By Qamar Bashir

The 2025 G-20 Summit in South Africa will be remembered not only for the historic decisions taken, but equally for the loud, symbolic silence created by the absence of President Donald Trump and the United States’ high-level delegation. It was a vacuum that everyone felt, a political absence that lowered the temperature of the event, diminished its traditional stature, and yet, paradoxically, empowered the rest of the world to move forward without waiting for Washington’s approval. A gathering once shaped, dominated, and animated by American leadership unfolded without it — and the world did not stop. In fact, it moved with surprising confidence and determination, proving for the first time in decades that global cooperation no longer revolves around a single pole of power.

Trump’s official explanation for skipping the summit was both extraordinary and controversial. He alleged that South Africa was maltreating, harassing and killing its white population  of Britain, France, Europe, and the United States origin,” and that the U.S. would therefore boycott the gathering in protest.

This justification stunned diplomats. The South African president and prime minister engaged in frantic outreach to convince Washington to participate at its traditional strength, but their efforts came to nothing. The United States remained absent, and the G-20 moved on. That moment alone signaled a shift: the world’s most influential economies were no longer willing to freeze or dilute their agenda because America chose not to show up.

In that vacuum, the G-20 delivered several major breakthroughs. Africa achieved its long-awaited elevation as a permanent force within the grouping. Its seat was strengthened with new mandates for development, debt restructuring, and large-scale infrastructure support — recognition that Africa is no longer a peripheral player but a central actor in the global economy. The summit also adopted the Global Debt Relief Framework 2.0, a comprehensive mechanism in which China, the United States (from the working-level side), and Europe aligned on a unified system for restructuring debt for developing nations. For the first time, the world’s largest creditors agreed on the principles of transparency, fair burden-sharing, and predictable timelines — a milestone that benefited dozens of struggling economies.

One of the most transformative decisions was the adoption of a global AI and digital governance pact. The world finally agreed on a shared code of conduct for artificial intelligence development, data transparency, cybersecurity protocols, and cross-border data flows. This was an agenda point expected to be heavily influenced by the United States, yet its absence did not hinder progress. The pact revealed a deeper truth: the world’s technological future no longer depends solely on Silicon Valley’s blessing. Beijing, Brussels, Pretoria, New Delhi, and Brasília demonstrated their ability to shape norms that will define the digital age.

Yet the most ambitious and visionary outcome was the creation of a $120 billion Green Energy Transition Fund. This fund aims to help developing and least-developed countries move away from fossil fuels and adopt solar, wind, hydrogen, and advanced battery-storage systems. It promises not only financing, but also technology transfer, expertise, and capacity building. The symbolism was profound: while Washington debates climate strategies through the prism of tariffs and industrial protection, the G-20 chose global environmental responsibility as a collective mission, marking a sharp contrast with America’s inward shift.

The summit also produced a roadmap to reduce global tariffs — a direct counterpoint to Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff wars. Leaders agreed that escalating tariffs undermine supply chains, inflate consumer prices, suffocate export markets, and weaken global economic stability. By committing to reduce trade barriers and revive the core principles of the World Trade Organization, the G-20 openly challenged the direction of U.S. trade policy and reaffirmed that globalization, though evolving, is far from dead.

Food security emerged as another defining pillar. The G-20 endorsed a multi-continental fertilizer and grain corridor network that would ensure developing nations have the ability not only to access essential agricultural inputs but also to build their own production capacity. The initiative aims to strengthen local seed development, introduce climate-resilient crops, and reduce dependency on vulnerable supply chains. It was a reminder that global hunger is not caused by scarcity, but by inequity, mismanagement, and geopolitics — and that collective action remains the only antidote.

Pandemic preparedness also received unprecedented attention. The G-20 agreed on a universal pathogen-sharing system, vaccine production guarantees for countries that cannot afford them, and the creation of global emergency stockpiles. COVID-19 had exposed the brutal reality that the world was divided between vaccine “haves” and “have-nots.” This summit promised not to repeat that inequality, committing to a global health shield that can activate instantly in the face of new threats.

Even tax justice — long a contentious issue — saw real progress. The G-20 endorsed a crackdown on tax evasion and illicit financial flows, expanding automatic exchange of banking data and creating stronger digital taxation systems capable of identifying hidden wealth and offshore transfers. It was a direct strike against corruption, financial secrecy, and the long-standing loopholes that have drained developing nations of trillions.

What is extraordinary is that these decisions, perhaps some of the most consequential in G-20 history, were made in the absence of the United States. Washington’s non-participation deprived the summit of its traditional weight, but it also gave the rest of the world a rare freedom — a chance to act without American vetoes, delays, or political bargaining. For the first time, the G-20 showed that global governance can continue even when America chooses not to lead.

This absence also reflects a deeper American decline. The United States has already withdrawn from key UN bodies, distanced itself from multilateral structures, and ceded leadership of global organizations to rising powers such as China and India. Across Europe and beyond, intellectuals are questioning the legitimacy of veto powers at the UN Security Council, arguing that one nation should not be allowed to overturn a resolution supported by nearly 200 states. The principle of unilateral veto is increasingly viewed as anti-democratic and incompatible with a modern, multipolar world. If that power is eventually dissolved, the United States — which relies heavily on the veto to protect its geopolitical interests — would suffer the greatest strategic loss.

Economists across Europe are also sounding alarms about the U.S. dollar. They note that gold prices have nearly doubled since Trump intensified tariffs, a sign that global confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency is eroding. History teaches that such erosion is initially slow and subtle — as with the British pound — until one day it becomes sudden and irreversible. A reserve currency survives on three pillars: military strength, predictable governance rooted in rule of law, and a robust, stable economy. Today, America’s economic dominance is shrinking, its global leadership is receding, its institutional predictability is weakening, and its geopolitical influence is being challenged by China, India, Russia, and an increasingly assertive Global South.

The South Africa G-20 Summit was therefore more than a diplomatic event; it was a mirror held up to the United States. It is a wake-up call for a nation that once led the free world with confidence but is now drifting into isolation, controversy, and self-inflicted decline. If the United States hopes to restore its leadership, stabilize its currency, and reclaim its global relevance, it must reverse its inward retreat, rebuild alliances, re-enter global institutions, and embrace cooperation instead of confrontation. Only then can it regain the trust of a world that, for the first time, has shown it can move forward without America — and perhaps, if necessary, beyond it.

By Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former Press Attaché to Malaysia

Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA

by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

Terrorism, in every guise and in every corner of the world, stands as a repudiation of our shared humanity. No civilisation, no religion, and no moral code sanctions the taking of innocent lives. To link this evil to any faith is to misread both history and reality. Terrorism has neither a single home nor a single face; it is an affliction that has struck schools in Pakistan, concerts in Europe, shopping centres in America, habitat in Gazaand public spaces in Africa and Asia alike. The pain it inflicts is universal, and so must be the condemnation it receives.

Pakistan’s experience with terrorism has been particularly acute. Over the last two decades, the country has lost more than seventy thousand lives—civilians and security personnel alike—and has suffered economic losses estimated in hundreds of billions of dollars. Development in many regions delayed by years. No city, whether Lahore, Karachi, Quetta, Peshawar, or smaller towns of the north and south, has been immune from the violence of extremist groups. This sustained assault reflects a deliberate and calculated strategy to weaken Pakistan from within and malign it internationally.

Pakistan has consistently presented evidence to the global community about the origins of these attacks. It has pointed to the presence of organised groups operating from Afghan territory. Pakistan has repeatedly underscored that while Afghan soil is the immediate launchpad, the direction and financing of many attacks come from networks linked to India. Numerous dossiers, containing details of funding channels, communication intercepts, and the identity of handlers, have been shared with international institutions. Yet, while sympathetic statements have been issued in response, concrete action against the perpetrators or their sponsors has remained largely absent. Diplomatic caution, geopolitical alliances, and economic interests have too often overshadowed moral responsibility.

The pattern becomes even clearer when major events take place in Pakistan. Whenever foreign sports teams visit—cricket tours being the most visible example—terrorist attempts emerge with suspicious coordination. These attacks are intended not only to cause casualties but to erode Pakistan’s image and deter international engagement. It is no coincidence that such attempts spike when Pakistan is making diplomatic or economic progress. Years of such manipulation have revealed a strategic intent; to keep Pakistan unstable, isolated, and under pressure.

In response, Pakistan has taken difficult internal steps, including the repatriation of Afghans living illegally within its borders. This was not an impulsive decision but one rooted in national security concerns and the international principle that undocumented residents must eventually regularise their status or return home. Many attacks in recent years involved individuals who crossed the border unlawfully or used refugee movement as a cover. While Pakistan acted firmly but lawfully, India exploited this moment of regional tension to escalate disinformation campaigns and support anti-Pakistan activities through covert channels. Instead of addressing the root causes, the international system largely confined itself to verbal regrets.

It is within this broader climate of instability that another deeply troubling development has emerged. Reports indicate that Afghanistan has attacked a Chinese camp operating in Tajikistan, reportedly killing three Chinese nationals. Disturbingly, the attack is said to have been carried out using a drone—an escalation that mirrors the increasingly sophisticated tactics employed across the region. It should be recalled that India, in collaboration with Israel, had used drone technology to strike Pakistan in May 2025. The replication of such methods by non-state and quasi-state actors represents a dangerous evolution in regional proxy warfare. When countries or groups normalise the use of drones for cross-border militancy, they invite an uncontrollable cycle of escalation that threatens the entire region’s stability.

The consequences of global inaction are now becoming increasingly evident outside our region as well. When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, it left behind vast quantities of military equipment—ranging from rifles and night-vision devices to armoured vehicles—which fell into the hands of various groups. This surplus of sophisticated weaponry has strengthened extremist elements across the region and beyond.

Just days ago, an Afghan national allegedly carried out an attack outside the White House—one of the most heavily protected locations in the world. Two security personnel were injured over there. For decades, Western capitals viewed terrorism as a distant threat unfolding in faraway lands. But when violence strikes at the doorstep of the most powerful governments, it becomes an unwelcome reminder that terrorism knows no boundaries. In response, Washington has now announced a review of policies concerning Afghan arrivals and enhanced scrutiny of their backgrounds—the same measures that Pakistan has adopted for Afghans living illegally in its country.

This incident illustrates an undeniable truth;instability cannot be contained within geographical borders. If the international community continues to dismiss Pakistan’s concerns while reacting only when violence reaches major Western cities, the global fight against terrorism will remain fragmented and ineffective. Terrorism is not an issue for selective vigilance; it requires collective responsibility and uniform action grounded in justice, not geopolitics.

What the world needs is a serious, structured, and enforceable agenda on counterterrorism. There must be an international conversation—one grounded in transparency—about proxy warfare, state-sponsored militancy, and the financial networks that sustain extremist groups. Nations that use terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy must be named, confronted, and sanctioned. The existing framework, centred mainly on statements and symbolic gestures, has proven insufficient. Without accountability, the cycle of violence will persist.

Pakistan’s stance has remained principled and consistent. It condemns terrorism in every form, whether committed in the West or the East, by individuals or by organised networks. It has cooperated with global counterterrorism initiatives, shared intelligence, and offered support wherever needed. Its sacrifices are not abstract statistics; they are millions of shattered families, thousands of orphaned children, and generations traumatised by instability.

The world must now recognise that Pakistan’s fight is part of a larger struggle in which every nation has a stake. Terrorism anywhere is a threat everywhere. Only through honesty, unity, and collective resolve can the global community hope to secure a peaceful and stable future.