting the ethical high ground.
If we force the G twenty to only discuss trade
percentages and never allow the host nation to introduce development
or political equity, we stifle the very progress the group
claims to champion in emerging economies.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
My position remains that the highest level political pressure, yes
backed by real economic leverage like those tariffs, serves as
a necessary, albeit informal check on accountability within the G twenty.
While formal exclusion might be impossible, the threat of isolation,
however executed, is really the only meaningful leverage available to
(11:58):
preserve the political legiti intimacy of the group's shared values,
at least among major players. The risk inherent in ignoring
series political divisions I think outweighs the benefit of achieving
a superficial economic consensus, and conversely, I'd argue the strength
of the G twenty lies precisely in its acceptance of messy,
difficult consensus. It allows countries with fundamental political and strategic
(12:20):
differences to cooperate on restoring and maintaining economic stability, attempting
to enforce political uniformity by weaponizing membership, especially through these
controversial threats of exclusion, while it only confirms the US's
disruptive reputation, potentially driving allies like China and the EU
further into opposition, and this ultimately weakens the very framework
(12:42):
designed to manage the global economy. Complexity I think often
requires multiple perspectives to fully appreciate the limits of institutional reach,
So ultimately we are left to consider whether the G
twenty is better served by accepting difficult, sometimes adversarial cooperation
among disp nations for the sake of economic continuing.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Or by striving for a level of political and ethical
uniformity that may prove impossible to enforce and frankly risks
breaking the forum entirely.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
There is clearly much more to unpack regarding the utility
and indeed the limits of non binding global institutions like
this
Welcome to the debate. Our focus today, Well, it stems
from the considerable friction generated ahead of the recent G
twenty summit in Johannesburg. The controversy was really ignited by
former US President Donald Trump's highly public critique asserting that
South Africa shouldn't even be in the g's anymore. He
cited these widely disputed claims of discrimination against its white
(00:22):
minority and you know, contentious issues around land seizures.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Right and South Africa. They chose not to engage directly
with those specific claims, did they. Instead, they emphasize their
theme for the summit solidarity, equality and sustainability exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
And this tension, it really forces us to examine the
functional limitations of well global governance. I suppose the G
twenty is an informal forum. It operates entirely by consensus
and notably lacks any formal procedure for expelling a member.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Utes is the threat of exclusion, you know, wielded by
a leading global economy. Is that a legitimate and useful
mechanism for political accountability for maintaining institutional standards? Or alternatively,
does this kind of high level political pressure just prove
(01:13):
fundamentally disruptive. Does it ultimately undermine the G twenty's core
economic purpose.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Well, I'll be arguing that utilizing maximum political pressure is
indeed a necessary, perhaps informal, but necessary tool to hold
G twenty members accountable. It ensures or tries to ensure
a baseline of shared values among the world's largest economies.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Okay, and I'll be taking the opposing view that these
attempts to enforce disciplinary consensus within such a large, inherently diverse,
and informal economic forum are just well, they're impractical, they're
destructive to its mandate, and ultimately they jeopardize essential international cooperation.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
When we can consider the purpose of the G twenty,
particularly following its elevation to the Leader's Summit level back
in two thousand and eight, it was established to promote
stability and international cooperation after global financial turmoil. Now, ice
why you emphasize the strictly economic function, But let's maybe consider.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
The bigger picture here.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Even without a binding legal charter, if the group aims
to promote stable international relations, which let's face it, are
the bedrock of stable markets, then its members really must
adhere to certain shared governance standards that satisfy the major
global players. The high level concern raised by the US here. Look,
regardless of whether one accepts the specific evidence cited about
(02:40):
the land law or those unsubstantiated claims of persecution, it's
serious enough, I think, to demand external pressure. And we
saw this pressure translate into tangible action, didn't we. The
US use tools like imposing thirty percent tariffs on key
South African exports. That's the highest rate applied across Sub
Saharan Africa. They also publicly downgraded attendance the vice president
(03:01):
instead of the president. So the threat of exclusion requiring
a host to essentially keep a member away from the table,
it really is the only leverage point available. It sort
of has to be deployed when core principles are perceived
to be violated.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Okay, I have to push back on that immediately. The
G twenty strength and its original purpose, it's fundamentally economic.
It was created back in nineteen ninety nine following the
Asian financial crisis, specifically to be a broad coalition capable
of restoring financial stability. Its mandate covers what eighty five
(03:36):
percent of the world's wealth. Attempting to weaponize political grievances,
especially ones relying on such disputed evidence. Well, that's inherently destabilizing.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
But isn't stability predicated on certain norms.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
It's also been historically proven to fail in this context.
I mean, look no further than the calls for Russia's
expulsion from the G twenty after the twenty twenty two
invasion of Ukraine, despite near universal condemnation from the West.
Those attempts failed completely. Experts like Gothorpe confirm consensus is
(04:09):
well virtually impossible to achieve for political discipline in a
group this large key allies, including China, who would not
accept a sort of rejection of South Africa and the
European Union, which has deep financial and development commitments to
the African continent they would resist. The G twenty relies
on its breath and inclusivity, and these attempts at discipline
(04:31):
they only lead to the breakdown. We'd actually seen where
ministerial meetings have not led to declarations, It just stops
the work.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
I appreciate the historical context, I do, but I kind
of struggle with that comparison. When you dismiss the G
eight precedent so quickly, the expulsion of Russia from the
G eight after the annexation of Crimea in twenty fourteen.
That was a powerful statement. It demonstrated that even smaller,
more advanced economic groupings can, and frankly must, in worse
(05:00):
discipline when international norms are breached.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
But isn't the core difference precisely the ability to achieve consensus.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Surely, the G eight
was composed of eight highly aligned, mostly Western industrialized nations.
The G twenty, it's a dramatically larger form. It encompasses
countries with fundamentally different strategic and economic alliances. Think about
(05:24):
the Bricks members, for example, they have absolutely no interest
in aligning with Western political standards just because the US
expresses agreements. The very fact that the G twenty could
not expel Russia even after the magnitude of the twenty
twenty two invasion, it just proves that attempting political discipline
in a group this size is practically unworkable. I mean,
(05:46):
if a major war can't trigger exclusion, how can a
domestic land law issue, however controversial, possibly achieve it.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
That's a fair point about the difference in size and
alignment definitely, But let me argue for the value of
the GAD analogy just in principle. While you might not
achieve the unanimous vote needed for let's say, formal exclusion
in the G twenty, the G eight action established a
kind of moral and political precedent that a nation's economic
(06:16):
status doesn't granted impunity from geopolitical discipline. If the US,
as the world's largest economy, perceives a member to be
violating core human rights standards, even if, as you say,
the underlying evidence is contested, the political pressure must be applied.
It has to be to uphold the group's perceived legitimacy. Otherwise,
(06:38):
what are we signaling that the G twenty is just
a space where ethics and government standards simply don't matter
only GDP. Hmmm.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I wonder, though, what the ultimate cost of that legitimacy
is when you weigh it against the immediate damage to
its function. Let's talk about those tariffs you mentioned, the
thirty percent rate on South African exports. This feels like
the crucial point of divergence. If the US is forced
to use economic tools tariffs downgrading delegation size as a
(07:07):
substitute for diplomatic exclusion hasn't the disruption already occurred anyway,
regardless of whether we formally threatened to kick them out.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Absolutely, and the fact that the US can and did
apply those significant tariffs proves that the pressure mechanism works
in a way. It reveals something quite fascinating I think
about the future of accountability in these consensus driven forums.
Since diplomatic expulsion is, as you argue, likely off the table,
maybe the new standard for discipline involves immediate, targeted economic action.
(07:39):
It demonstrates that the political rift is now measurable in
trade figures. Perhaps this is far more effective than an
empty threat of exclusion that everyone knows will probably fail
due to Chinese or EU opposition. The threat, backed by
tariffs forces the member state to respond.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
But wait, if the G twenty's primary mission is to
restore economic stability and coordinate global financial policy, then using
thirty percent tariffs which actively destabilize a major trading partner,
isn't that the definition of the cure being worse than
the disease. You seem to be suggesting that economic disruption
is an acceptable means to achieve political purity. If every
(08:18):
major power starts using tariffs based on political grievances, the
G twenty ceases to be a functional form for economic management.
It just collapses into competing political alliances. It completely derails
the core mission of managing that eighty five percent of
global wealth, which requires cooperation, not constant economic sanctioning among members.
(08:40):
I'm not quite convinced by that line of reasoning, because, well,
ignoring the political rift means you're settling for a facade
of economic cooperation that doesn't really exist underneath. The material
shows South Africa recognize the gravity of the friction. They
sent a large delegation, remember including coalition members and famous golfers,
(09:02):
to the White House to try and mend relations. This
shows the pressure worked, at least in getting a reaction,
even if the tariffs were ultimately imposed. It seems better
to have measurable friction that forces a political response than
to maintain this sort of hollow economic dialogue while one
major member is actively imposing sanctions on another based on
those grievances. The silence of the G twenty as an
(09:25):
institution on the dispute, maybe that's worse than the noise
of the political fallout. Let's shift the focus slightly, then,
to the host South Africa. Their proactive agenda seems crucial here.
They're using their presidency to champion what seems like a
necessary shift in the global dialogue, centering their theme on
solidarity and sustainability and pushing to address the impact of
(09:46):
colonialism of the African continent. This is precisely the kind
of complex global inequality issue the G twenty, with its
broad membership, really should address, shouldn't it. Their unique position
allows them to try and bridge in a qualities, moving
the dialogue beyond purely Western centric political grievances.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
That's an interesting point, though I might frame their focus
slightly differently. South Africa's emphasis on our own journey from
racial and ethnic division and focusing so heavily on post
colonial issues, Well, it appears fundamentally defensive, doesn't it. It looks,
perhaps suspiciously like an attempt to pivot the international conversation
(10:28):
away from the immediate internal issues the land law, the
alleged persecution that triggered this whole controversy in the first place.
The very fact they felt compelled to publicly hit back
against those white genocide claims confirms they recognize the need
to respond to this external pressure. Their agenda, while maybe
(10:48):
laudable in theme, seems to function also as a political
shield against external scrutiny regarding their domestic policies.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
But isn't the ability to use the presidency to refocus
the dialogue actually a sign of the G twenty's resilience.
Unlike the G eight, this form is designed to accommodate
different perspectives. If the US is perceived as using unsubstantiated
claims to apply pressure, is in South Africa perfectly justified
in using its platform to highlight historically significant global imbalances,
(11:20):
thereby maybe neutralizing the pressure by shifting the ethical high ground.
If we force the G twenty to only discuss trade
percentages and never allow the host nation to introduce development
or political equity, we stifle the very progress the group
claims to champion in emerging economies.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
My position remains that the highest level political pressure, yes
backed by real economic leverage like those tariffs, serves as
a necessary, albeit informal check on accountability within the G twenty.
While formal exclusion might be impossible, the threat of isolation,
however executed, is really the only meaningful leverage available to
(11:58):
preserve the political legiti intimacy of the group's shared values,
at least among major players. The risk inherent in ignoring
series political divisions I think outweighs the benefit of achieving
a superficial economic consensus, and conversely, I'd argue the strength
of the G twenty lies precisely in its acceptance of messy,
difficult consensus. It allows countries with fundamental political and strategic
(12:20):
differences to cooperate on restoring and maintaining economic stability, attempting
to enforce political uniformity by weaponizing membership, especially through these
controversial threats of exclusion, while it only confirms the US's
disruptive reputation, potentially driving allies like China and the EU
further into opposition, and this ultimately weakens the very framework
(12:42):
designed to manage the global economy. Complexity I think often
requires multiple perspectives to fully appreciate the limits of institutional reach,
So ultimately we are left to consider whether the G
twenty is better served by accepting difficult, sometimes adversarial cooperation
among disp nations for the sake of economic continuing.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Or by striving for a level of political and ethical
uniformity that may prove impossible to enforce and frankly risks
breaking the forum entirely.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
There is clearly much more to unpack regarding the utility
and indeed the limits of non binding global institutions like
this
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.