Listen here.The Trump administration has escalated its pressure on South Africa, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing new visa restrictions over land expropriation laws and racial discrimination against the Afrikaner minority. Christo van der Rheede, executive director of the FW de Klerk Foundation, calls it a profound strategic blunder, one that risks handing the ANC a political gift ahead of local government elections. Van der Rheede also takes issue with the framing of Afrikaners by the Trump administration, arguing that associating Afrikaners only with white people is problematic. In an interview with BizNews, Van der Rheede argues that the real culprits have already been identified in the findings of the Zondo and Madlanga commissions and that Washington had a far more effective and far less divisive path available to it. He appeals to the US to reconsider its approach to South Africa if it is interested in saving the country and a society in which all enjoy the fruits of a hard-earned constitutional democracy..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 every morning on 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..Edited transcript of the interview.Linda van Tilburg (00:00) South Africa’s relationship with Washington has taken a sharp turn this week, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing new visa restrictions on South Africans, citing racial grievance against the Afrikaner minority and fears of land confiscation without compensation. Christo van der Rheede, the executive director of the FW de Klerk Foundation, says it’s a strategic blunder, one that hands the ANC a political gift ahead of local government elections, and he joins me now. Christo van der Rheede (00:37)Thank you. Linda van Tilburg (00:39) So, why do you think Rubio’s intervention is what you call a profound strategic blunder? Christo van der Rheede (00:46) It’s a blunder in the sense that it actually makes a martyr of the ANC, and of those they want to target. Which, in my view, is completely foolish, because at this stage I think the whole of South Africa is fed up with what is happening in the country. Crime affects everyone. Corruption affects everyone. Poor service delivery at municipalities affects everyone. Poor economic growth and lack of opportunities affects all of our youth. So why would you want to premise a specific strategy on an ethno-nationalist approach? Because that in itself is really counterproductive.If the Americans had said, “we are targeting those who are responsible for the suffering of all South Africans,” I think all South Africans would have stood up and supported that. But at this point in time, it’s divisive, it’s polarising, and it serves no purpose but advancing the ANC, and in particular those who are guilty of corruption, because now they can use it as a smokescreen and say, this is what American imperialism means in practice, and that’s why all of South Africa must mobilise against this. And that, for me, is a blunder in the true sense of the word. Linda van Tilburg (02:31) Well, you argue this could actually help the ANC in the local government elections in November. How so? Christo van der Rheede (02:37) Remember, we have a long history, a long history of colonialism, a long history of British imperialism, a long history of land dispossession, the 1913 Land Act, also forced removals, the apartheid laws. We’ve got a long history, and people often think that people have forgotten about it. What I want to emphasise is that people’s memories haven’t forgotten what has happened.The last thing you want is for people now to say, okay, through your ethno-nationalist approach, you’re actually using it as a smokescreen to bring back apartheid in whatever form. And that in itself will trigger a response that favours the ANC and those who are guilty of corruption, as opposed to really favouring the country as a whole. So that is my viewpoint. Linda van Tilburg (03:52) You push back hard on the idea of a single, isolated Afrikaner minority under siege. What do you think they get wrong with this framing? Christo van der Rheede (08:19) First and foremost, the term Afrikaner, and associating it with just white people, is seriously problematic. The term Afrikaner goes back 300 years, to when people who found themselves at the Cape could no longer associate with their countries of origin, whether Europe, India, or elsewhere. They called themselves Afrikaners, and eventually this term was appropriated by the Nationalist Party, which made it an ethno-nationalist term, excluding any other person, especially people of colour. That’s problematic in itself.And secondly, why would they just focus on Afrikaners? There are also English-speaking white people, Portuguese-speaking people, people from various other nationalities who were classified by the previous regime, and now by some, as simply white. So that in itself is seriously problematic.But be that as it may, Afrikaners enjoy a standard of living in South Africa they will never enjoy anywhere else. So why put a target on their backs? What Trump is doing is not really helpful. I think what we need to do is unite, those who call themselves Afrikaners, those who call themselves black, those who identify as coloured, unite against the mismanagement of this country up to this point. Especially black people, who can play a fundamental role in bringing an end to corruption, because they form the majority of the electorate. So why estrange them in this process?We need the black voice now more than ever, and I think that voice is there. If you listen to black people on the radio, on television, at grassroots level, they are just as fed up as Afrikaners, as coloured people, as anyone else, about the state of the country. So that, for me, is a big mistake. More than that, it’s also going to backfire. Once Trump is no longer in office, then what? We’ll have made enemies of the very people we need to bring about change. Linda van Tilburg (10:56) You point specifically to the Zondo and Madlanga Commission findings as the real blueprint for accountability. They haven’t released a list of people they’re going to target. So, what do you think targeted action based on the findings of those two commissions could look like? Christo van der Rheede (11:16) Well, the Zondo Commission exposed a lot of these politicians, also state officials, who are guilty of corruption and who have actually captured the state. It goes even beyond that, to political leaders who were in charge of the country while the Guptas ran amok. So, the names are there, the people are there. Those political parties strongly associated with the culprits should be brought to book.Then the Madlanga Commission went even further. It exposed a terrible network of connections between politicians and criminals. And then the most shocking part of it all, the most senior officials within the police and various other departments, those names are available. Some of those people are criminally charged. And then, obviously, those who allowed this to happen, especially the political leaders, must be brought to book.This is not just an internal issue. It’s a national security issue, which holds implications not only for South Africa but also for the Americans, for the Chinese, for the rest of the world with whom we do business. All of them are affected in some way, because we have allowed our justice system, our police system, our statecraft, to be compromised, because criminals have found loopholes to manipulate outcomes and enrich themselves in the process. Linda van Tilburg (13:26) In an article you wrote, you cite Roelf Meyer and Alistair Ruiters making the case for the strength of the underlying US-SA relationship, which is strong, tourism has increased. Do you think this kind of softer diplomacy, the kind Roelf Meyer is exercising, is a more effective way to counter Washington’s rhetoric than a public fight would be? Christo van der Rheede (13:52) Look, there are two ways of approaching it. There’s the soft diplomacy, and in an article written by Roelf Meyer and Dr Alistair Ruiters, they explain how there’s mutual benefit for the Americans and South Africans, economically, in tourism, and in many other spheres. The US greatly benefits from this relationship, and so does South Africa. Millions and millions of rand flow out of South Africa to buy licences, for example, to use software such as Microsoft, also AI technologies and so forth. The Americans greatly benefit from South Africa, and South Africa benefits from the United States. That relationship should be nurtured, should be protected.Six hundred American businesses are operating in South Africa. It’s a massive investment. They create jobs. Now, if the American government is clever, they’d ask, how do we expand our economic footprint in South Africa? But you’re not going to expand your footprint if you base whatever you do on an ethno-nationalist, punitive approach. They should find different ways to help expand trade relations between South Africa and the United States and help strengthen the South African economy. That’s the soft approach.The hard approach should be to say, there are people within the South African political sphere doing things that are counterproductive to the ideals of our national constitution. Our constitution speaks to non-racialism, non-sexism, free and fair elections, a state administration premised on accountability, on responsiveness, on fairness, and on transparency. Use that to identify weaknesses within the overall governance system, and say, let us hold those who are undermining the constitution and the rights all South Africans should have access to, accountable. Let us apply sanctions against those undermining the South African constitution, because in doing so, they’re undermining the future of all South Africans. I don’t think anybody would complain if that were the approach. Linda van Tilburg (17:05) Well, President Ramaphosa has said he’ll respond to the five demands of the Trump administration, but he hasn’t given a firm date. So, given everything you’ve said, what kind of response do you think could satisfy Washington? Because it seems there are irreconcilable differences between the two. Christo van der Rheede (17:27) The problem is that some of those demands are premised on this ethno-nationalist approach from the US. I think President Ramaphosa should focus on saying that approach is not in the interest of the broader South Africa, that it’s based on particular perceptions that are contrary to what we seek to achieve here. That’s the first part.The second part should be, how can you as Americans help us deal with the legacies of apartheid? Land reform is critical; it’s a constitutional imperative. But how do we do it in a way that doesn’t, at the end of the day, lead to a collapse of food security? Secondly, crime is a massive problem, how can you help us deal with that? Thirdly, how can you help us create more jobs for South Africans? Fourthly, how can we use your AI technologies, for example, to detect corruption? How can you help us refine our government procurement processes, and help grow the economy, while finding a balance between ensuring a merit-based approach at every level of government, especially municipal, and creating opportunities for those disadvantaged by apartheid? That’s where the conversation should focus, using a more creative approach rather than blunt instruments, which have really caused more harm than taken the country forward. Linda van Tilburg (19:37) Christo, have you spoken to anybody from the US, or to Ambassador Bozell, the US representative in South Africa, about these issues? Christo van der Rheede (19:47) No, I have not. I mostly engage with our own ambassador, Roelf Meyer, sharing my thoughts and whatever I write with him. Hopefully, as ambassadors, they’ll have a constructive engagement around this. All I’ll say is that the Americans should really reconsider their approach to South Africa, if they’re really interested in saving South Africa and helping us build a country where we all enjoy the fruits of our hard-earned constitutional democracy. They should change their approach to be embracing of all South Africans, rather than this narrow focus, which in the end will cause more harm, more division, and more polarisation.