logo
Trump's Tariffs Must Sow the Seeds for a National Reawakening

Trump's Tariffs Must Sow the Seeds for a National Reawakening

IOL News2 days ago
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal, says the writer.
Image: GCIS
Zamikhaya Maseti
On August 1, 2025, South Africa will enter a zone of strategic economic pain, engineered not by global market fluctuations, but by the vengeful hands of conservative economic nationalism.
The United States, under the reins of Donald J. Trump, will impose a 30 per cent tariff on all goods and products exported from South Africa to the American markets. This is not a policy of trade readjustment; it is a geoeconomic act of hostility. The justification, wrapped in the language of "reciprocity," is in reality a strategic blow aimed at disciplining South Africa's geopolitical posture and diplomatic boldness.
Trump's economic nationalism, which sits at the ideological centre of Conservative Republicanism, is not merely inward-looking. It is punitive, retaliatory, and profoundly regressive. It has shaken the global trade architecture, not to recalibrate it, but to bend it in favour of America's new mercantilist order.
This doctrine does not merely target trade imbalances; it punishes defiance. South Africa is now paying the price for standing on principle, particularly for its posture on Palestine and its landmark case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. It is clear, painfully so, that South Africa is being economically strangled not for what it trades, but for what it believes.
Some Western analysts, ever keen to defend the status quo, will dispute this. They will search for economic rationality in an act that is blatantly political. Let them continue their intellectual gymnastics. This moment calls for clarity, not politeness.
The truth is that Trump's worldview is transactional and tribal, and in that logic, South Africa has become collateral. That South Africa is seen as an irritant in Washington's new world order is not coincidental; it is structural. And let it be said without fear, Trump's policy on South Africa is influenced not only by economic calculations but by the mythologies peddled by actors like AfriForum and Elon Musk, who have exported the lie of white genocide into America's political bloodstream.
But this is not the time for victimhood, nor is it the moment for diplomatic lamentation. It is time for South Africa to do some difficult thinking and embrace a new, muscular pragmatism. Diplomatic efforts, however noble, are unlikely to change Trump's position.
Minister Parks Tau and his diplomatic team may work tirelessly, but they are facing a political machine that does not respond to nuance. Trump's narrative is fixed, and in that narrative, South Africa is an unfriendly trading partner whose tariffs harm American interests.
He argues, correctly or not, that South African import duties and market access protocols are unfavourable to US goods. That argument, however flawed, resonates with his domestic base, and therefore it will stand. The United States will not blink, and it will not backtrack. Thus, it is not sufficient for South Africa to hope against hope; it must respond.
Minister Parks Tau, trade envoys, and industrial leaders must now do the hard intellectual and strategic labour of repositioning the country's economic posture. Nowhere is this urgency more pressing than in the automotive sector, a critical node of South Africa's manufacturing ecosystem.
This sector is not only a source of direct jobs; it sustains a complex web of downstream industries, from component manufacturing and logistics to retail and after-market services. It is here that the 30 per cent tariff will hit hardest, and it is here that innovation, not inertia, must be summoned.
The sector must accept that the American market, for the foreseeable future, has lost ground. The time has come for South Africa to pivot decisively toward other markets, especially those aligned with its economic diplomacy ambitions.
The first option lies in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the single largest integrated market on the continent, and the largest globally by number of countries. With over 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP exceeding $3.4 trillion, the AfCFTA offers South Africa a natural and politically friendly trading space.
Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular, presents high-value demand for affordable, durable automotive products, especially among its emerging middle classes and youthful populations. Research shows that more than 60 per cent of the region's population is under the age of 25, representing a long-term demand curve that is not speculative, but empirically grounded.
Yet, South African companies have been slow to leverage this opportunity. There remains an unhealthy fog of Afro-pessimism and the lingering delusion of South African exceptionalism. These intellectual blindfolds must be cast aside. Africa is not a dumping ground; it is a destination for growth.
The automotive industry must shift from waiting for trade to come to it and instead begin creating strategic partnerships in East, West, and Central Africa. This includes setting up joint ventures, service hubs, and low-cost satellite assembly plants across regional economic communities.
The second and equally strategic option lies in a new industrial partnership with China. The presence and popularity of Chinese-made vehicles in the South African domestic market has reached a saturation point. They are competitively priced, technologically competent, and now represent a serious challenge to traditional brands. But if left unmanaged, this trend could lead to the hollowing out of South Africa's manufacturing base.
South Africa must use its BRICS membership as a strategic lever. China must be persuaded to localise the manufacturing of its automotive brands in South Africa. This is not a charity request; it is a strategic proposal. Chinese companies should be invited to co-invest in high-tech manufacturing and assembly infrastructure in Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal.
This could take the form of co-assembled production alongside legacy OEMs like Mercedes-Benz SA, which now face looming layoffs. The South African government must incentivise this localisation through targeted industrial policy, special economic zones, and technology-sharing frameworks.
In this regard, the principle of 'South Africa Inc' must be revived with urgency. Under President Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa Inc refers to the coordinated use of economic diplomacy, government strategy, and business networks to advance national economic interests abroad. Its objectives are to integrate South African companies into key markets, attract strategic investment, and drive regional industrialisation.
In Southern Africa, this approach has already delivered notable success, such as increased South African corporate presence in Zambia, Namibia, and Mozambique, particularly in retail, finance, and energy sectors.
Now is the time to bring the automotive sector under this umbrella. South African diplomatic missions across Africa and Asia must be tasked explicitly with facilitating market entry, assembling policy frameworks, and brokering industrial partnerships for local manufacturers. This is not merely export promotion; it is the safeguarding of South Africa's industrial sovereignty.
In conclusion, the Trump tariffs should not be seen as the end of a trade relationship, but as the beginning of a deeper national reawakening. The South African government must retool its economic diplomacy, its industrial incentives, and its regional vision.
The automotive sector, in particular, must abandon old comfort zones and rise to this moment with the courage of imagination and the rigour of strategy. What is at stake is more than exports; it is the future of South Africa's industrial identity.
* Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU).
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The hypocrisy of South Africa's arms trade: Job creation or genocide?
The hypocrisy of South Africa's arms trade: Job creation or genocide?

IOL News

time14 minutes ago

  • IOL News

The hypocrisy of South Africa's arms trade: Job creation or genocide?

IOL As South Africa grapples with its legacy of apartheid, the arms trade raises profound ethical questions. This article explores how economic arguments for job creation mask a troubling complicity in global atrocities, argues EFF MP, Carl Niehaus Image: File By Carl Niehaus As a proud South African and a staunch member of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), I am compelled to speak out against the grotesque hypocrisy embedded in our nation's arms manufacturing industry. Companies like Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), a joint venture between German arms giant Rheinmetall and South Africa's state-owned Denel, are churning out weapons of death—155mm Assegai artillery shells, high-explosive munitions, and components linked to incendiary horrors like white phosphorus bombs. These are exported to NATO countries, only to be funnelled onward to conflict zones where they fuel atrocities. In Ukraine, they bolster a grinding war; in Gaza, they enable a wanton genocide against Palestinians. And let's not forget shipments to places like Sudan, where human rights abuses are rampant. This is not economic progress—it's blood money, and the tired excuse of 'job creation' is a morally bankrupt shield that crumbles under scrutiny, much like the defences of German companies complicit in Nazi crimes after World War II. RDM's operations exemplify this depravity. As recently as July 2025, Rheinmetall announced a massive order for 155mm artillery ammunition from a European NATO member, with production heavily reliant on its South African subsidiary. Similar deals have poured in: Sweden signed a $526 million contract with RDM for ammunition, and multiyear frameworks supply NATO states with Assegai 155mm projectiles. 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 ✕ Ad loading These aren't benign exports—they feed into a shadowy supply chain. NATO allies, including Germany, have ramped up arms transfers to Ukraine, with Rheinmetall directly involved in delivering 155mm rounds to Kyiv under Bundeswehr frameworks. But the trail doesn't stop there. Rheinmetall's global network has been implicated in arming Israel, whose military operations in Gaza have drawn well documented accusations of war crimes from bodies like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Apartheid Israel has repeatedly used white phosphorus munitions—incendiary weapons that burn through flesh and cause excruciating, long-term suffering—in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon, violating international humanitarian law when deployed against civilians. While Rheinmetall publicly disavows certain 'controversial' weapons like cluster munitions, their denial rings hollow amid reports of phosphorus use in ongoing conflicts, and their ammunition often ends up in the hands of those who wield it indiscriminately. This isn't speculation; it's a pattern of complicity. Rheinmetall's secretive factory expansions cater to 'friendly' NATO countries while parallel businesses arm volatile regions. Exports have reached Sudan, where civil war rages with documented atrocities, and Malaysia, a market for RDM's munitions amid regional tensions. But the most egregious is the indirect flow to Israel. German arms exports to Israel surged in recent years, including Rheinmetall components, enabling the bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and razed infrastructure in what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has termed genocidal acts. South Africa's own history of apartheid should make us viscerally opposed to such enablement—yet here we are, manufacturing the tools of oppression in our factories, exporting them under the guise of legitimate trade, and watching as they rain down terror on innocents. The defenders of this industry—corporate executives, government officials, and even some economists—invariably trot out the 'job creation' argument. They claim that RDM's operations in South Africa provide employment for thousands, boosting local economies in a country plagued by unemployment rates hovering above 30%. Yes, factories hum with activity, workers earn wages, and supply chains ripple through communities. But this is a deeply flawed, ethically void rationale. Manufacturing weapons that enable mass murder cannot be justified by economic gains, no matter how desperate our nation's need for growth. The EFF is unapologetically committed to job creation and economic liberation— we fight for land redistribution, nationalization of mines, and policies that uplift the black majority disenfranchised by centuries of colonialism and apartheid. But we draw a red line: prosperity cannot come at the expense of human rights, nor can it rationalize the production of instruments of genocide and war crimes. This principle isn't novel; it's etched in the annals of history, particularly in the aftermath of World War II when German companies like Mercedes-Benz (then Daimler-Benz) and BMW faced reckoning for their collusion with the Nazis. During the Third Reich, Daimler-Benz transformed into a pillar of the Nazi war machine, producing vehicles, aircraft engines, and tanks while exploiting forced labor from concentration camps, prisoners of war, and Jewish slaves under barbaric conditions. Adolf Hitler himself favoured Mercedes vehicles for propaganda parades, and the company donated cars and funds to the regime. BMW, meanwhile, manufactured aircraft engines for the Luftwaffe and motorcycles for the Wehrmacht, with its founding Quandt family amassing fortunes through expropriated Jewish businesses and slave labor that claimed lives at an appalling rate—up to 80 deaths per month in factories. These companies weren't passive; they actively profited from the Holocaust, enforcing racial hierarchies and supplying the machinery of genocide. Post-war, the Allies imposed denazification, stripping Nazi-affiliated executives and seizing assets under the Potsdam Agreement. Factories were dismantled, foreign holdings lost, and production halted temporarily. While not dissolved outright—due to the need for West Germany's reconstruction—these firms faced investigations, management purges, and later, voluntary reparations. Daimler-Benz paid $12 million in 1988 to forced labor survivors, and BMW contributed to a 2000 industry fund totaling $5 billion for victims. Crucially, neither could hide behind 'job creation.' Their employment of thousands didn't absolve them; it compounded their guilt, as jobs were sustained through slave labor and war profiteering. The Nuremberg trials targeted industrialists like those from IG Farben for similar crimes, establishing that economic arguments don't excuse complicity in atrocities. BMW's Günther Quandt was classified a 'collaborator' and was forced to issue a public acknowledgement and apologies and also pay restitution to the families of the victims of the Nazis, but the moral stain lingers up to today. South Africa must learn from this. RDM's exports mirror that era's moral failure: producing arms that end up in genocidal hands, all while claiming economic benefits. In Gaza, white phosphorus shells—linked to suppliers like Rheinmetall—have caused horrific burns and environmental devastation, with Israel admitting use in past operations. In Ukraine, incendiary weapons have been deployed amid accusations of war crimes. Sudan and Malaysia add layers of instability, where munitions exacerbate conflicts. The EFF rejects this unequivocally. We demand an end to such exports, sanctions on complicit firms, and a pivot to ethical industries—renewable energy, agriculture, manufacturing for peace. Jobs yes, but not built on graves. Our nation's soul is at stake. We overthrew apartheid; we cannot now arm modern equivalents. Let history judge us not as enablers of evil, but as warriors for justice. The EFF stands firm: no rationalization of the indefensible. Stop any arms trade with enablers of genocide and war crimes now, before more blood stains our hands. *** Carl Niehaus is an EFF member of Parliament ** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL IOL Opinion

Spaza shop owners voice frustration over 'unrealistic' government support fund requirements
Spaza shop owners voice frustration over 'unrealistic' government support fund requirements

IOL News

time14 minutes ago

  • IOL News

Spaza shop owners voice frustration over 'unrealistic' government support fund requirements

Local spaza shop owners have complained over the tough and challenging application process to access government's recently established R500 million Spaza Shop Support Fund (SSSF). Image: Kamogelo Moichela/IOL Despite reported low numbers of applications, local spaza shop owners are crying foul and finding the going is getting tough with the alleged "unrealistic" requirements imposed by the government on the recently established R500 million Spaza Shop Support Fund (SSSF). In April, the Minister of Small Business Stella Ndabeni Abrahams announced the support fund during a press briefing in Soweto, which called on eligible South African spaza shop owners in townships and rural areas who want to improve, expand, and sustain their shops to apply for assistance with the R500 million Spaza Shop Support Fund (SSSF). Some of the requirements for businesses include registration with the local municipality under the relevant by-laws and business licensing requirements. This is coupled with the optional registration with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) for funding above R80,000 where registration with CIPC will be required within 6 months. However, some spaza shop owners have lamented some of these requirements as exclusionary and cumbersome, with one spaza shop owner from Sebokeng, Cico Mokoena. "I am one of the spaza shop owners facing tough compliance requirements imposed by the government." 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 ✕ Jannie Morotolo, a Soweto-based architect, has shared Mokoena's sentiments, saying after trying to help local spaza shop owners with their papers, he has found the process too complicated for most local business owners. "Having been one of those trying to assist many spaza shop owners with compliance. The biggest deadlock is finance. Not a single one of the spaza shops can afford approximately R5k to get all the necessary compliance, let alone, most of them don't even have registration documents, and most of them operate in rented spaces. One of the requirements dictates that they must acquire a letter of consent from the City of Joburg, which costs about R1,100," she said. In a statement, the leader of the African Transformation Movement (ATM) in Parliament, Vuyo Zungula, following his meeting with the leaders of the South African Spaza and Tuckshop Association (SASTA) over the R500 million fund and recent presentation of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill. "We have met with SASTA to discuss the unrealistic requirements to access the R500 million Spaza Shop Support Fund and the Tobacco Bill that seeks to criminalise informal traders on making a living. We have committed to working closely with SASTA to ensure that their concerns are considered when Parliament finalises the Bill. The ATM will address a letter to deputy president, Paul Mashatile, to raise concerns about the failure of the Department of Health to consult spaza shops in finalising the SEIAS report on the Bill," stated Zungula. However, reacting to the outcry, Benji Seitlhamo, acting director for Economic Development Facilitation Department in City of Johannesburg, denied the accusations, saying the processes have been made easy despite a low application rate due to failure by local business owners to comply with the requirements. "It is not true that the process is complicated. The process is easy, but is being made difficult due to the failure by owners who are not compliant. The city enforcing its bylaws and owners going back to being compliant would seem or be regarded as complex and frustrating. If they had been compliant previously, this would not be the requirements are easy if you have a draft plan from the architecture. We prefer this as it is easy to get compliant. Once this is done, you take this plan to the city's department of development planning for them to approve the plan," he stated. On the number of approved spazashop owners, Seithlamo indicated that the numbers have been low due to the high level of failure to comply with the requirements to access funding. He revealed that the city has been conducting various workshops and engagements with spaza shop communities across the nine regions of the city. "The Department of Small Business and Development and its agencies have given themselves 100 days to return to shop owners who register for funding. Obviously, because the sector is illegal, the numbers are low. It is only 30 percent of the R500 million fund that has been distributed nationally, and that figure is even lower for the city of Johannesburg, as we have just over 100 applications so far. That is why there is no closing date for applications to access the fund," he stated.

The AI race is getting serious on the global stage and it's time to pick a side
The AI race is getting serious on the global stage and it's time to pick a side

IOL News

time14 minutes ago

  • IOL News

The AI race is getting serious on the global stage and it's time to pick a side

Global leaders have entered the AI race. Last week, the US President Donald Trump announced the US AI Action plan. He described it as, 'An industrial revolution, an information revolution, and a renaissance—all at once.' A few days later China proposed a framework to govern AI development. What these superpowers have said and plan about AI is important for all of us who will be affected by this technology. The US plan proposed the 'cutting regulations to spur AI innovation and adoption, speeding up the buildout of AI data centers, exporting AI 'full technology stacks' to US allies and partners, and ridding AI systems of what the White House calls 'ideological bias'. The plan makes it clear that the US will use AI to achieve its political goals. If the plan gets implemented it seems what gets said by AI will matter a lot. The plan has great focus on AI ideological bias. On the other hand, China's proposal suggests that it's concerned about fragmentation in AI governance. More importantly, China is keen to develop an AI environment that moves away from AI dominance by just a few countries. To that effect it proposes that its AI development tool should be shared with others. Knowing about the AI approaches of both these super powers is important for South Africa. Going forward it will be impossible for South Africa to be non-aligned (in theory). The situation is forcing South Africa to choose a friend. China is planning to build an AI foundation that will enable countries in the South to be independent and not dependent on China. On the other hand, the US is building an AI foundation that will maintain the status quo that will mean global tech leadership by the US. If South Africa chooses to adopt AI platforms from the US it will have to also accept that it will be an AI slave. The China promise, however, seems to be an option that could allow South Africa to maintain its sovereignty. We are at a point where we all need to make up our mind about AI tools that we use. It's becoming clear that AI tools are not neutral tools. Most of them are aligned with their countries of origin. Understanding these developments should assist all in making informed decisions. Adopting AI is not just about adopting a tool that solves a problem. An AI tool that we will adopt will also inform how we live. We all need to choose wisely very fast. We need to always remember that for now the newly released AI blueprint from the US is aimed at vastly expanding the US AI exports to allies in a bid to maintain the American edge over China in the critical technology. According to a US Think Tank, the US AI Action Plan's strongest message is that the United States should meet, not curb, global demand for AI. To achieve this, the plan suggests a novel and ambitious approach: full-stack AI export packages through industry consortia. On the other hand, China wants AI to be openly shared and for all countries and companies to have equal rights to use it. The sooner nations choose their AI partners the sooner they master their AI destiny.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store