While US President Donald Trump has been saying many things about many countries, it does appear as if he is personally offended by the continued existence of a democratically governed South Africa, led by black people who pursue an agenda of restitution.
While there has been much speculation and commentary about the reasons for this, it is clear that our government bringing the genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice is an important element.
Interestingly, the first wave of comments by Trump appears to have led to calls for introspection about the government’s foreign policy.
But the latest events, including the expulsion of Ebrahim Rasool as ambassador to the US for saying something many South Africans believe, may now be leading to a change.
The fact that Rasool was met by such a large crowd, including provincial ANC figures, over the weekend is proof that he, and what he said, has some political support.
This may well have been from some defiance against the Presidency, which had specifically called for restraint on Rasool’s arrival, saying it did not want to antagonise the US any further.
However, on Monday morning, President Cyril Ramaphosa himself appeared to be speaking directly about the US and Trump when he said in his weekly newsletter that, “As South Africans, we should therefore reject the politics of divisiveness that is emerging in many parts of the world. In particular, we should challenge the completely false narrative that our country is a place in which people of a certain race or culture are being targeted for persecution.”
While this speaks directly to the US, Ramaphosa’s other main comment might also be interpreted as a refusal to back down in the Israel case.
Ramaphosa said in the same newsletter that “Human rights are universal and indivisible. As South Africa we stand in solidarity with all those whose right to lead lives of dignity are being undermined by conflict and war”.
Certainly, any move by our government to reverse course on the ICJ case would be met with howls of outrage.
It is even possible that the next few months see a debate around a clear binary choice; either we drop the ICJ case and retain our current trading status with the US (including our inclusion in Agoa), or continue the case and take an economic punishment.
If it were presented in that way, it is entirely possible that most South Africans would prefer to continue with the case.
Political extortion
The main reason is that they would feel it to be wrong to simply give in to bullying by an economic superpower.
And rationally, they would be correct to worry that if we gave in on this case, we may be forced to do other things to keep those trading privileges.
What could start as dropping the case now could result in us having to back the US at the United Nations on all sorts of issues.
In other words, many people may now simply see the US as using its economic power to commit an act of extortion on a poorer country.
Unfortunately, this is the correct way to see it.
However, this also means that South Africa has very little choice. As is well known, both in international relations and most school playgrounds, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. Otherwise, they will keep extorting things from you.
The only other option is to either find a friend who is bigger than the bully or to join a group of people who together can fight the bully.
At the same time, it should not be forgotten how the Russian invasion of Ukraine revealed how deep-seated some opposition to the US is in our society.
Apartheid ‘sympathies’
It was then US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken (for the Biden Administration) who made the point in 2021 (in the context of assumed South African support for Russia) that “The Soviet Union was supportive of the freedom forces in South Africa, and of course, unfortunately, more than unfortunately, the United States was much too sympathetic to the apartheid regime”.
Those with longer memories may well recall how many South African leaders, including then President Thabo Mbeki, spent much time and energy opposing the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
This means that Trump’s attitude to South Africa now, and his continued attacks on the policies of our democratically elected government (however contested they may be), will fall on fertile soil.
It is for this reason that some leaders, such as EFF leader Julius Malema, find it very easy to insult Trump and those around him.
At the same time, the fact that ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula was deeply critical of Trump in an article published in Daily Maverick on Friday suggests attitudes in the ANC are hardening against Trump.
Also, that Rasool published a statement on his return home (surely a first for an ambassador who has been declared persona non grata) may well indicate that it is his understanding that many South Africans will support an anti-Trump agenda.
Political party stances
Meanwhile, this situation does pose different questions for different parties.
For the EFF it is a simple gift. Perhaps Malema’s biggest unique selling point to voters over the years has been his willingness to oppose anti-black racism more loudly than anyone else. This moment allows him to simply attack Trump with no consequences.
The Freedom Front Plus, with a large constituency of farmers who stand to lose if SA is kicked out of Agoa, needs to show its voters the party is fighting for them.
This means the party may prefer a softer, more accommodating line (religion may play a role here too, in that some of its members may prefer to support Israel).
The DA, as always on the situation in the Middle East, may be slightly divided.
It might prefer to try to mollify the US while also standing up for South Africa.
While it has played an important role in fighting the disinformation peddled by AfriForum and others (in some ways being the model of what used to be called a “loyal opposition”), its leaders may prefer a closer relationship with the US.
At the same time, having both Muslim and Jewish members in its caucus means that its leadership has to tread carefully.
Instead, what may emerge is that the DA focuses on grasping an opportunity to increase its power within the national coalition. This may be why the party’s Federal Council chair Helen Zille is publicly proposing that former leader Tony Leon be the next ambassador to the US.
Of course, for the ANC, the largest partner in the coalition and responsible for foreign affairs, the situation is much more complex.
While its decision to take Israel to the ICJ was borne from a long history of supporting the Palestinian cause (as Nelson Mandela once reminded Ted Koppel in the US back in 1990), it also knew that there would be consequences.
While it may not have been foreseeable then that Trump would win the US elections in November last year, it will be the party mostly seen as responsible for any economic fallout from the decision.
It also has to show that it is both making strong moral choices (ie supporting the Palestinians) while behaving responsibly on the economy (ie trying to keep the US as a trading partner).
Within that are difficult domestic options, including deciding on whether to use an ANC member as our next ambassador to the US or giving the national coalition more weight by appointing someone from the DA – or even going outside politics entirely.
If events continue in this direction, South Africa may become less connected to the US, both economically and culturally.
This would reduce the future influence the US has over South Africa and South Africans. In the same way, the UK has lost a huge amount of influence over South Africa over the past 20 years.
This shows how short-sighted Trump’s attitude towards South Africa is. DM