SA-US Relations: A Deteriorating Landscape

Recent developments have led to a significant downturn in relations between South Africa and the United States. On 7 February, Donald Trump officially enacted an Executive Order to halt aid to South Africa, which amounts to approximately $440 million, predominantly directed towards the PEPFAR program that addresses HIV and AIDS. According to South African government’s own calculations, this equates to 17% of the total funding for HIV/AIDS in the country, with 76% being funded domestically and 7% from the Global Fund.

The rationale behind this punitive measure stems from what Trump and his allies label as "bad actions" occurring in South Africa, notably the signing of the Expropriation Act and the country’s decision to bring Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding allegations of genocide against Palestinians. This Executive Order follows a cascade of public condemnations from several prominent American figures, including Trump, Elon Musk, Senator Ted Cruz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, all echoing a unified sentiment that portrays South Africa negatively on the world stage.

While organisations like Afriforum celebrated this decision, there is a dawning realisation that the repercussions of Trump's actions will ultimately affect them as well. A key concern derives from their constituents, particularly farmers who benefit from exporting to the U.S. under the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). The likelihood of South Africa's AGOA eligibility being revoked poses a threat to jobs in vital sectors such as automotive and agriculture.

The basis for Trump's actions reflects a flawed narrative shaped by misinformation from groups opposed to land reform policies in South Africa. This narrative resonates with a President known for making impulsive foreign policy decisions, often devoid of context and geopolitical nuance.

Despite the misguided nature of U.S. involvement in South Africa’s domestic matters, the pressing question remains: how can the South African government effectively counter this shift in diplomatic relations? While diplomacy offers a potential remedy, it relies on mutual goodwill - a condition presently undermined by the prevailing U.S. stance. The real issue is not South Africa’s internal situation but rather the U.S. government's altered approach to foreign partnerships. Until this is recognised, the flow of misinformed opinions and criticism from U.S. officials is expected to persist.

It is essential to note that South Africa's need for racial redress policies is undeniable. These policies must align with constitutional frameworks. Although legal debates regarding the Expropriation Act's constitutionality persist, the legislation follows the established South African law-making process, and there’s no singular justification for U.S. condemnation.

Claims that 30 years post-democracy should be sufficient to rectify the entrenched legacies of colonialism and apartheid overlook the persistent inequalities within society. Despite some advances, many Black South Africans continue to grapple with the ongoing impact of apartheid. The ANC government’s failure to fully actualise redress through corruption and mismanagement does not negate the imperative for such policies.

It is a critical mistake for South Africans to assume that U.S. critiques stem from a benign misunderstanding. The current view from the U.S. signifies a rejection of South Africa's pursuit of diversity, equality, and inclusion. This rejection aligns with values strongly held by the Trump administration.

In his recent State of the Nation Address (SONA), President Ramaphosa expressed a resolute stance against bullying, which is commendable. However, the government must also prepare citizens for the possible ramifications should the U.S. escalate its punitive measures. As former International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor emphasized, South Africa must enhance public diplomacy to address the misinformation surrounding the country.

Anticipating a unified South African response indefinitely may be overly optimistic. Many citizens, disillusioned by economic inequities, may find themselves struggling to defend a nation that they feel has not served them well. While there is widespread disdain for U.S. interference, many South Africans may also harbour grievances against a government that frequently fails to provide tangible benefits to all.

Nonetheless, the government should be commended for resisting threats and upholding its constitutional responsibilities while championing solidarity, equality, and sustainability core principles that should guide South Africa during its G20 Presidency amidst external pressures.

It is crucial for South Africans to resist the temptation to adopt a jingoistic stance which could excuse their own governments for contributing to the current situation. Historical errors have hindered economic resilience and service delivery, undermining the state's capacity to meet its citizens' needs.

As South Africans confront these challenges, there lies an opportunity to reassess and redefine their national identity. Effective policy-making must be transformative, focusing on inclusive measures that elevate the dignity of every citizen. A failure to seize this moment risks wasting a critical opportunity for progress and growth in the face of adversity.

END