SA-US Relations – A Multifaceted Quagmire
In the latest action by the US government against South Africa, Ambassador Ibrahim Rasool was expelled from the US on 15 March 2025. Ostensibly, Rasool was expelled for comments made during a seminar hosted by the Mapungubwe Institute of Strategic Reflection (MISTRA).
Contrary to the hasty and often repetitive analyses in public discourse suggesting that Rasool, as an ambassador, should have refrained from expressing an opinion on the US and its president, Donald Trump, it is important to recognise that he was well within his diplomatic prerogative to offer insights on South Africa-US relations. In doing so, he appropriately highlighted the significance of the US as South Africa’s second-largest export destination. Furthermore, in assessing the political climate in the US, he observed that it might not be prudent for South Africa to send envoys to engage with the Trump administration at this time.
Rasool also reflected how Donald Trump has become the champion of white supremacists in the US – something that riled US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Taking to X, Rubio declared Rasool persona non grata and gave him 72 hours to leave the US. His missive expelling Rasool called him, “a race-baiting politician who hates America and the US President (POTUS)”.
Looking at the brisk response from the US State Department, it is quite clear that the US has been looking for any opportunity to further flex its considerable muscle against South Africa. The US Ambassador to South Africa designate, Joel Pollak, has been rather eager to demonstrate that the US has the tools, the will, and the wherewithal to punish South Africa for actions that the current administration considers to be a threat to the US.
US’ Hypocrisy
To understand what is at stake, it is imperative to first and foremost lay bare the US’ hypocrisy not only as it concerns the “Rasool affair’’, but in its usual quick resort to the deployment of bullying tactics in conducting its internationals relations. It was as recently as February 2025 that the US Vice President, JD Vance, took to the stage at the Munich Security Conference and read a riot act to European leaders accusing them of restricting freedom of speech. Painting America as a champion of global free speech, Vance rebuked what he termed, “policies that are intent on preventing dialogue and accused European leaders of working to silence the voices of those they fear might express an alternative viewpoint or different opinion”.
Rasool’s viewpoint that Trump has become the champion of white supremacy in the US is a viewpoint that the Americans may not like, but that must be listened to if the glorification of the US as a champion of free speech is to be believed. Clearly, the US’ conception of free speech, is that it is only truly free, if it does not express an alternative viewpoint about America. Ironically, the US’ undeserved rhetorical onslaught against other nations, inclusive of mislabelling their leaders and policies is considered by the plutocrats in the White House as a form of free speech that we must all tolerate.
In 2023, a US Ambassador to South Africa, Reuben Brigety made disparaging remarks about South Africa’s collusion with Russia, accusing it of having loaded weapons on Lady R in support of Russia’s war in Ukraine. These unsubstantiated allegations from an Ambassador of another country were at best undiplomatic, impugned the integrity of South Africa and risked its national security. They should have earned Brigety the same humiliation as Rasool, but all he got was an expression of South African government’s utter displeasure with his conduct and statements. The government indicated that it had decided not to take action against Brigety as it deemed its relationship with Washington to be of great value. Even when South Africa is wronged, it is forced to mull over what it stands to lose should it stand its ground even against provocation. It would seem that it is going to be the same with the case of Ambassador Rasool, with the South African government feeling obliged to send envoys to explain itself, while the US easily gets away with murder.
What is at stake?
It quite clear that the US has designated South Africa its foe. In the days of a macho Foreign Policy that brooks no dissent, this is the last place that South Africa wants to find itself in. As an important partner for South Africa, the US possesses the ability to hurt South Africa economic aspirations by limiting the range of economic cooperation between the two countries. Already, all aid to South Africa has been terminated.
For South Africa, despite misguided machismo by some of its politicians, a rupture with the US is an undesirable development that is likely to lead to unwanted economic consequences. Already, it is widely expected that the country will lose its trade benefits under the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). Subsequent escalations may include trade restrictions, tariffs and in an extreme case, targeted economic sanctions against specific actors in the African National Congress.
For South Africa, what is at stake in the one-sided duel is the country’s very sovereignty, defined as the ability of its people and government to determine their own policies and future. If the US succeeds in its quest to bring South Africa to heel, the country’s democracy as we know it, compromised as it might be, will cease to exist, and in its place, foreign determined outcomes by the US will be put in place.
Why are we here?
It is not necessary to remind the reader that the US is highly displeased with South Africa’s non-aligned position in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its dogged pursuit of genocide charges against the State of Israel for the way it has conducted its war against Gaza. Such a charge, which has already been pronounced by the United Nations, if upheld by the International Court of Justice, will implicate the US as it is the chief sponsor and defender of Israel. Though expressly acknowledged, the US has been clumsily trying to shield these behind expressions of solidarity with ‘persecuted’ Afrikaners and farmers and pursuit of transformation through Affirmative Action policies and Black Economic Empowerment.
While it seemed amusing, if disturbing at first, it is quite clear that President Trump has caught South Africa by surprise. While the two countries were always expected to see things differently on the issue of Israel, there was hardly an expectation that the new government would take such extreme measures to impose its policies on South Africa. After all, the two countries have always disagreed on matters of Palestine.
To say South Africa has jealously guarded its right to determine its own foreign policy is an understatement. This has been an article of faith since the ANC got into power, whatever compromises may have been made in posture as a matter of necessity. Similarly, South Africans have always understood that their journey to being an equal country was not always palatable to some foreign powers, though this was never about the principle, but more about tactics. Never before has a foreign country asserted itself so forcefully to change the course of South Africa’s policy trajectory during the democratic dispensation.
Both issues are fundamental to South Africa’s vision of a just, fair, and equitable world order. Since 1994, South Africa’s domestic and foreign policy has been preoccupied with creating a world order that does not trample on the rights of the less powerful. The issue of Palestinian liberation is thus not a trifling matter in South Africa’s foreign policy. It is at the heart of how South Africa imagines itself as a global progressive force with a role to play in creating a fair international system.
On Afrikaner persecution, it is difficult to engage with the issue seriously as it is based on extreme falsifications and misrepresentations of South African democracy, its court system, and socio-economic conditions. This is made worse by the knowledge that the US government knows better but has elected to repudiate the facts as they obtain in service of a supremacist agenda aided by a devil may care attitude.
Muddling Middle Power
Predictably, a lot of South Africans are annoyed by the meddlesome behaviour of the US government. More even are annoyed by the role played by domestic actors such as Afriforum in driving the false narrative of Afrikaner persecution. However, South Africans must not, in their nationalistic fervour, be tempted to absolve the South African government, specifically the ANC, of its responsibility in enabling the mess that is the relations with the US.
While the cause of the immediate morass cannot reasonably be ascribed to the actions of the government or the ANC, it is important to ask if such an outcome should have been foreseen, given that the US has acted as a rogue in some or other form for some time already, notwithstanding its commitment to democracy. That South Africa was somewhat spared its most degrading inclinations has been a function of a convergence of shared interests rather than South Africa’s unique characteristics. However, for the ANC, South Africa occupies such a place of importance for the world, conceiving the country as a gateway into the African continent and an indispensable partner for world powers in matters concerning Africa and the developing world, that no country would dare openly interfere in its domestic affairs. Well, that bubble has burst. What Donald Trump has done is to remind South Africans that their country is not that special. Any leadership role it exercises is due purely to being enabled by the superpowers. To the extent that this goes against the desires of the superpower, a correction may be necessary. We are now seeing a nasty correction.
Whereas South Africa was a predictable and somewhat formidable player in international affairs up to 2009, governments between 2009-2019 introduced strategic ambiguities in South Africa’s foreign policy, with some positions taken not to advance principle, but rather to align the country with other players based on economic considerations. In the process, the country has gone out of its way to distance itself from its traditional partners in the West without any clearly discernible benefits.
While credit must be given to successive governments for building strong economic cooperation with countries of the global south, including China, it is doubtful whether this needed to be achieved on the back of sacrificing relations with the West. And while the West has shed its pretence about the issues that South Africa has always cared about – human rights, justice, equity, and fairness- these countries have been clear eyed about their core interests.
As of 2025, it is difficult to say with any certainty that South Africa has been exceptional at articulating its core interests in international affairs. On the one hand, the country has been a strong advocate of principle in Israel’s War on Gaza. On the other, it has struggled to articulate its own very clear position about the inviolability of international borders and protection of innocents in Russia’s war on Ukraine. Contrast this with its direct intervention in the Eastern DRC where M23, backed by Rwanda has invaded that country.
A Changing Narrative Domestically
The ANC is facing an uphill battle in articulating a unifying vision for South Africa. Since at least 2009, the ANC has failed to sustain a clear narrative about what it wants the country to become. To the extent that its has been mouthing platitudes about an equal and just society, it has painfully failed to live up to this aspiration through endemic corruption and economic mismanagement.
Since the ANC’s 2007 Polokwane Conference, the party has lurched from one crisis to another, failing, firstly to recapture its lost glory after its fall from its high pedestal, and secondly, to define a vision that includes all South Africans, not just black. This is evident in the Party’s campaign maps, which seem to have surrendered suburban areas in favour of townships and rural areas.
With the evolving crisis, the ANC is struggling to respond to a multipronged challenge to its legitimacy. This challenge comes from its major GNU partner, the Democratic Alliance, the right wing and sectarian Afriforum, and every other race baiting formation that senses weakness in the party’s strategic vision.
Since losing its outright majority in the 2024 elections, the ANC has found itself in a quagmire about what it stands for, who it governs for and how to respond to the major onslaught visited upon it by the US. On the crisis with the US, the best the government has managed is to deflect – “Trump has not blue ticked us,” obfuscate – “South Africa can withhold its minerals,” and fudge issues “the expulsion of Rasool is not a crisis.”
All of this shows a political party that does not know what to do. It is a party that has been in power too long without having to face any real opposition or crisis of legitimacy. In the event, the DA appears to be running a parallel government on public platforms without any coherent response from the ANC.
What is to be Done?
In a normal government and political party, this is a question that should be preoccupying the leadership. Perhaps a few suggestions may help (doubtful).
- Admit the GNU is on shaky ground – The GNU is not what its has been projected to be. There are strong weaknesses that are militating against its success, including the predilection of the DA to run a parallel government on public platforms when its positions do not carry the day in Cabinet. “Sufficient Consensus” is proving unachievable. As the leading GNU partner, the ANC should be bold enough to consider clearing the decks and reconstituting a new coalition if necessary and start differently.
- Admit the relationship with the US is in the doghouse – this is a good starting point for determining South Africa’s response. Such a response should include defining a baseline on issues that may or may not form part of any future discussions. For instance, the issue of South Africa’s transformation should not be on the table. South Africa’s sovereign right to determine its foreign policy should not be on the table. The alternative is too ghastly to contemplate.
- Admit that the ANC is not leading the conversation on what South Africa wants: Obfuscating and leaving the public to make its own mind is not a strategy. Pseudo ideological pronouncements from the likes of Gwede Mantashe do not constitute a communication strategy. The ANC should improve its messaging to counter negative perceptions and highlight its foreign policy objectives, ensuring that South Africa’s global stance is understood domestically and internationally.
- Fashion an all of society response – Afriforum and its fellow travellers are a cancer on South African society. There is no world in which their voices should define the South Africa we want. Government and the ANC should harness the power of ordinary voices and lead the conversation. They must maintain consistency in foreign policy decisions, ensuring they align with South Africa’s economic and geopolitical interests while avoiding actions that could further alienate key global partners.
- Guard against extremism – Government should reject any temptation to lean on extremism or to encourage a toxic nationalism. South Africa is too fragile for such an outcome.
- Build Better – Now that South Africans know how vulnerable the country is to foreign interference, forcefully articulate a unifying vision that insulates the country from interference by foreign powers. That begins with better economic management, a fair and equitable redistribution of state resources, and growing the economy for the benefit of all.
