Tony Leon warns: SA’s aggressive stance risks financial and diplomatic fallout with US
In an insightful interview, former South African ambassador Tony Leon critiques the country's handling of its tense relationship with the United States. He highlights the weak response to the expulsion of Ebrahim Rasool, the potential economic fallout from escalating tensions, and the risks of provoking a global superpower. Leon emphasises the dangers of posturing and inflammatory rhetoric, referencing recent actions like the renaming of Sandton Drive after Leila Khalid. He warns that such moves could trigger financial sanctions, further isolating South Africa and deepening its economic challenges. Leon calls for a more strategic and mature approach to foreign policy.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
Watch here
Listen here
Edited transcript of the interview ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Bronwyn Nielsen (00:01.433):
Tony Leon, great to have you in my sights. I read your recent article about South Africa potentially facing a world of pain due to the global disorder that is prevailing. I'm paraphrasing the headline of your article, but let's start by acknowledging that a lot has happened since you penned that piece. If we read the temperature correctly, it's only just heating up.
Give me your view on how we are playing this scenario and how we might be harming the national interest.
Tony Leon (00:32.684):
Well, I think the sad and depressing answer is that we're playing it very badly in most respects. You could argue that the expulsion of Rasool, which is the new big issue hitting the bilateral relationship, is the one exception. The somewhat muted and non-belligerent response from the president—or the presidency of South Africa—to say it was regrettable and had been noted, was the only sign of normalcy.
I thought that response was, as I say, muted. It could have been worse, but it certainly could have been better. We can discuss what I think a more appropriate reaction might have been, but of course, that is… okay.
Bronwyn Nielsen (01:25.615):
Well, let's get to that. Before we go further, what would an appropriate reaction from your perspective have been?
Tony Leon (01:34.466):
Well, you know, I bore witness to a similar situation when I was South African ambassador in Argentina. The American ambassador, my near neighbour and friend, Vilma Martinez, had the misfortune of having all her diplomatic cables hacked by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Suddenly, across every newspaper in Argentina, reams of confidential messages from the United States Embassy to the State Department were out in the public domain. These dealt with everything from the eccentric and corrupt governance of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the hard-charging populist Peronist president of the day, to her apparent mental instability and the ill-gotten riches of her family.
These messages were very embarrassing, but also very accurate. This is exactly what an embassy should do—report back with candour. However, now it was public, and as soon as that became known, America did two things.
First, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State at the time, personally phoned Kirchner to apologise. Then, she followed that up with an in-person visit.
So, if I were sitting where Ramaphosa sits, I would have tried to pick up the phone to Trump and apologise. Even if I didn't manage that (and apparently we have difficulty connecting with the White House), I would have issued a public apology that went beyond just "regrettable," because what Rasool did is unacceptable.
Tony Leon (03:32.066):
There's no playbook I've seen that actually intends to confront another country by having an ambassador provocatively call out the head of state of the country where he is a guest. That's not without precedent, but it's usually done by an ambassador acting on instructions from their home country because they want to provoke a fight.
The last thing South Africa needs or wants is to provoke a confrontation with the Trump White House, but Rasool has given us that fight. Even when you go back to Ramaphosa's spokesman's response of being "regrettable," that message is immediately undercut by the fact that this Sunday, the ANC is rolling out a hero's welcome at Cape Town Airport for the returning expelled Mr. Rasool.
They will say, "Well, that's the party, not the state." But as we know, there is no real distinction in South Africa between government policy and ANC policy. Only ANC ministers and deputy ministers represent that policy. They are, as we say here, "Corp and Ian Miss."
Tony Leon (05:08.3):
This is typical of the double-think that bedevils much of our politics, particularly foreign policy. We'll do two contradictory things at the same time, but hope that you'll only notice one of them. I think those days are long gone.
Bronwyn Nielsen (05:24.045):
Isn't it clear that the ANC does, in fact, want to escalate aggression against the US? I mean, every step we've seen seems to be designed to exacerbate the already tense situation between South Africa and the US. Look at Cyril Ramaphosa's article alongside Colombia and Malaysia in Foreign Policy, as you referenced in your article.
Tony Leon (05:49.922):
Yes, a little. Yes.
Bronwyn Nielsen (05:51.777):
I mean, could you be more blatant in terms of your stance against the US than Cyril was in his article?
Tony Leon (06:01.59):
The answer is no, but the explanation is probably not a conspiracy to offend. It was probably a cock-up—some person in an office somewhere thought it was a good idea. They probably ghost-wrote the article or put their signature to it. I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to provoke.
That said, the net result, whatever the motive, is offensive. Putting America alongside Israel in the dock for war crimes—perhaps even genocide—was the apparent goal of that article.
Once you've started a confrontation with the United States, you're likely going to get one. A lot of politicians here, from various parties, now describe the United States as a bully. Maybe the US is a bully. Maybe Trump is not a nice man and he's bullying South Africa and many other countries. But if you stand up to a bully who weighs 900 pounds and is armed with a bazooka, while you're just a little guy with a pea shooter, I can tell you the outcome of that confrontation. It might not be nice, but it's predictable.
Tony Leon (07:42.169):
To mix metaphors badly, it's like going into a poker game where your opponent has three aces, and you've got a pair of twos. The guy with the aces is going to win. You might bluff your way out of it, but generally, the guy with the better hand wins. We've been in that situation.
Bronwyn Nielsen (08:06.542):
Let's weigh in here, Tony. The US economy is 26% of the world's economy, while South Africa is less than 1%. I think nothing gives better context than those numbers.
Tony Leon (08:06.542):
Absolutely, it's a $29 trillion economy on one side and ours is about $450 billion. It's a complete mismatch. And of course, if Ebrahim Rasool is to be believed, we're a moral superpower, as he said. That might have been true in 1994, but it certainly isn't in 2025.
It's not just that America is the 900-pound gorilla in the world's sandbox. It's because of America's size, influence, military power, and its control over most of the global institutions. Most of the voting shares and veto powers at the IMF, World Bank, and G7, for example, are controlled by the US.
So it's not that you can just pick a fight with the US. If you do, there are cascading consequences. And South Africa, at least the government, spends a lot of time relitigating the past. They're more comfortable talking about apartheid because they were on the moral high ground then. But you can't run a country based on what happened 30 or 40 years ago.
Tony Leon (10:17.73):
I'm old enough to have been around in the 1980s when the US Congress and other institutions imposed financial sanctions on South Africa. I think one of the biggest contributors to the end of apartheid was the financial sanctions imposed by the US.
Now, I can only speculate, but if we continue down the path signposted by the government—by Rasool, Ramaphosa, and others—we might find ourselves facing sanctions, especially of the financial kind.
Bronwyn Nielsen (10:40.699):
And let's be clear about the sanctions, Tony, because Ebrahim Rasool also weighed in with his concern about potential sanctions against the holding of South African government debt. That could be a very big problem.
Tony Leon (11:01.548):
Yes, absolutely. As you know, about 25% of our debt is held in foreign hands. If that becomes a target for sanctions, we'll face a fiscal crisis, a borrowing crisis, and a large deficit. We'll be in all kinds of pain with no paddle to get us out.
And it won't just be the South African debt that becomes difficult to issue or hold. Countries and multinationals doing business in South Africa will also be targeted for doing business with us. It's a bit like the way the Biden administration, in my view correctly, put sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine.
I'm not suggesting South Africa is worthy of such punishment, but we have some very vengeful people in the White House and State Department right now. If you keep offending them, it might not end well.
Bronwyn Nielsen (12:38.029):
You know, there's a video of Nomvula Mokonyane on a podium talking about the renaming of Sandton Drive and really forcing the issue in the most aggressive manner. She insisted it would be called "Leila Khalid Drive" and demanded the US consulate put it on their letterhead. I get a shiver down my spine when I watch that video—it's so aggressive.
Tony Leon (13:06.23):
Yes, look, she is almost sui generis in her general awfulness. She was named by the Zondo Commission as being corrupt and should, by rights, be in the criminal dock, but she isn't. This is the same person who was the chief cheerleader for Jacob Zuma, who, when Zuma was destroying our currency and international standing, said, "We'll pick up the rand, do what you like."
She's never met a president of the ANC she didn't like. She accused white people of urinating on the Constitution. It's appalling, but, as you know, she's one of the top six officials in the ANC. And once again, they'll try to say, "Well, that's the party, not the state." But there's no real distinction there.
Tony Leon (14:18.591):
The DA's motion to rescind the renaming was rejected—not just by the ANC, but also by Mr. Gayton McKenzie's party. I see his party voted against rescinding that motion, too. And ActionSA, well, I'm just saying, I'm not a fan.
Bronwyn Nielsen (14:26.769):
Not a fan of Gayton McKenzie
Tony Leon (14:26.769):
No, no, I'm all for free speech, and apparently, he's a compelling speaker. But, you know, the ANC, the PA, the PAC, and other parties in that Johannesburg council rejected the motion. Apparently, the renaming is going ahead—though it may not. Who knows?
Once again, this is something that a proactive or even a reactive government should stop. They have the majority in the Johannesburg Council. They should have sent a message, "Stop this nonsense." Nomvula should be cautioned or disciplined for what she said.
At the end of the day, posturing and childlike gestures in politics can be very expensive. This kind of rhetoric and this kind of "nose-thumbing" at America isn't just self-harming—it's not how adults behave when confronted with a crisis. And this is a crisis, not a hiccup as Cyril Ramaphosa described it. Yet, we don't seem to have the kind of maturity needed to handle the situation, and that's regrettable.
Read also: