Key topics:
- ANC’s “high power” delegation lacks credibility abroad.
- U.S. sees SA’s foreign policy as partisan, not neutral.
- Ramaphosaâs Starlink snub adds to SAâs global missteps.
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 Africaâs 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.
By RW Johnson ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
We are told that the government will shortly send a âhigh powerâ delegation to Washington to âexplainâ our policies to the US – but that it will go by a very indirect route, first stopping off at various parts of the Global South to muster support there and thence to Europe. All of this is necessary because the Trump administration might decide to âhumiliate usâ by delegating a junior official to meet this âhigh powerâ delegation.
The naivete of the misunderstandings makes one weep. What does the ANC regard as âhigh powerâ ? Usually this means a bunch of superannuated ANC officials that no one outside South Africa has heard of anyway. Secondly, no one in Washington needs or wants anything âexplainedâ to them. They have far better sources than the ANC and already know all about the twists and turns of our foreign policy. Long before the delegation gets round to explaining the minutiae of the Expropriation Act someone will cut in and ask âSo, are you willing to withdraw your case at the ICJ ?â If the delegation isnât prepared to bargain, it will be wasting its time.
But before that there will be the pantomime of the tour of the Global South and Europe. No doubt the delegation will elicit sympathetic noises from some of their hosts but these will not be cashable. After all, none of these countries chose to go head-to-head with the US over the Lady R, the Ukraine war, or the naval exercises with the Russians and Chinese â and not even the Arab and Muslim countries decided to beard the US by taking Israel to the ICJ. So their sympathies are likely to be expressed with caveats of âbut you canât quote me on thisâ. As for trade deals to fill the gaps if Agoa gets canceled, all these countries will be watching Trump nervously and keeping all their options open.
Already several of the âprogressiveâ countries like Ireland which decided to recognise a (non-existent) Palestinian state are now being asked whether, in that case, they would accept a large bunch of Palestinian refugees from Gaza ? They shrink from the very thought. Even Jordan and Egypt are loath to accept such refugees, for Hamas is affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in both those countries. As Salman Rushdie has pointed out, a Palestinian state, if created now, would doubtless resemble the Talibanâs Afghanistan or the Ayatollahsâ Iran. No one in their right mind wants to import large numbers of radicalised Gazans swearing loyalty to a genocidal terrorist movement.
South Africaâs foreign ministry has lived under strong Muslim influence ever since 1994 when Mbeki first stationed Aziz Pahad there. This has continued into the era of Naledi Pandor (who had converted to Islam) and Ebrahim Rasool. In addition, of course, during the Cold War the ANC in exile consorted with radical Palestinians as fellow comrades in arms and happily accepted their depiction of Israel as an apartheid state. Fifty years later these Cold War attitudes are still very much alive.
Pandor several times sent emissaries to Palestine (including her D-G, Zane Dangor who has the requisite bitterly anti-Israel views) who carefully avoided having any contact with Israel at all. Although in theory South Africa still favours a two-state solution, in practice it had made its choice of a single (Palestinian) state some time ago. In explaining how she formulated policy towards the Middle East Pandor told the SABC that she consulted Ramaphosa, John Dugard and Ronald Lamola (then minister of justice) for their legal expertise, together with Dangor and Ronnie Kasrils.
In other words, there were no grown-ups in the room, no one who wasnât already wildly partisan, no seasoned diplomats or international relations experts. Had there been, he or she would have started by asking:
– Itâs very expensive to go to the ICJ. Is this being funded by Iran ? There are many rumours to that effect and you have just visited Iran, Ms Pandor, and you are also very friendly with Hamas and Hezbollah. Everyone knows that and also knows that the ANCâs R102 million debt was abruptly and mysteriously paid off in December 2023 and that almost simultaneously Pretoria announced that it was taking a case against Israel to the ICJ. If there is any truth to this rumour, South Africa is in great danger since nothing will enrage the US like our acting as a proxy for Iran.
– The US gives us aid through Pepfar, through support for our medical research and through Agoa. Going to the ICJ could well cost us all of that. Have you worked out what the total loss in money and jobs would be and are you confident that going to the ICJ would still be worth it ? Have you considered the damage it will do to our car industry and our agriculture ?
– If we go to the ICJ we will be siding publicly with Iran, a sponsor of terrorism, and with Hamas and Hezbollah. We will give encouragement to anti-semitism worldwide and we will be abandoning our neutralist foreign policy. All these things will be very bad for our reputation with the Western world and beyond. What is it that we stand to gain that would make all these losses worthwhile ?
It is, however, clear that there were no such grown-up discussions. The fact is that South African foreign policy-making is still in its kindergarten stage where the ANC reels off whatever policy decisions it has arrived at without any regard for consequences. Student-union politics, in other words.
Since then we have had a further comedy of errors, all illustrative of the sheer naivete with which South Africa is approaching this matter of cardinal importance.
Ronald Lamola has unhappily admitted that all of South Africaâs requests for discussions with Trump have met with no response. This is completely unsurprising. Long ago the powerful Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill fastened on the appallingly partisan record of our ambassador. Ebrahim Rasool, with his close links to Hamas and Hezbollah. They have broadcast their findings to members of Congress and the Administration. No one will want anything to do with Rasool.
In any case, the State Department still doesnât have most of its new Trumpian appointees in place, so thereâs no one to talk to. And, finally, neither Trump nor Rubio are interested in discussions unless major concessions are made first. Rubioâs boycott of the G20 meeting has already made that clear.
So, instead, South African emissaries wander about, talking to members of the Congressional Black Caucus which has zero leverage in this situation. The best the (Joâburg) Sunday Times could do was to talk to Jonathan Jackson â Jesse Jacksonâs son, for heavenâs sake â who is so far from being influential that he might as well be the Man in the Moon.
We then saw Gwede Mantashe threatening that, in response to Trumpâs aid cuts, South Africa might not sell key minerals to the US. But aid is not a right, it stems from the unilateral generosity of the donor. Did Mantashe even know of Pepfarâs existence before then ? Would he advocate punishing Russia because it has never given South Africa any aid ?
Now we have the profound foolishness of Ramaphosa saying he doesnât want Muskâs Starlink because Musk has âunprogressiveâ attitudes. Musk is the most brilliant engineer and entrepreneur of our epoch and he has, frankly, no need of our business. The adult thing to do is to ignore his often wacky ideas and attitudes. Being the only African country without Starlink will make us look very stupid and under-developed.
Finally, we have had a whole series of pantomime scenes over Trumpâs expression of sympathy for white Afrikaners and his offer to consider them as refugee immigrants to the US. South Africans in general have missed the point that the whites who matter most to Trump are those already in America. Trump draws huge support from poorer American whites (especially men) who are fed up after decades of affirmative action and DEI policies which have had the effect of putting blacks, Hispanics and women ahead of them in the queue for jobs.
But making any openly racial appeal to whites would be a bad idea for Trump â not just because it would put him in the company of white supremacists, the KKK etc â but because Trump has also been making valuable inroads into the Black and Hispanic vote, which he wouldnât want to jeopardise. However, by expressing sympathy for a group of foreign whites Trump is sending a signal to white American voters too, that their grievances have been noted, their voices heard â and they might even have their numbers increased by the addition of many thousands of Afrikaner whites. This will all go down well with the MAGA tribe, threatened as it is by the prospect of US whites soon becoming a minority, overwhelmed by the incoming black and brown tide.
However, the main comedy act â the round-the-world tour by our high power delegation â still lies ahead. It already seems certain to be a trip to nowhere and no one is betting that they might not call off the American part of their trip before they get there. The whole enterprise seems farcical and rather puts me in mind of the Scottish comedian, Billy Connolly, whose posters read: âBook now ! Donât miss this ! Billy Connollyâs World Tour of Scotlandâ.
Read also:
