Moffat Mungazi
Michell Panashe Magadza and Denzel Chuma
THE United States’ foreign policy towards South Africa has always been a fascinating blend of strategic interests and moral obligations.
This intricate relationship often led to a nuanced form of diplomacy that sometimes felt more like a tactical manoeuvre than a straightforward partnership.
The impacts of this approach have significantly influenced South Africa’s political and economic landscape, leaving echoes that are still resonating in the country today.
From being a key ally on the continent during the 1800s to strained relations due to the implementation of apartheid, the relationship has since had underlining tension.
Efforts to retain it were largely based on geopolitical considerations and interests of the USA securing resources and countering communism expansion and South Africa benefiting from preferential trade and foreign aid.
Today, this relationship is marred by increasing tension and criticism from both parties.
Growing tensions have strained it, and this has only worsened in recent years.
Significant economic and diplomatic actions have been taken since the Trump administration primarily and their adoption of the “America First,” foreign policy.
President Trump has signed an executive order, cutting off financial assistance to South Africa amounting to approximately US$440 million allocated in 2023, after criticising the country’s land expropriation law, accusing the government of engaging in “unjust and immoral” practices towards the white Afrikaner minority.
Much discontent has also been expressed by the United States regarding South Africa’s stance on international issues such as its strengthening ties with Iran as well as its stance on the genocide case against Israel, a strong ally of America, at the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court.
This in turn, according to the US, has undermined their foreign policy and poses a national security risk.
Concerning the issue at the International Court of Justice deliberated upon by the nation state of South Africa, the United States had a “score-to-settle” of some sorts with the southernmost state in Africa.
Trekking back to the events of April last year, the international community witnessed the vetoing of S/2011/592 by the United States which would have granted Palestine permanent membership to the United Nations through a General Assembly consideration of this draft resolution.
An inspection of this decision by the United States reveals application of ‘carrot and stick’ diplomacy wherein; Israel being Washington’s close ally receives the carrot in the form of military aid and diplomatic support and on the other hand; South Africa being Washington’s enemy owing to its courageous actions at the (ICJ) gets the stick, extended to it inclusive of its historical ally Palestine.
The historical alliance of South Africa and Palestine is one without question therefore, for that reason, the US managed to take a blow at South Africa through its weaponisation of veto power in barring admission of Palestine to the United Nations.
The escalating tensions between the US and South Africa pose significant economic risks, particularly regarding the potential revocation of preferential trade access under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
Established in 2000, AGOA provides eligible sub-Saharan African countries with duty-free access to the US market for over 1 800 products, creating vital opportunities for growth and development.
However, with Trump expressing grievances towards South Africa, there is a real concern that AGOA could be wielded as a tool of punishment. If this happens, it could jeopardise, not only South Africa’s trade benefits, but also critical developmental programmes like PEFFAR, as well as initiatives focused on climate change and gender equality.
This situation underscores a troubling trend of weaponizing foreign policy, with far-reaching implications for the nation’s progress and prosperity.
The diplomatic tiff between these two states was further illustrated by the US boycott of the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced his absence signalling US discontent with South Africa’s stance on Israel and the ICC.
This move aligns with broader patterns in US foreign policy under Trump, who has frequently challenged multilateral institutions when they conflict with American strategic interests.
Additionally, it raises concerns for the cohesion of the G20 as internal alliances of the US may undermine strategic goals under South Africa’s presidency and lack of support from a major power such as the US further undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the group.
As US-South Africa relations continue to deteriorate, concerns are raised about the broader impact on regional stability and cooperation not only of the two but also the effects it will have on global dynamics.
South Africa’s growing alignment with alternative global governance structures, such as BRICS, reflects a larger shift in global power dynamics, where nations in the Global South seek to counterbalance Western influence may grow as long as the weaponization of US foreign policies exists so evidently.
The United States stands on its implication of South Africa perusing anti-Americanism policies and has counteracted economically and politically.
The mosaic of diplomatic relations between Pretoria and the United States reveal artistry of disgruntlement and tensions however, the international importance of Pretoria is one that cannot be ignored.
With its influential seat at the BRICS alliance and its ongoing leadership at the G20, Washington may need to reconsider its stance and protect mutual interests with Pretoria as should South Africa with the United States if Pretoria is serious in maintaining its “legitimacy” in respecting human rights.
The writers are students at Africa University.
Online Reporter