While U.S. President Donald Trump brashly cited the Monroe Doctrine to explain the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, he didn’t leave it there. He also underscored a crude tenet guiding his foreign adventures: “It’s important to make me happy,” he told reporters. Maduro had failed in that task after shunning a surrender order by Trump — hence, he was plucked in the dead of night by Delta Force commandos from his Caracas compound, and unceremoniously deposited at New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center. Yet despite the U.S. president’s admonishment about needing to be kept happy — an exhortation accompanied by teasing hints of possible future raids on the likes of Cuba, Colombia and Mexico — one continent has stood out in its readiness to defy him. Maduro’s capture has been widely denounced by African governments and the continent’s regional organizations alike. South Africa has been among the most outspoken, with its envoy to the U.N. warning that such actions left unpunished risk “a regression into a world preceding the United Nations, a world that gave us two brutal world wars, and an international system prone to severe structural instability and lawlessness.” Both the African Union, a continent-wide body comprising 54 recognized nations, and the 15-member Economic Community of West African States have categorically condemned Trump’s gunboat diplomacy as well. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni even had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” — a reversal of his 2018 bromance with the U.S. president, when he said he “loves Trump” because of his frankness. Africa’s forthrightness and unity over Maduro greatly contrasts with the more fractured response from Latin America, as well as the largely hedged responses coming from Europe, which is more focused on Trump’s coveting of Greenland.   Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni had the temerity to issue a blunt dare to Washington: If American forces attempt the same trick in his country, he bragged, “we can defeat them” | Badru Katumba/AFP via Getty Images Fearful of risking an open rift with Washington, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer waited 16 hours after Maduro and his wife were seized before gingerly stepping on a diplomatic tightrope, careful to avoid falling one way or the other. While highlighting his preference for observing international law, he said: “We shed no tears about the end of his regime.” Others similarly avoided incurring Trump’s anger, with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis flatly saying now isn’t the right time to discuss Trump’s muscular methods — a position shared by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. So, why haven’t African leaders danced to the same circumspect European tune? Partly because they have less to lose. Europe still harbors hope it can influence Trump, soften him and avoid an irreparable breach in the transatlantic alliance, especially when it comes to Greenland, suggested Tighisti Amare of Britain’s Chatham House. “With dramatic cuts in U.S. development funds to Africa already implemented by Trump, Washington’s leverage is not as strong as it once was. And the U.S. doesn’t really give much importance to Africa, unless it’s the [Democratic Republic of the Congo], where there are clear U.S. interests on critical minerals,” Amare told POLITICO. “In terms of trade volume, the EU remains the most important region for Africa, followed by China, and with the Gulf States increasingly becoming more important,” she added. Certainly, Trump hasn’t gone out of his way to make friends in Africa. Quite the reverse — he’s used the continent as a punching bag, delivering controversial remarks stretching back to his first term, when he described African nations as “shithole countries.” And there have since been rifts galore over travel bans, steep tariffs and the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is credited with saving millions of African lives over decades. U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a printed article from “American Thinker” while accusing South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa of state-sanctioned violence against white farmers in South Africa. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images In May, Trump also lectured South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office over what he claimed amounted to genocide against white South Africans, at one point ordering the lights be dimmed to show clips of leaders from a South African minority party encouraging attacks on the country’s white population. Washington then boycotted the G20 summit hosted by South Africa in November, and disinvited the country from this year’s gathering, which will be hosted by the U.S. According to Amare, Africa’s denunciation of Maduro’s abduction doesn’t just display concern about Venezuela; in some part, it’s also fed by the memory of colonialism. “It’s not just about solidarity, but it’s also about safeguarding the rules that limit how powerful states can use force against more vulnerable states,” she said. African countries see Trump’s move against Maduro “as a genuine threat to international law and norms that protect the survival of the sovereignty of small states.” Indeed, African leaders might also be feeling their own collars tighten, and worrying about being in the firing line. “There’s an element of self-preservation kicking in here because some African leaders share similarities with the Maduro government,” said Oge Onubogu, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In some countries, people on the street and in even civil society have a different take, and actually see the removal of Maduro as a good thing.” The question is, will African leaders be wary of aligning with either Russian President Vladimir Putin or China’s Xi Jinping, now that Trump has exposed the impotence of friendship with either by deposing the Venezuelan strongman? According to Onubogu, even before Maduro’s ouster, African leaders understood the world order had changed dramatically, and that we’re back in the era of great power competition. “Individual leaders will make their own specific calculations based on what’s in their favor and their interests. I wouldn’t want to generalize and say some African countries might step back from engaging with China or Russia. They will play the game as they try to figure out how they can come out on top.”

Doveva essere una svolta storica: per la prima volta un grande paese africano alla guida del G20, con l’obiettivo di mettere al centro le priorità del continente e del Sud globale. Invece, la presidenza sudafricana si è trasformata in un test durissimo sull’ordine multilaterale, messo a dura prova dal boicottaggio americano e culminato con l’annuncio che Pretoria, secondo la richiesta americana, non sarà invitata al G20 del 2026 a Miami. Fin da subito, l’agenda sudafricana incentrata su “solidarietà, uguaglianza, sostenibilità” è stata etichettata dalla Casa Bianca come “anti-americana”, troppo concentrata su inclusione e clima. Il boicottaggio del vertice di Johannesburg è stato giustificato rilanciando la falsa narrativa, priva di basi solide, di un presunto “genocidio dei bianchi” e di una sistematica discriminazione contro gli agricoltori afrikaner, spostando lo scontro su un piano puramente simbolico. Nel frattempo, dazi al 30% sulle esportazioni sudafricane, tra i più alti imposti all’Africa, e canali di cooperazione congelati. Il messaggio è chiaro: chi osa sfidare Washington paga il prezzo, anche solo provando a riequilibrare l’agenda globale. Parallelamente, l’episodio sudafricano accelera lo spostamento verso format alternativi – dai Brics ad altre piattaforme sud-sud – dove i paesi del Sud globale percepiscono minore rischio di umiliazione e maggiore margine di influenza. Ma Pretoria non ha solo incassato i colpi. Di fronte al rifiuto americano di partecipare e alla richiesta di bloccare qualsiasi dichiarazione congiunta, il governo sudafricano ha scelto di andare avanti, con il sostegno di Cina, paesi del Sud globale e diversi partner europei. Essere riusciti comunque ad approvare una dichiarazione sul debito e due testi ambientali rappresenta sul piano politico un segnale: un paese africano alla guida del G20 può imporre un’agenda propria e costruire coalizioni, anche in contesto ostile. Ed è proprio questo che l’amministrazione Trump vuole punire. Pretoria resta formalmente membro, ma viene messa in “quarantena diplomatica”, esclusa dagli spazi decisionali del foro. Una sanzione politica unilaterale mascherata da decisione multilaterale. Questo braccio di ferro crea un precedente pericoloso. Se il paese ospitante può usare il ruolo di “padrone di casa” per escludere un membro sgradito, domani la stessa logica può essere usata contro qualsiasi governo non allineato. Il rischio è che il G20, nato per gestire crisi globali attraverso il dialogo, si trasformi in un club condizionato dall’umore politico della Casa Bianca. Per chi guarda all’Africa come soggetto politico e non come oggetto di decisioni altrui, la domanda è netta: che senso ha parlare di “ordine multilaterale” se un membro del foro può essere messo al bando per aver rappresentato le istanze del proprio continente? La risposta oggi passa da Johannesburg. Ma riguarda tutte le capitali del Sud globale che, guardando a Miami 2026, si chiedono se sedersi al tavolo significhi davvero partecipare, o solo accettare le regole scritte da cowboy americani. L'articolo G20 Johannesburg, il Sudafrica non sarà invitato a Miami 2026: chi osa sfidare Washington paga il prezzo proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Kanzler Friedrich Merz ist auf diplomatischer Mission in Afrika, doch der G20-Gipfel wird von einem 28-Punkte-Friedensplan aus den USA für die Ukraine überschattet. Gordon Repinski berichtet aus Angola, wie Merz versucht, Europa im Spiel zu halten und einen „Diktatfrieden“ durch Donald Trump zu verhindern. Hans von der Burchard ordnet die hektische Diplomatie zwischen Genf, Berlin und Johannesburg ein. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview: Norbert Röttgen. Der CDU-Außenpolitiker findet drastische Worte für den kursierenden Plan. Er nennt ihn eine „Aneinanderreihung von Unverschämtheiten“ und warnt davor, dass Europa am Donnerstag – zu Thanksgiving – vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt wird. Röttgen fordert stattdessen ein klares finanzielles Signal der EU für Kiew. Außerdem: Der Nachklapp zum „Spaziergang“ mit AfD-Mann Ulrich Siegmund. Pauline von Pezold analysiert, wie die AfD intern auf die Holocaust-Aussagen ihres Spitzenkandidaten reagiert: Zwischen öffentlicher Verteidigung und Kritik hinter vorgehaltener Hand. Zudem reagiert Gordon ausführlich auf das Hörer-Feedback und die Debatten auf X. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren. Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski. Legal Notice (Belgium) POLITICO SRL Forme sociale: Société à Responsabilité Limitée Siège social: Rue De La Loi 62, 1040 Bruxelles Numéro d’entreprise: 0526.900.436 RPM Bruxelles info@politico.eu www.politico.eu

Andrew Bailey is governor of the Bank of England and chair of the Financial Stability Board. As the G20 finance track meets in Washington amid a challenging global environment, it’s important to remember that multilateral institutions play a vital role in helping navigate troubled waters. But these institutions must be agile enough to refresh their approach to respond to the changing environment. Geopolitical tensions add to financial market vulnerabilities. Incomplete and inconsistent implementation of critical reforms across jurisdictions further exacerbates these vulnerabilities, and affects the financial system’s ability to withstand future shocks. Against this backdrop, multilateral institutions help foster the cooperation and coordination needed to find a way through these challenges and ensure global financial stability. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), which I chair, is one such example. Created by the G20 in response to the global financial crisis, the FSB advances global cooperation on financial regulation to improve the global financial system’s resilience and create the conditions necessary for sustainable economic growth. That objective matters for everyone — from Milan to Mumbai, Sapporo to Salvador. The reforms put in place by the FSB and other standard-setting bodies since 2009 have helped contain the fallout from more recent crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the swift resolution of the 2023 banking turmoil. The need for such global standards and cooperation is as clear today as it was 15 years ago — not just to prevent crises but because, ultimately, a resilient system allows for the efficient allocation of capital and supports G20 member economies in boosting growth. To maintain financial stability, however, policy development alone is not enough. We need the timely and consistent implementation of agreed reforms across jurisdictions. At the request of the G20 South African presidency, former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve and former FSB Chair Randal Quarles has been asked to lead a review of reform implementations since the board’s creation, and his interim report will be submitted to the G20 next week. It shows that while we have seen intensified cooperation since the global financial crisis and made significant progress in areas like over-the-counter derivatives, full, timely and consistent implementation across the broad range of reforms hasn’t been achieved yet. But why does this matter? The FSB works hard to achieve consensus, and recommendations are adopted only when there is broad agreement among its members. Similarly, when the G20 endorses these recommendations, it reflects their collective perspective. Choosing not to implement weakens this consensus-building that is valuable for the global financial system. It also contributes to fragmentation, which weakens the resilience of markets by reducing their size and stability. This, in turn, increases the costs of cross-border activity, creates an uneven playing field and limits opportunities for risk management and diversification. This is true across the FSB’s work — from enhancing cross-border payments to managing cyber risk and establishing effective resolution regimes. Put another way, consistent implementation is the foundation of cross-border banking and capital markets, which can deliver better services to businesses and households. But in addition to implementation, we also need enhanced cooperation. As the financial system evolves, so too must our ambition for monitoring and responding to risks. Understanding risks and threats to the financial system is at the heart of the FSB’s mission, enabling us to identify vulnerabilities and respond with targeted evidence-based action. Whether it is the rise of private finance, the implications of geopolitical tensions, the impact of climate-related events or the increasing role of stablecoins, our ability to detect and address emerging threats is crucial. To this end, the FSB is committed to enhancing its surveillance capabilities too. Robust tools and data are essential for understanding vulnerabilities across the financial system, and for ensuring potential problems are addressed before they materialize. Jurisdictions can’t achieve financial stability alone. An interconnected system requires both global cooperation and engagement, as well as steadfast follow-through on agreed reforms. The FSB works in support of that fact, strengthening the financial system to create the conditions for sustained growth. In a world where global cooperation can feel increasingly under threat, the reality is we need more multilateralism — not less.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Die Richterwahl-Krise ist zur CDU-internen Machtfrage geworden: Jens Spahn taumelt nach dem Desaster – und plötzlich rückt Carsten Linnemann ins Zentrum der Spekulationen. Ist der Generalsekretär bereit für mehr? Oder bleibt die Union beim angeschlagenen Fraktionschef? Gordon Repinski analysiert das.  Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt Katharina Beck (Grüne), warum Lars Klingbeils Reise zum G20-Finanzgipfel in Durban trotz fehlender US-Beteiligung sinnvoll ist – und wie Europa wirtschaftlich unabhängiger werden kann. Sie fordert konkrete Fortschritte bei Kapitalmarktunion und Handelsabkommen. Und: Während Klingbeil in Südafrika auf Distanz zur Berliner Tagespolitik geht, bereitet sich Friedrich Merz auf seine Sommer-Pressekonferenz vor. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es morgens um 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team bringen euch jeden Morgen auf den neuesten Stand in Sachen Politik — kompakt, europäisch, hintergründig. Und für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Unser Berlin Playbook-Newsletter liefert jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. Hier gibt es alle Informationen und das kostenlose Playbook-Abo. Mehr von Berlin Playbook-Host und Executive Editor von POLITICO in Deutschland, Gordon Repinski, gibt es auch hier:   Instagram: @gordon.repinski | X: @GordonRepinski.