Latest news with #G77
IOL News
15-06-2025
- Business
- IOL News
G7 Summit: Will Global South Voices Be Heard?
President Cyril Ramaphosa met several former African Heads of State and Government who are championing the African Leaders Initiative on Debt Relief at his official residence, Genadendal, in Cape Town on February 25, 2025. President Ramaphosa will attend the G7 summit in Canada today. For the Global South middle powers, an important responsibility in global G7 and G20 platforms is the commitment to articulate the interests of the G77 and the majority world, says the writer. Image: GCIS Ashraf Patel This year's G7 Summit takes place in Kananaskis Canada, under the theme Governance in a Fragmented World. The world in 2025 stands at a critical juncture. Geopolitical fragmentation, systemic economic shocks and accelerating technological change are reshaping the contours of the international order. While the values underpinning the postwar multilateral system — democracy, open markets, human rights and the rule of law — remain foundational, their global reach and efficacy face a real threat of erosion from multiple directions. In this context, a narrative has emerged of Southern powers that can, in some way, influence the global agenda via the G20 and some presence at the G7. Canada generally has good programs aligned with the UN SDGs and responsible middle power, but will it sway the big powers to a broader development agenda? What, then, is the value of Southern nations participating in the G7 in the current globally fractured era amidst trade wars and conflict? The BRICS nations bloc was conceived to chart an independent pathway due to these unequal relations in the world order. Currently, most G7 core nations are in perilous economic stagnation. The UK, Germany, France and the US face multiple crises. The US domestic situation is divided with major strife and an authoritarian turn, and today, many US cities mirror that of Global South societies. A key question then is what is to be gained from participation at the G7 when the policy prescripts in this context is a forgone conclusion. For President Cyril Ramaphosa, this is his 5th trip to a G7 Summit as an observer. Observer status of Global South leaders generally means they have at least a day to engage over lunch and working sessions with the G7's core leadership. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ For South Africa, it's a case of the same old dialogue. In 2020 the South African president was invited to the G20 in Gleneagles, UK. The Covid pandemic was at its peak and G7 nations and their pharmaceutical industries ensured Covid nationalism that left Africa languishing at the bottom of the pyramid. At that summit, a new Just Energy Transition (JET) program was conceived, and over the years transformed into an investment program JET IP. While couched in terms of 'development co-operation on climate', upon closer scrutiny, South Africans discovered that they were green loans repayable with interest. Even more concerning is that this year's G7 takes place against the backdrop of regressive Development Aid policies by core EU states - UK, Germany, and Netherlands which is predicated on a 'new development business interest paradigm' with cuts to core development aid, and linking Development Aid directly to investment and business outcomes. More concerning is the commitment by the EU and NATO states to increase Defence expenditure to 5% of GDP. Invariably, these structural shifts meant that the Northern world G7 would likely adopt more structural reforms, austerity and a push for neoliberalism in the Global South, meaning more extractive policies. This can be seen by increased oil and gas explorations by G7 nations across Africa, thus contradicting their commitments to UN Climate Change COP targets. It is in these multi-layered complexities - and contradictions that Middle Powers - India, South Africa and Brazil are invited to the G7 this weekend. Realistically, prospects for a 'new deal' on debt, climate finance and meeting SDGs in this austerity ecosystem are low indeed. By contrast, just this week China has removed tariffs for all 53 African states who export to China, thus boosting job creation and industrial development. In just one sweep it has done more for African trade than G7 nations communiques have done in a years. This is a concrete example of development solidarity and moves towards fair and balanced trade. By contrast, core G7 states are engaged in trade wars, tariff imposition and economic nationalism. The G7 themes do somehow weave into the G20 just as the BRICS nation's themes on green industrial development and IFI reforms have. In terms of Southern agency and agenda setting, South Africa is generally a middle power committed to multilateralism and the UN charter, a laudable approach, but it has limitations in the current era. For the Global South middle powers, an important responsibility in global G7 and G20 platforms is the commitment to articulate the interests of the G77 and the majority world. In the current context of Trump 2.0 trade wars and WTO ineffectiveness, geopolitical conflicts, and the lack of any agency or power by smaller nations such as Lesotho means that Low-Income Countries (LIC) are now most vulnerable and are facing ever deeper poverty as a result of trade wars and abrupt cuts in USAID etc. The recent G77 June statement has decried that at a time of converging global crises including conflict, climate change, hunger, poverty, food insecurity, rising inequalities, declining official development assistance, and rapid technological disruption and has reaffirmed development as a fundamental pillar of peace and security. Generally, the G7 agenda is about maintaining the hegemony of the Global North. Again, the current fractured era suggests that the Middle Powers now straddle the thin line between co-option into dominant patterns of unequal trade, finance and austerity, and Sovereignty. What pathways will be prioritised? * Ashraf Patel is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue, UNISA. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
25-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
The White House Meeting: Tale of Two Inconvenient Truths
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and his US counterpart Donald Trump with their respective delegations before their meeting in the Oval Office on Wednesday May 21, 2025. Ashraf Patel Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics! was Winston Churchill's famous response to one of his major political challenges. This statement certainly rang true as Trump and Ramaphosa each provided us with a spectacle of different versions of reality. Trump's bombastic statements on white farm murders generously referenced fake news and disinformation. Ramaphosa's narratives -although more suave were peppered with more sophisticated inconvenient truths of another kind. Team Ramaphosa's US visit came amidst the backdrop of South Africa's rapid declining role and prestige, in Africa a declining economy, the Budget 3.0 debacle, a low GDP, highest unemployment in its debut G20 Africa year. Ramaphosa graciously thanked President Trump for his donation of 150 respirators to South Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. More concerning is that Ramaphosa did not even raise the Covid nationalism of the US which left Africans at the bottom of the global health pyramid. In fact neither Ramaphosa or Trump even appreciated that our own CSIR were developing its own homegrown respiratory technology and we had the local innovation capacity without needing US 'donations.' For the record Covid vaccine hoarding was the US (under Trump) and EU policy for the first year, and most African nations were provided free vaccines by China (Sinovac) and Russia (Sputnik). In addition, there was real R&D cooperation within the G77 continues to open up possibilities for vaccine self-reliance. The BRICS Covid vaccine platform with its technology transfer model as recommended by the WHO and the UN was an example of South-South solidarity in action. In a 2024 landmark court ruling brought by the Health Justice Initiative, the Pretoria High Court ordered the release of the Covid procurement agreement. They found that South African DoH was bullied by pharma corporations and overpaid a whopping R7 Billion for vaccines. So, in net terms, despite the US government, under Trump practised Covid nationalism, its Pharma corporations J&J, Pfizer et al made super profits in the Covid procurement program and still overcharged by billions. The irony is not lost that because of Covid loans and PPE corruption, the South African taxpayer today bears the brunt through the Budget 3.0 debacle and austerity. And yet Ramaphosa thanked Trump for 150 respirators. President Ramaphosa's conversation then proceeded to discuss 'the role of the DRC peace process'. Here again, a series of half-truths emerges. South African taxpayers have for 'several years invested in the DRC'. While purporting to be a peacemaker at a substantial cost of R2 billion per annum, South Africa was not an honest broker but acted on behalf of one part of the conflict, the DRC government. Hence the conflict with Rwanda et al and our subsequent embarrassing losses. Much of the heavy lifting and loss of soldiers and losses borne by the South African state and society, including a defence bill of R 1.5 billion per annum. After an embarrassing withdrawal and years of involvement South Africa withdrew. In this milieu, the wily US negotiation team managed to seal a substantive critical minerals agreement with the DRC in March 2025. thus short-circuiting South Africa and other nations. Again, this comes off South Africa losing prestige in Africa and the AU and will mean having no role in post-construction or mediation efforts of the DRC, Sudan etc, while the US get first-tier access in the great critical minerals world. South Africa is rapidly losing its role as a trusted mediator in Africa. If South Africa's core G20 theme is 'Solidarity' then Team SA fell woefully short. In that moment when Trump boldly lectured Ramaphosa and Team SA on preserving White lives and their welfare, Ramaphosa did not even mention the need for Black Lives Matter. As the Malema video played out, Ramaphosa had a key moment to raise the issue. But chose not to even raise an iota of concern for the dire conditions of Black life in America- from police brutality to deepening racial inequality, and a clampdown on freedom of expression, even though Solidarity is a signature theme of G20 in 2025 and yet Ramaphosa instead pleaded with Trump 'to accept the G20 invitation and take the baton for 2026' The big winner of the Oval Office meeting of course was Minister John Steenhuisen and Agriculture SA and private property classes. In just one meeting, they managed to escalate 'farm murders ' as the number one issue for US-SA relations, and now have free reign - and a potent diplomatic stick to whip ANC and the majority. Steenhuisen thus becomes de facto the real chief whip of the GNU going forward. In preparation for the meeting, Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau's new trade tariff offer – promising ever more concessions will deepen unemployment and de-industrialisation. While Ramaphosa was cordial, calm and diplomatic, his conversation narrative was compromising. Cosatu's Zingiswa Losi's statement, though commendable on crime affecting all communities and especially black working class and women, was generally naïve on the trade concessions that SA had made which would inevitably affect her constituency labour the most. Again, South Africa has homegrown technology and the capacity to fight crime and address the NDP 2030. It is quite ironic that the CSIR presented its technology capability to the entire South African Cabinet a few weeks ago to much awe and admiration. From COVID respirators to climate tech, to drone technology to Cybercrime and a 4IR centre whose mandate is to address all the challenges facing the country. It even has space technology and fit-for-purpose satellite capacity to address South Africa's climate change, crime, education and connectivity challenges. Why beg Elon Musk and Starlink? Ramaphosa and Losi as trade union leaders fall into what scholars call the 'pitfalls of national consciousness trap; in that, even though South Africa as a nation-state has the technological resources, and capacity to provide for itself, this 7th administration leadership continues to beg for solutions, direction and agency from the North, at great cost. Yet development cooperation in the Global South can assist with all these challenges and in a genuine fair trade and technology transfer model in a win-win solidarity model. We are thus outsourcing our trade, economy technology, and sovereignty in an era when Multipolarity and multilateralism are a new reality. The Oval Office meeting was akin to the famed 'green room negotiations' at the WTO of yesteryear, where African nations were strongarmed and bullied into making concessions and these became unfair agreements that have to live with for years. Many years from now South African and global scholars will still debate the Ramaphosa Oval Office meeting as a turning point in capitulation and the cementing our role as a sub imperial state. * Ashraf Patel is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue, UNISA. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
New Straits Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- New Straits Times
Global South emerges as world's 4th bloc for economic growth
THE era of "United States exceptionalism" may be over — and with it, the Washington-led world economic and financial order of the last 50 years. This leaves investors with a big question: How will this reshape capital flows? The most obvious destination is Europe, home to the world's second-largest economy and second-biggest reserve currency, where markets are deep and liquid and the rule of law reigns supreme. The so-called "Global South" may seem less attractive. Its 100-plus disparate countries, excluding China, carry the typical smorgasbord of emerging market risks, including political instability, legal concerns, and policymaking credibility. But the global economic and investment landscape is changing rapidly — and perhaps irreversibly — and investors may be skittish about once again finding themselves over-concentrated in any one region. Investors with long-term horizons and high risk thresholds may, therefore, increasingly consider boosting their allocations to this enormous and varied "bloc." These countries have long punched below their financial market weight. But could they be poised to benefit from a global capital reallocation shift? That's among the findings in a report published last week by Deutsche Bank strategists, The Global South: A Strategic Approach to the World's Fourth Bloc. "The time for the Global South is now," states the report, which broadly defines the bloc as the 134 member countries of the G77 group of nations, excluding China, Russia, Singapore, and a few others, and adding Mexico, Turkiye, and some Central Asian countries. Some numbers here are worth noting. The group is home to almost two-thirds of the world's working-age population, produces 40 per cent of the world's energy and key transition metals, accounts for a quarter of global trade, and has attracted nearly a quarter of all inward foreign direct investment (FDI) over the past decade. Indeed, the Boston Consulting Group says FDI in the Global South in 2023 totalled US$525 billion, surpassing FDI into advanced economies, which stood at US$464 billion. And while it is far too early to say how countries will align politically, economically, or militarily in the years ahead, there are already signs of capital rotating into the Global South and away from China. Deutsche Bank's report notes that foreign investment into the Global South has held relatively steady in recent years. China's economic rise in recent decades has been one of the most astonishing in human history. In 1990, China accounted for only two percent of developed economies' gross domestic product (GDP). By 2021, that figure had reached 33 percent, almost matching the Global South's then share. But China's growth rates have stalled, especially since the pandemic. The International Monetary Fund forecasts China's share of advanced economies' GDP will end this decade around 35 percent, while the Global South's share will rise to a new high of 40 percent. From an equity allocation perspective, there is a lot of space to grow. The Global South made up a mere 11 per cent of global market capitalisation at the end of last year, with India and Saudi Arabia accounting for more than half of this share. If the dominance of US equities wanes — they currently make up more than 70 per cent of global market cap — even a tiny reallocation to this group could have a big impact on valuations in these countries. The risks, however, are manifold, and many were on display during the market turbulence sparked by US President Donald Trump's tariffs. "The current environment differs fundamentally from past episodes. This is not an exogenous shock but a deliberate policy action with structural objectives. As a result, the scope for rapid normalisation is limited," said the Institute of International Finance. But what really matters here are not "rapid" moves, but the structural changes in the global economy that the US administration's unorthodox policies may have catalysed. It's worth remembering that Chinese exports to "conductor economies" in the Global South have doubled since Trump's first trade war in 2018. Given how unreliable the US now appears, it is reasonable to assume that both China and Europe may be seeking to further diversify their export markets. So perhaps the time is not now for the Global South — but it could be coming soon.
Iraqi News
25-03-2025
- Business
- Iraqi News
Iraq: Major industrialized countries must bear responsibility for the effects of climate change
Iraqi Minister of Environment Hallo Al-Askari stressed on Tuesday that Iraq is among the countries affected by climate change and that major industrialized countries must bear the moral and legal responsibility to support developing countries. "Iraq is among the countries affected by climate change, but not among the countries that influence it," said Al-Askari in his remarks during the Petersberg Climate Dialogue held in the German capital - according to a statement by the Ministry of Environment and received by the Iraqi News Agency - INA. He stressed that "major industrialized countries bear the moral and legal responsibility to support developing countries, including Iraq, to help them implement mitigation and adaptation projects to confront the repercussions of climate change." "Climate finance is the critical element for enhancing climate ambition," he added, stressing that the outcomes of the Conference of the Parties - COP29 regarding the means of implementation, "especially financing, are still insufficient." He added that "the lack of adequate funding hinders the implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions - NDCs and limits the ability of developing countries to take effective action to address climate change." Al-Askari stressed "the importance of adhering to the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, particularly the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities - CBDR-RC, taking into account each country's national circumstances." "Political will at the highest levels is a pivotal factor in advancing climate action, along with the need to build trust among international partners and fulfill climate finance commitments," he noted. Regarding the role of the G77 and China, "the Minister affirmed that the group is committed to implementing the Global Stocktake - GST, but stressed that climate finance remains the missing link in implementing climate commitments." He explained that the decisions taken regarding the GST must be translated into practical steps that enhance climate action on the ground. The Minister of Environment concluded his remarks by emphasizing that "the G77 and China will continue to put forward constructive proposals to bridge the financing gap," calling on "major industrialized countries to shoulder their responsibilities and work diligently and in good faith to ensure tangible progress in combating global climate change."
