Ramaphosa's meeting with Trump is a last-gasp chance to reset SA-US relations
Ambassador Reuben Brigety's explosive Lady R allegations in May 2023, followed by a bipartisan markup of the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act in Congress in March 2024, were the first in a litany of signals that the relationship was in distress, and South Africa's continued Agoa eligibility was no longer guaranteed.
For two years, the US warned our government that it was flying too close to the wind, and that actions would have consequences.
In the absence of any tangible attempt by either the Presidency or the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) to rebuild trust, the Democratic Alliance (DA) stepped into the vacuum.
Over the past two years, the DA led four high-level outreach missions to Washington, DC, meeting with the National Security Council, congressional leaders, State Department officials, think tanks and business leaders. Our message was clear: the DA believes in a strong, principled and mutually beneficial partnership with the US, grounded in an unwavering commitment to our shared democratic ideals.
Thanks to this proactive engagement, the DA enjoys considerable goodwill in Washington today. There is a thorough understanding that we are a party committed to the rule of law, constitutional democracy and pro-market economic reforms, and that we will hold the line within the GNU. But goodwill towards the DA as a partner in a multiparty coalition government is not enough to mend what the ANC has broken over so many decades.
Pretoria's downgrade of Taiwan's liaison office, its litigation against Israel at the International Court of Justice, public support for BRICS+ dedollarisation, equivocation on Russian President Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine, deepening ties with Iran, and hobnobbing with regional despots in Mozambique and Zimbabwe highlight a foreign policy that continues to be guided by the ANC's liberation-era allegiances, at the expense of the nation's strategic priorities.
In the absence of corrective action, warnings finally gave way to consequences in January this year, when President Donald Trump returned to the White House. The abrupt termination of life-saving Pepfar funding, the suspension of USAID programmes, a barrage of punitive tariffs and a freeze on US participation in G20 forums followed.
While aid cuts to South Africa were not unique, Trump's allegations of arbitrary land confiscations, targeted racial discrimination and genocidal farm attacks sent an incisive shot across the bow, leaving the nation reeling and sending markets into freefall.
National security
The America First trade policy, reinvigorated under Trump, explicitly links trade with national security. Through a raft of executive orders, the Oval Office revealed that it was no longer prepared to overlook South Africa's increasing alignment with the US's strategic rivals, which actively undermine US national security interests.
In 2024, South Africa exported R157-billion worth of goods to the US, with R76-billion of this trade derived from Agoa. By contrast, South Africa exported goods worth just R5.4-billion to Russia and a mere R350-million to Iran.
The strategic importance of our relationship with the US could not be clearer. Our nation simply cannot afford to lose R76-billion worth of preferential market access that sustains job-rich supply chains that cannot be replaced elsewhere. Given the economic malaise South Africa already faces, meetings in Washington this week ultimately come down to jobs and growth.
When President Cyril Ramaphosa meets with Trump on Wednesday, 21 May, he must begin by acknowledging that denial is not a strategy and that actions have consequences.
In leading this charge, he must give an unequivocal assurance that South Africa values its relationship with the US and is willing to take concrete steps to rebuild the partnership.
Our President must present a serious, reform-minded South Africa — one that is ready to return to the table as a reliable partner to the US and the free world.
US investors and policymakers need to hear a clear commitment to market-friendly policies, the rule of law, protection of property rights and meaningful reforms to reverse the damage done by BBBEE excesses and regulatory overreach.
An assurance must be given that moving forward, South Africa's foreign policy will be guided by the principles of genuine non-alignment, peace, human rights and multilateralism, rather than outdated ideological loyalties to the ANC's fraternal allies.
As Ramaphosa navigates Pennsylvania Avenue this week, he faces a defining choice: reset or rebuke. For South Africa's sake, he must choose wisely. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations
President Cyril Ramaphosa Former South African ambassador to US, Ebrahim Rasool. ANC first deputy secretary general Nomvula Mokonyane. South Africa's relationship with the United States is on a diplomatic knife-edge, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee push forward a bill that could see senior African National Congress (ANC) leaders hit with sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The proposed U.S. – South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 calls for a sweeping 120-day probe into Pretoria's foreign policy stance, targeting individuals accused of corruption or of acting against American interests. The looming sanctions have intensified diplomatic tensions, placing several senior ANC figures squarely in the crosshairs. President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC National Chairperson Gwede Mantashe, former International Relations Minister Dr. Naledi Pandor, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane, and former U.S. Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool have all been flagged as potential targets of the proposed U.S. action. The bill's advancement has triggered a political storm in Pretoria, with ANC leaders condemning it as an affront to South Africa's sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Although the U.S. legislation stops short of naming individuals, growing pressure is falling squarely on President Ramaphosa and his cabinet, whose diplomatic choices have increasingly drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers. At the heart of the growing rift is South Africa's vocal and consistent defence of Palestine. Pretoria has become one of the strongest international voices condemning Israel's war on Palestinians, and this has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The South African government's move to initiate a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza was seen as a deliberate shift away from its previously neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, Pretoria's growing alignment with Russia, China, and Iran has further strained its relationship with the U.S., who view these ties as contradictory to American geopolitical interests. President Ramaphosa, who has steered South Africa's foreign policy in this direction, faces intense scrutiny. His administration's engagement with Russia and its stance on the Middle East has drawn sharp rebuke from U.S. lawmakers, who have accused South Africa of aligning with authoritarian regimes and undermining democratic values. U.S. diplomats have expressed frustration over Ramaphosa's outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, particularly on issues such as Israel and the war in Gaza. In June, IOL reported that President Ramaphosa released a cautious statement calling for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to rising geopolitical tensions. His remarks highlighted South Africa's sensitive diplomatic position, balancing its longstanding relationship with Iran and its vocal criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war," the statement read. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the United Nations the opportunity and space to lead on the peaceful resolution of the matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity,' the statement reads. Gwede Mantashe, serving as both ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, is among those who could come under scrutiny. He was named in the Zondo Commission report, which linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with the now-defunct facilities company Bosasa. The report detailed claims that Mantashe received illicit security upgrades at his properties, allegations he has consistently denied, but which continue to cast a shadow over his political standing. Nomvula Mokonyane, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, also appears to be in Washington's sights. Her alleged involvement in the Bosasa corruption scandal remains a point of concern, but it is her recent proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to 'Leila Khaled Drive' that has drawn international attention. Khaled, a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S., has made Mokonyane's comments especially controversial, sparking widespread outrage and potentially deepening the diplomatic rift. Then there is Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa's former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who has emerged as a central figure in the foreign policy debate. Her vocal defence of South Africa's position on Israel, along with continued diplomatic engagement with Iran and Hamas, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. U.S. lawmakers have accused Pandor of steering South Africa toward increasingly adversarial alliances, arguing that her actions are undermining the country's longstanding relationship with the West. Ibrahim Rasool, former South African Ambassador to the United States, has also come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. Known for his outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Israel, Rasool has often been at odds with American diplomats. His influential role in shaping the ANC's foreign policy during the Obama administration is now being reexamined amid Washington's broader review of its diplomatic relationship with South Africa. The ANC's response has been one of defiance, with ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula condemning the bill as an 'attack on our sovereignty.' Mbalula has warned that the proposed sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to undermine South Africa's political independence and foreign policy decisions. "There is no justification for sanctions against our leaders simply for standing up for what we believe is right, especially on the issue of Palestine," Mbalula said in a statement. While the US sanctions bill may pass into law, it is far from certain that the Trump administration will take immediate action. Joel Pollak, a former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, suggested that the sanctions would likely be targeted at individuals deemed to be responsible for actions that go against U.S. interests. 'The Magnitsky Act is about holding people accountable for undermining democracy and supporting corrupt practices. This is not an attempt to punish South Africa, but to target those who undermine key democratic norms,' Pollak said. As the U.S. Congress moves closer to passing the bill, South Africa faces a crossroads in its relationship with the United States. Should the sanctions go ahead, it will signal a significant shift in South Africa's international standing, particularly with the U.S., and potentially mark the beginning of a new phase in its foreign policy, where its support for Palestine and criticism of Western powers takes centre stage. The Star [email protected]
eNCA
6 hours ago
- eNCA
Zim economy is stable and growing
HARARE - Zanu PF spokesperson Chris Mutsvangwa says that President Emmerson Mnangagwa's administration has created a stable middle-class economy, which has resulted in political stability. "We say you can't quarrel with success. The president has delivered economic success, and it speaks for itself. That's a middle-class economy that we are creating," "It is why our economy is pumping, that is why there is political stability, because when you create a middle-class economy, you have also created stability in the economy," Mutsvangwa explained. But former Finance Minister Tendai Biti says corruption has led to the total collapse of the country's economy. "I reckon that we are losing as much as US$5 billion a year through smuggling. So whilst the economy is overheating and it's producing a lot of extractive commodities, there are not benefiting any individual, they are not benefiting the country, and they are not transforming lives. So when Zanu PF claims that this economy is growing, it's meaningless growth because it can't be seen and experienced by any Zimbabweans," argued Biti.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
Deal includes $600 billion EU investments in US, more EU energy, defence purchases 15% tariff better than threatened 30%, in deal mirroring Japan's US steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 50% By Andrew Gray and Andrea Shalal The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied 'across the board'. 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. 'We are agreeing that the tariff… for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%,' Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States'. His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target U.S. services in the event of a no-deal.
