leadership

US President Donald Trump’s decision to snub the G20 summit in South Africa this year has handed an opportunity to China, as it seeks to expand its growing influence in the African continent and position itself as an alternative to the dangers of a unilateralist United States.

Washington said it would not attend the two-day summit set to kick off on Saturday over widely discredited claims that the host country, previously ruled by its white minority under an apartheid system until 1994, now mistreats white people.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa hit back at Trump’s claim that hosting the summit in Johannesburg was a “total disgrace”. “Boycott politics doesn’t work,” Ramaphosa said, adding that the US was “giving up the very important role that they should be playing as the biggest economy in the world”.

By Friday morning, Trump appeared to have backtracked on his stance somewhat, when speculation that Washington might send a US official to Johannesburg after all circulated.

Regardless, the spat comes as Chinese President Xi Jinping sends Premier Li Qiang to represent him on the world stage. China’s 72-year-old president has dialled back foreign visits, increasingly delegating his top emissary.

“The US is giving China an opportunity to expand its global influence,” Zhiqun Zhu, professor of political science and international relations at Bucknell University, told Al Jazeera. “With the absence of the US, China and EU countries will be the focus of the summit and other countries will look for leadership [from them].”

But observers say that while Trump’s absence will direct heightened attention to Beijing’s statements and behaviour, it does not spell the end of the US-led order altogether.

Jing Gu, a political economist at the United Kingdom-based Institute of Development Studies, said the US’s failure to attend “does not automatically make China the new leader, but it creates visible space for China to present itself as a more stable, reliable partner in governance”.

“It reinforces the perception that the US is stepping back from multilateralism and the shared management of global problems,” she said. “In that context, China can present itself as a more predictable, stable actor and emphasise continuity, support for open trade and engagement with the Global South.”

Expanding influence in the African continent

This year’s G20 will, for the first time, have an African chair and take place on the African continent. The African Union (AU) will also participate fully as a member.

South Africa, which holds the G20 presidency, is expected to push for consensus and action on priority issues for African countries, including debt relief, economic growth, climate change and transition to clean energy.

Zhu, who also serves as editor-in-chief of the academic journal, China and the World, said South Africa’s themes were a “natural fit” for China, Africa’s largest trading partner.

“China aims to become a leader in green energy, and there’s a lot of room for China and African countries to work on that,” he said.

The African continent, with its mineral wealth, booming population and fast-growing economies, offers huge potential for Chinese firms. Li, China’s premier, travelled to Zambia this week, marking the first visit to the country by a Chinese premier in 28 years. The copper-rich nation has Beijing as its largest official creditor for $5.7bn.

Eager to secure access to Zambia’s commodities and expand its exports from resource-rich East Africa, China signed a $1.4bn deal in September to rehabilitate the Tazara Railway, built in the 1970s and connecting Tanzania and Zambia, to improve rail-sea transportation in the region.

“The Chinese economy and African economy are complementary; they both benefit from trade,” Zhu said. The G20 “is a great platform for China to project its global influence and seek opportunities to work with other countries”, he added.

Africa’s growing demand for energy and China’s dominance in manufacturing make the two a good fit, observers say. This is playing out. A report by energy think tank Ember, for instance, found Africa’s imports of solar panels from China rose a whopping 60 percent in the 12 months to June 2025.

According to Gu at the Institute of Development Studies, China will be looking to tap into this growing synergy with Africa and will deliver a three-fold message at this year’s G20.

“First, it will stress stability and the importance of global rules and regulations,” she said. Second, “it will link the G20 to the Global South and highlight issues like development and green transformation”.

Third, “by offering issue-based leadership on topics such as digital economy, artificial intelligence and governance, it will position itself as a problem-solver rather than a disruptor”, the economist added.

China as a bastion of multilateralism

An absence of American officials at this year’s G20 – after skipping the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Korea as well as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil – would be “another opportunity for China”, Rosemary Foot, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford, told Al Jazeera.

“It can contrast, yet again, its declared commitment to multilateralism and responsible behaviour as a major state versus the dangers of a unilateralist America focusing not on public goods but on benefits to itself only.”

China has been looking to expand its influence in Africa as a counterweight to the US-led world order. In stark contrast to Trump’s decision to end Africa’s duty-free era and slap 15-30 percent tariffs on 22 nations, Xi announced at the APEC summit last month a zero-tariff policy for all African nations with diplomatic ties to Beijing.

On that occasion, Xi emphasised China’s commitment “to joint development and shared prosperity with all countries”, stressing the country’s goal to “support more developing countries in achieving modernisation and opening up new avenues for global development”.

Similarly, Li, China’s premier, marked the United Nations’ 80th anniversary at the General Assembly in September by expressing the need for stronger collective action on climate change and emerging technologies, calling for greater solidarity to “[lift] everyone up, while division drags all down”.

His remarks were in stark contrast to Trump’s, who, in his speech, described climate change as the “greatest con job ever perpetrated” and called renewable sources of energy a “joke” and “pathetic”.

Foot said the spotlight will now be on Beijing as it seeks to strike a similar conciliatory pose – and in doing so, set itself apart from the US – at the G20. “Whether Beijing will have a major impact on the G20 agenda is more difficult to determine,” she said.

Andy Burnham has twice failed to rule out a Labour leadership bid, after an MP said he would vacate his seat so the Greater Manchester mayor can return to Westminster.

Burnham has been at the centre of speculation about a move against Sir Keir Starmer since Labour’s autumn conference but could only do so if he was an MP.

On Wednesday, Norwich South MP Clive Lewis said he was willing to step down to potentially make way for Burnham to return to the Commons via a by-election.

Burnham was quizzed on the MP’s offer on both BBC Breakfast and BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, but would only say he is “fully focused” on his current role as mayor.

On BBC Breakfast, presenter Naga Munchetty tried to pin Burnham down on whether he would see out his full term as mayor, running until 2028.

“I don’t know what the world holds but I’m focused on my job here in Greater Manchester,” he responded.

Pushed further, he said “I haven’t launched any leadership challenge” before adding “I’m not going to sit here this morning and rule out what might or might not happen in future – I don’t know what the future will hold.”

Burnham then criticised journalists for speculating, saying he is “constantly answering hypothetical questions” and claimed MPs in Westminster were “constantly speculating and not putting forward solutions”.

The Labour Party rules for any leadership challenge state that candidates must be an MP and also secure the backing of at least 80 MPs to run against the incumbent.

Two Manchester MPs, Andrew Gwynne and Graham Stringer, previously ruled out stepping down from their seats so Burnham could run.

On Wednesday, Lewis told BBC’s Politics Live that stepping aside for Burnham was “a question I’ve asked myself,” adding that the answer would have to be “yes”.

The MP, who has represented Norwich South for 10 years, later told The Sun he had “no plans to stand down” and had been answering a “hypothetical question”.

The Norwich South MP last week said Sir Keir’s position as prime minister was “untenable” and told Channel 4 News that Burnham should be given the chance to “step up”.

On the Today programme, presenter Emma Barnett asked Burnham whether he would take Lewis up on his offer of vacating a seat, but he would only say “I appreciate the support” and repeated how he was focused on his current job.

Before becoming Manchester mayor in 2017, Burnham served as a cabinet and shadow cabinet minister under successive Labour leaders and made two unsuccessful Labour leadership bids.

Lewis first won his seat in 2015, and last year he increased his majority to more than 13,000.

But if he were to step down, any would-be successor would first need to win a selection contest before a by-election was held.

I don’t like the word unprecedented. But I’ve used it twice in less than 24 hours.

The first time was on Sunday night, after the resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness. That, in fact, might have involved a bit of overreach.

After all, this has happened before at the BBC. Back in 2004, two senior figures departed – admittedly not on the same day, but on subsequent days.

The then BBC chairman, Gavyn Davies, and the director general, Greg Dyke, resigned in light of the Hutton report.

That was the inquiry into the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly which found that the BBC’s reporting on the Iraq “sexed-up dossier” was flawed.

But my use of unprecedented on Monday feels entirely appropriate.

A US president threatening to sue the BBC for $1bn is completely new territory for the corporation.

We’ve seen a succession of US media operations previously cave in as Donald Trump launched lawsuits.

Paramount Global paid him $16m to settle a dispute over an interview broadcast on CBS with former vice-president Kamala Harris.

ABC News paid him $15m to settle a defamation lawsuit after its anchor falsely claimed he had been found “liable for rape”.

Now the president has the BBC in his sights. He wants a full retraction of the Panorama documentary, an apology for the “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading and inflammatory statements” made about him in it, and appropriate compensation “for the harm caused”.

If he doesn’t get them by Friday, he’s put the BBC “on notice” that he will be looking for damages of “no less than $1,000,000,000”.

Whether you are a supporter or a detractor of the BBC, I think everyone would agree these are incredibly testing times for the corporation.

Events have developed rapidly over a week.

First we got the series of claims about the Panorama documentary and also wider systemic bias first made in the Telegraph.

Six days later came the resignations of director general Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness.

Quickly some were voicing concerns about a politically orchestrated campaign against the BBC from the right. Others said this was all about accountability in the face of gross failures.

Now the BBC faces a potentially very costly legal battle with Donald Trump.

It should be basking in the success of Celebrity Traitors with the programme’s hugely popular finale broadcast just last Thursday. Instead the BBC is plunged into a crisis some would argue of its own making.

It’s taken until Monday to apologise for the Panorama edit and to push back on the notion that the corporation suffers from institutional bias.

The interview I did with BBC chair Samir Shah should have been done much earlier – with the DG or Deborah Turness last week, as the headlines ramped up.

The apology should have come then. Now the BBC is on the back foot.

It will take robust leadership to steer a course through. But two of the leaders most likely to have been able to steady the ship are now on the way out.

Democrats just crumbled like soft-bake cookies.

The so-called resistance party has given up the shutdown fight, ensuring that millions of Americans will face Republican-created skyrocketing healthcare costs, and millions more will bury any hope that the minority party will find the substance and leadership to run a viable defense against Trump.

Sunday night, eight turncoat Democrats sold out every American who pays for their own health insurance through the affordable marketplaces set up by President Obama.

As has been thoroughly reported in past weeks, Republicans are dead set on making sure that insurance is entirely out of financial reach for many Americans by refusing to help them pay for the premiums with subsidies that are part of current law, offered to both low- and middle-income families.

Republicans — for reasons hard to fathom other than they hate Obama, and apparently basics such as flu shots — have long desired to kill the ACA and now are on the brink of doing so, in spirit if not actuality, thanks to Democrats.

Trump must be doing his old-man jig in the Oval Office.

The pain this craven cave-in will cause is already evident. Rates for 2026 without the government subsidies have been announced, and premiums have doubled on average, according to nonpartisan health policy researchers KFF. Doubled.

Insurance companies are planning on raising their rates by about 18%, already devastating and symptomatic of the need for a total overhaul of our messed-up system. That increase, coupled with the loss of the subsidies beginning at the start of next year, means a 114% jump in costs for the folks dependent on this insurance. Premiums that cost an average $888 in 2025 will jump to $1,904 in 2026, according to KFF.

But it’s the middle-income people who will really be hit.

“On average, a 60-year-old couple making $85,000 … would see yearly premium payments rise by over $22,600 in 2026,” KFF warns, meaning that instead of paying 8.5% of their entire income toward health insurance, it will now jump to about 25%.

Merry Christmas, America.

While the eight Democrats who broke from their party to allow this to happen are directly responsible (thankfully our California senators are not among them), Democratic leadership should also be held accountable.

A party that can’t keep itself together on the really big votes isn’t a party. It’s a a bunch of people that occasionally have lunch together. Literally, they had one job: Stick together.

The failure of Democratic leadership to make sure its Senate votes didn’t shatter in this intense moment isn’t just shameful, it’s depressing. For all of the condemnation of the Republican members of Congress for failing to uphold their duty to be a check on the power of the presidency, here’s the opposition party rolling over belly up on the pivotal issue of healthcare.

As California Rep. Ro Khanna put it on social media, “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”

If the recent elections had any lessons in them, it’s that Democrats — and voters in general — want courage. Love or hate Zohran Mamdani, his win as New York City mayor was due in no small part for daring to forge his own path. Ditto on Gov. Gavin Newsom and Proposition 50.

Mamdani put that sentiment best in his victory speech, promising an age when people can “expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt.”

Before you start angry-emailing me, yes, I do understand how much pain the shutdown in causing, especially for furloughed workers and those about to see their SNAP benefits cut off. I feel for every person who doesn’t know how they will pay their bills.

But here are the facts that we can’t forget. Republicans have purposefully made that pain intense in order to break Democrats. Trump has found ways to pay his deportation agents, while simultaneously not paying critical workers such as airport screeners and air traffic controllers, where the chaos created by their absence is both visible and disruptive. He has also threatened to not give back pay to some of those folks when this does end.

And on the give-in-or-don’t-eat front, he’s actually been ordered by courts to pay those SNAP benefits and is fighting it. Republicans could easy band together and demand that money goes out while the rest is hashed out, but they don’t want to. They want people to go hungry so that Democrats will break, and it worked.

But at what cost?

About 24 million people will be hit by these premium increases, leaving up to 4 million unable to keep their insurance. Unable to go to the doctor for routine care. Unable to pay for cancer treatments. Unable to have that lump, that pain, the broken bone looked at. Unable to get their kid a flu shot.

In many ways, this isn’t a California problem. The majority of these folks are in southern, Republican states that refused to expand Medicaid when they had the chance. About 6 in 10 subsidy recipients are represented by Republicans, according to KFF, led by those living in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi. But Americans have been clear that we want access to care for all of us, as a right, not an expensive privilege.

Which makes it all the more mystifying that Democrats are so eager to give up, on an issue that unites voters across parties, across demographics, across our seemingly endless divides.

But I guess that’s just how the cookie crumbles.