Zimbabwe urges South Africa to resist US pressure
ZANU–PF spokesperson Christopher Mutsvangwa said the United States should not 'misdirect itself' in its diplomatic relations with South Africa.
'These issues could be resolved without resorting to sanctions. But if America decides to go its own way, so be it - we've had over two decades of experience dealing with sanctions,' Mutsvangwa said.
He made the comments on Friday at the ANC's 2025 Liberation Movements Summit in Kempton Park.
He said the US' previous sanctions on Zimbabwe had not derailed the country's progress. 'They have not stopped Zimbabwe from making progress. On the contrary, we are now potentially the most dynamic economy on the African continent,' Mutsvangwa told Newzroom Afrika.
'Who would have thought that Zimbabwe would now be developing a third-world steel industry - one that even America might look at with a bit of jealousy?'
Last year, the US imposed sanctions on Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa, accusing him of serious human rights violations after his disputed victory in the 2023 elections.
Relations between Washington and Harare have been strained for more than 20 years. The US initially imposed economic and travel sanctions on Zimbabwe in the early 2000s, targeting the late President Robert Mugabe and several senior government officials, accusing them of eroding democratic principles.
However, on March 4, 2024, former President Joe Biden officially ended the US sanctions program against Zimbabwe, lifting restrictions on all previously sanctioned individuals, entities, and assets under that policy.
He encouraged South Africa to view the situation from a more optimistic perspective. 'Don't worry about being pushed around by superpowers. We've travelled that road before. We share experiences, and we have the resources anyway,' he added.
This comes after reports that the US Congressman Ronny Jackson introduced the US and South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025, a bill that could sanction ANC leaders for allegedly supporting US adversaries, including China, Russia and Iran.
On Thursday, President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the issue while visiting BMW South Africa.
'We've heard what has happened in the House Committee, but the process still has a long way to go,' Ramaphosa said.
'Our bilateral dealings and engagements with the United States will continue, and we'll talk about all manner of things - including this issue.'
Ramaphosa added that South Africa values its diplomatic relations with the US and hopes to strengthen them through continued dialogue.
'We are very positive that the outcome of our engagements with the United States will be comprehensive and all-encompassing, so we can return to good deals with the United States,' he said.
IOL News previously reported that the ANC said it is pinning its hopes on Democrats in the US Congress, particularly those who supported the anti-apartheid movement, to block the bill.
'There are many Democrats, including those who were part of the anti-apartheid movements, who will stand up to caution Americans against supporting a president who wants to censor and undermine the sovereignty of other nations,' said ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri.
Bengu-Motsiri said the ANC will vigorously oppose any attempt to isolate it through renewed sanctions.
'Remember, we come from a history where sanctions were imposed against the apartheid system,' she said. 'The ANC was also isolated by countries that worked closely with the apartheid regime, including the United States.'
The bill, which was passed through the House Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees, will now be presented before the full US House of Representatives for a vote.First published by IOL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Here's why the EU keeps losing to China
The China-EU summit held in Beijing late last month could have been a celebration of 50 years of diplomatic relations between two of the world's largest economic powers. Instead, it served as a sobering reminder of the EU's growing strategic confusion, and its inability to capitalize on the immense opportunities offered by cooperation with China. The summit came at a sensitive moment in global politics. What was once hailed as a mutually beneficial partnership has now become entangled in geopolitics, internal divisions within the EU, and the enduring shadow of Washington's influence. The global turbulence of recent years – the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine – has not only strained relations but also reinforced the EU's dependence on the United States. Rather than renewing a partnership that once stood as a pillar of global economic integration, the EU leaders arrived in Beijing with a familiar agenda: accusations over trade practices, warnings about 'security threats,' and renewed calls for China to 'rein in' Russia. Predictably, no breakthrough was achieved. The deterioration of China-EU relations cannot be understood without revisiting the European Commission's strategic shift in 2019. Under Ursula von der Leyen, Brussels officially categorized China as not just a partner but also a 'systemic rival' – a move that introduced suspicion into virtually every area of engagement. Since then, an ideological lens has increasingly shaped EU policy, replacing the pragmatism that once underpinned economic cooperation. The consequences have been stark. Brussels has launched measures to restrict Chinese investment, imposed high tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, and – most recently – barred Chinese firms from public tenders worth over €5 million. Further escalation came when the EU included two Chinese banks in its latest sanctions package against Russia, signaling that Europe is willing to weaponize economic tools for political purposes. These steps are justified by the EU as 'de-risking.' By pushing for reduced interdependence in strategic sectors – raw materials, high-tech supply chains, and digital infrastructure – Brussels has aligned itself with Washington's containment playbook, even as European leaders publicly insist on independence. In Beijing, von der Leyen struck a conciliatory tone, declaring the EU's openness to Chinese investment and cooperation. But such statements ring hollow when juxtaposed with her recent warnings at the G7 summit about a looming 'China shock' and accusations of Beijing 'weaponizing trade.' Similarly, the head of EU diplomacy, Kaja Kallas – also present in Beijing – has accused China of fueling the war in Ukraine and waging hybrid operations against Europe. These mixed signals undermine credibility and reinforce perceptions in Beijing that the EU lacks a coherent, autonomous China strategy. More fundamentally, Brussels' approach is internally contradictory. The EU dreams of 'strategic autonomy,' yet ties its foreign policy to transatlantic priorities. It seeks economic resilience, yet undermines its own competitiveness by disrupting supply chains and limiting market access. It aspires to global leadership, yet isolates itself from the rest of the world by clinging to zero-sum geopolitics. By contrast, China's position at the summit was clear: focus on complementarity, promote free trade, and pursue win-win cooperation in areas that matter for global stability – digital transformation, green development, and infrastructure connectivity. Beijing emphasized its willingness to deepen exchanges in artificial intelligence, clean energy, and scientific research, seeing these sectors as essential to both sides' modernization. For China, the EU remains a strategic partner, not an adversary. Beijing has long supported European integration and consistently encourages the EU to play an independent role in global affairs. From China's perspective, a strong, autonomous Europe is a counterweight to unilateralism and an anchor of multipolarity. This vision aligns with Europe's own interests – but diverges sharply from Washington's preference for a subordinate EU within the transatlantic alliance. From Beijing's perspective, the EU's current challenges – economic slowdown, energy insecurity, and geopolitical vulnerability – are not caused by China. Rather, they stem from internal divisions and policy choices that tether Europe to US strategies. China fears that Europe's drift into a hardline camp could destabilize the international order, a scenario contrary to Beijing's vision of stability and connectivity across Eurasia. The single most contentious issue remains the war in Ukraine. Brussels insists that China's ties with Moscow 'destabilize' Europe, while Beijing argues that it is maintaining an independent and neutral position aimed at facilitating a peaceful settlement. EU leaders, however, continue to press China to 'use its influence' to end Russia's military operations – effectively asking Beijing to abandon a key strategic partnership. This is neither realistic nor conducive to diplomacy. For now, this geopolitical deadlock overshadows other areas of potential cooperation. So long as the EU views the Ukraine conflict through an existential lens – and equates neutrality with complicity – China-EU relations will remain constrained, regardless of shared economic interests. Despite political frictions, economic ties remain robust. The EU is China's largest trading partner, and China ranks second for the EU. Together, they account for over one-third of global GDP and nearly 30% of global trade in goods and services. Chinese investment in Europe has surpassed $100 billion, and annual flows are roughly balanced with EU investment in China. These numbers underscore a basic truth: the China-EU relationship is too significant to be defined by ideological posturing. Global supply chains, green technology cooperation, and digital innovation cannot advance without mutual engagement. The question is whether Brussels will recognize this before further damage is done. The EU portrays its current trajectory as 'rebalancing' and 'de-risking.' In reality, these policies risk strategic isolation. By securitizing economic ties and subordinating its diplomacy to US priorities in relation to China, the EU undermines its own competitiveness and alienates partners across the globe. The result is an inward-looking bloc that struggles to influence global norms as it dreams of geopolitical power. For China, the lesson is clear: The EU is not ready for a genuine reset. Beijing will continue to engage constructively but will not expect rapid progress. In the long run, the revival of a balanced partnership may depend on a political shift within Europe – a leadership willing to replace ideological rigidity with pragmatic cooperation. The Beijing summit, rather than rekindling optimism, has confirmed the structural divergence between China and the EU. However, it also highlighted what remains at stake: two economic giants whose cooperation – or confrontation – will shape global stability for decades to come. China stands ready to pursue a future based on multilateralism, open trade, and shared development. Whether the EU can free itself from delusions and anxieties and rediscover the value of partnership with Beijing remains an open question. Until then, the EU's fixation on 'de-risking' may turn into what it fears most: self-inflicted decline.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
India refutes Trump's claim it stopped buying Russia oil
India's foreign ministry has rejected US President Donald Trump's claim that New Delhi has halted purchases of Russian oil. The Indian government is unaware of any specific developments regarding Indian oil companies pausing Russian imports, the ministry stated, noting that the country's energy purchases are guided by market dynamics and national interests. 'The government is committed to prioritizing the welfare of Indian consumers. Our energy purchases will be based on price, availability and market conditions,' the ministry added. The remarks came hours after Trump claimed India had stopped purchasing Russian oil. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens,' he told reporters in Washington, DC. 🇮🇳🇷🇺🇺🇸 Slick or Crude? Trump Claims India Halts Russian Oil Purchases - Then Admits Might Be Fake Washington on Thursday imposed a 25% tariff on goods imported from India, as well as an additional penalty for purchasing crude oil and military equipment from Russia. Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized India for continuing to import the discounted oil despite Western sanctions, claiming New Delhi was 'helping to sustain the Russian war effort.' Rubio called India's energy trade with Russia 'most certainly a point of irritation' in Washington's relationship with New Delhi. India's position has long been that its energy trade is guided by its national interest and the need to sustain the rapid economic growth of its 1.4 billion people. New Delhi officials have on many occasions stated that by ramping up purchases of Russian oil despite enormous pressure from the West, India has helped global markets avoid sharp increases in crude prices.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Rival African states to implement US-mediated peace deal
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) have taken an initial step toward implementing a bilateral peace agreement signed in Washington on June 27. The development was confirmed by Rwanda's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday in an official statement reporting on the convention of the first session of a joint oversight committee. The meeting brought together representatives from both countries and included observers from the US, Qatar, Togo (serving as facilitator on behalf of the African Union), and the African Union Commission. Congolese officials have long accused Rwanda of backing militant groups in the mineral-rich eastern DR Congo and expropriating resources. Tensions escalated earlier this year, after M23 militants DR Congo claims are being supported by Rwanda seized mining hubs, including Goma and Bukavu, reportedly killing thousands of people. Despite UN and international backing for Kinshasa's claims, Kigali has repeatedly denied the accusations and stated its forces are deployed along the border with DR Congo to defend against the Congolese army and ethnic Hutu militias linked to the 1994 genocide. The agreement signed in June envisaged the withdrawal of Rwandan troops within 90 days; the creation of a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days; and a plan to verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers over a three-month period. The US president's senior Africa adviser, Massad Boulos, told reporters on Wednesday that the process remained on schedule, despite concerns of delays. He stated that if one considered the timeline of developments since April, the progress had been 'extensive, and it's been very much on point,' stressing that 'it's not off track in any way.' On Tuesday, Rwanda's Chamber of Deputies unanimously passed the law approving the ratification of the Washington peace agreement. The Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies passed the law approving the ratification of the peace agreement between the #DRC and # law will be submitted to the Senate for consideration.- - -Inteko Rusange y'Umutwe w'Abadepite yatoye itegeko ryemerera kwemeza burundu… 'It represents a significant step towards restoring peace, security and confidence between Rwanda and the DRC,' Rwandan foreign minister Nduhungirehe Olivier stated.
