South Africa is doing very bad things, I’ll not attend G-20 Summit in South Africa — US Secretary of State Marco Rubio
In the lead-up to the highly anticipated G20 summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, a significant diplomatic rift has emerged between the United States and South Africa, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly announcing that he will not be attending the summit. Rubio’s decision stems from his concerns about South Africa’s policies, particularly land reforms and the country’s alleged “anti-American stance.” The remarks have sparked a flurry of diplomatic tension, with both countries trading barbs over policy differences and ideological clashes.
South Africa’s G20 Summit
South Africa is set to host the G20 summit on February 20-21, 2025, in Johannesburg. As the premier forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 summit brings together the world’s largest economies to discuss global issues ranging from economic growth and trade to environmental sustainability and climate change. The summit is expected to focus on a range of pressing global challenges, including the ongoing economic recovery following the pandemic, global inflation, climate action, and geopolitical tensions.
For South Africa, hosting the G20 summit represents a significant opportunity to showcase its leadership on the global stage and promote its domestic policies and priorities. However, as the host nation, it is also under the microscope, with leaders from around the world scrutinizing the country’s political decisions and economic policies. Unfortunately for South Africa, the announcement of Marco Rubio’s decision to boycott the summit has underscored the contentious issues that have been simmering for some time between the US and South Africa.
Rubio’s Public Condemnation of South Africa
Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State for the United States, is known for his forthright stance on global issues, particularly when it comes to defending American interests and values. In a post on his social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Rubio expressed his concerns about South Africa’s policies, calling them “very bad things” and indicating that he would not be attending the G20 summit in Johannesburg. His message was direct and scathing, reflecting the growing frustration with South Africa’s approach to land reform and its perceived stance on global issues.
Rubio wrote, “I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg,” adding that “South Africa is doing very bad things—expropriating private property and using the G20 to promote ‘solidarity, equality, & sustainability.’ In other words: DEI and climate change.” The mention of “expropriating private property” referred to South Africa’s controversial land reform policies, which have been at the center of international criticism in recent years. Rubio’s mention of “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and “climate change” alluded to South Africa’s commitment to addressing global issues, which he viewed as incompatible with American interests.
Rubio’s statement reflected a broader frustration with the direction of South Africa’s domestic and foreign policies, which he argued undermined American values and objectives. As Secretary of State, Rubio’s role is to represent and advance the interests of the United States on the global stage, and his decision to boycott the G20 summit was framed as an act of protest against South Africa’s policies. The decision to publicly condemn South Africa, however, also raised concerns about the potential diplomatic fallout between the two nations.
The Land Reform Debate
At the heart of Rubio’s criticism lies South Africa’s land reform policies, which have been a source of ongoing controversy both domestically and internationally. The issue of land ownership and redistribution remains one of the most divisive and politically charged topics in post-apartheid South Africa. During the apartheid era, land ownership was heavily concentrated in the hands of the white minority, with the majority of the population, particularly Black South Africans, being dispossessed of their land and relegated to overcrowded and underdeveloped areas. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, the South African government has sought to redress these historical injustices by implementing land reform policies aimed at redistributing land to the previously disadvantaged majority.
The most controversial aspect of the land reform process has been the proposal to expropriate land without compensation. This policy has gained significant political traction, particularly within the African National Congress (ANC), which views land redistribution as a crucial element of achieving economic justice for Black South Africans. The government has argued that expropriating land without compensation is necessary to correct the legacy of apartheid and ensure equitable access to land for all South Africans. However, critics, both within South Africa and abroad, have raised concerns that such a policy could lead to economic instability, property rights violations, and a decline in agricultural production.
Rubio’s statement, which condemned South Africa’s land expropriation policies, echoed the sentiments of former US President Donald Trump, who also criticized the country’s land reform efforts. In 2018, Trump made headlines when he accused South Africa of “land theft” and “killing farmers,” a statement that was widely condemned by the South African government. Trump’s remarks were seen as part of a broader pattern of “America First” rhetoric, which prioritized national interests over international cooperation.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has strongly defended the country’s land reform policies, insisting that the government is committed to addressing the injustices of the past while ensuring that land redistribution is carried out in a fair and legal manner. Ramaphosa has consistently denied accusations that South Africa is engaging in land expropriation without compensation on a large scale. He has emphasized that the government’s approach is focused on promoting economic growth, food security, and social cohesion, rather than engaging in reckless land seizures.
In response to Trump’s comments, Ramaphosa rejected the notion that South Africa was confiscating land and reiterated the country’s commitment to a legal and transparent land reform process. He argued that the government’s policies were intended to correct historical wrongs and provide economic opportunities for disadvantaged communities. Despite these assurances, the debate over land reform remains a highly charged and contentious issue, with differing views on how to balance justice, economic growth, and property rights.
US-South Africa Tensions and Diplomacy
Marco Rubio’s decision to boycott the G20 summit is part of a broader pattern of tensions between the United States and South Africa in recent years. The two countries have often found themselves at odds over a range of issues, including trade, foreign policy, and human rights. While South Africa has traditionally been an ally of the United States, particularly during the apartheid era when it was a key supporter of the anti-apartheid movement, the relationship between the two nations has become increasingly strained in the post-apartheid period.
One of the key areas of tension has been South Africa’s foreign policy stance, particularly its alignment with countries such as China and Russia. South Africa has cultivated close diplomatic and economic ties with China, particularly through initiatives like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group, which seeks to promote the interests of emerging economies in the global arena. This alignment with China, as well as South Africa’s cautious approach to international issues such as the conflict in Ukraine, has raised concerns within Western countries, including the United States.
In addition to these geopolitical differences, South Africa’s stance on domestic policies such as land reform and economic inequality has further complicated relations with the US. American officials, particularly those from conservative circles, have voiced concerns that South Africa’s approach to these issues reflects a broader ideological shift towards socialism and anti-Western rhetoric. Rubio’s condemnation of South Africa’s policies can be seen as part of this larger narrative, where the US is seeking to distance itself from what it perceives as problematic policies that undermine the principles of free markets and individual rights.
Implications for the G20 Summit
Marco Rubio’s decision to boycott the G20 summit is likely to have broader implications for the summit itself. As a leading global economic power, the United States plays a crucial role in shaping the discussions and outcomes of the G20 summit. Rubio’s absence will leave a notable gap in the US delegation, potentially diminishing the country’s influence on key issues such as climate change, trade, and economic governance. While other American officials may still attend the summit, Rubio’s position as Secretary of State would have carried significant weight in diplomatic negotiations.
South Africa, as the host nation, is undoubtedly concerned about the diplomatic fallout from Rubio’s decision. Hosting the G20 summit is a prestigious opportunity for the country, but the presence of key leaders and diplomats is crucial to the success of the event. South Africa will likely seek to downplay the boycott and focus on presenting itself as a responsible and effective host for the summit. However, the growing tensions between the US and South Africa could overshadow the event and detract from its primary objectives.
Conclusion
The diplomatic standoff between the United States and South Africa, epitomized by Marco Rubio’s decision to boycott the G20 summit, highlights the growing divisions between the two nations on a range of issues. From land reform and property rights to foreign policy and economic governance, the differences between the US and South Africa are becoming increasingly apparent. As the G20 summit approaches, it remains to be seen how these tensions will play out on the global stage and whether the diplomatic rift will have lasting consequences for US-South Africa relations. While Rubio’s decision may be seen as a symbolic gesture of protest, it underscores the broader challenges facing international diplomacy in a rapidly changing world.
EXCERPT
South Africa is doing very bad things, I’ll not attend G-20 Summit in South Africa — US Secretary of State Marco Rubio
South Africa is doing very bad things, I?ll not attend G-20 Summit in South Africa ? US Secretary of State Marco Rubio
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated that that he will not attend the upcoming G20 summit in South Africa citing concerns over the country’s policies, including land reforms and its “anti-American stance.”
South Africa is set to host the G20 summit in Johannesburg on 20–21 February. The G20 summit is the premier forum for international economic cooperation.
Rubio, in a post via his X account, said, “South Africa is doing very bad things.”
He wrote: “I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg.
“South Africa is doing very bad things—expropriating private property and using G20 to promote ‘solidarity, equality, & sustainability.’ In other words: DEI and climate change.
“My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.”
Rubio’s decision comes just days after US President Donald Trump slammed South Africa’s land policies. Trump had said he would cut all US funding to South Africa, calling its land reform efforts a “human rights violation.”
Meanwhile, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has already rejected Trump’s remarks, stressing that his country had not “confiscated land.”
Source: LIB
