Prof Dirk Kotzé
THE Trump administration commenced with an explosion of presidential executive orders.
The one which surprised South Africans was the executive order meant to stop financial aid to the country and grant refugee status to Afrikaners. This order was justified as a response to South African domestic policies perceived to be discriminatory towards Afrikaners (including farmers) as well as the country’s international policies which favour the Palestinians, Chinese and Iranians. South Africa’s involvement in the International Court of Justice case against Israel received special acrimonious attention.
Trump’s logic appears to be that his election promise to remove all race-based equity policies and establish an equal opportunities and merit-based dispensation, should also be replicated in countries like South Africa.
Systematic lobbying by South Africans that advocated legislation like the Expropriation Act of confiscating land on a wide scale or expropriating it without compensation convinced Trump that an American power display could turn around the situation.It cannot be denied that since 1994, South Africa's international relations agenda has been irritating the Americans.
Though at a personal level quite good friends, Presidents Clinton and Mandela often differed on South Africa’s relations with Cuba, North Korea, the Palestinians, Iran, Western Sahara, China and Russia. In essence, this has not changed over the next 30 years.The South African government’s immediate response to the Trump executive order has been that it is based on incorrect information and a misunderstanding of South African legislation.
It is the result of lobbying by conservative groups like Solidarity and AfriForum for American pressure on the South African government’s policies which they presented as detrimental to minority rights or anti-Afrikaner.This explanation is nothing less than a concession by the Government of its ineffective diplomatic communication of the “correct” information.
It is a reflection of DIRCO’s lack of diplomatic finesse and a diplomatic and communication or “public diplomacy” problem. Poor bilateral dialogue between DIRCO and the American diplomats in South Africa has been a perennial issue since 1994.The WikiLeaks revelations of embassy reports to Washington, DC about a decade ago deepened the suspicions.
The more recent Lady R incident in Simon’s Town revitalized old irritations.In response, the current strategy of the South African government is two-fold.The first part is to mobilise support amongst South Africa’s “allies”. That implied diplomatic missions to be sent to France, Germany, the EU in Brussels, China and Brazil. Note the East/West/South combination of states.
This part is meant to demonstrate support for South Africa amongst a wide range of powerful states.The second part would be a government and business delegation sent to the US. The two-pronged approach is ostensibly to ensure that the South African delegation’s endorsement by important allies will make it more difficult for them to be ignored in Washington, DC.It is not the first time that such a delegation is sent to the US. In 2023 a similar delegation led by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition visited Washington, DC to lobby for South Africa’s continued inclusion in AGOA.
The key objectives of the latest initiative can be summarized in the following five points:
The first is to establish a dialogue with the Trump Administration. It means that face-to-face contact and personal relationships have to be established. It amounts to the fact that mutual trust must be established.
The second objective would be to explain government policies such as the Expropriation and BELA Acts, South Africa’s reasons for the Israel case in the International Court of Justice or South Africa’s foreign policy of non-alignment.
The third objective would be to lay the foundation for a bilateral trade relationship which addresses AGOA, trade tariffs and the trade balance issue.
Fourthly, it is in South Africa’s interest that the USA rejoins the G20 process, despite the Secretary of State and Treasury Secretary's refusal to attend the meetings of foreign and finance ministers in South Africa.
Finally, the objective should also be to start developing a new basis for bilateral relations between the two states.
Trump should be understood as a person who first destroys before he rebuilds.What would be the message of these high-level diplomatic missions? Communication is partly about the content of the message, partly with whom it is communicated and partly about the medium of communication.
The content is not only about the inaccuracies regarding policies but also about South Africa’s international posturing: it is not anti-US, anti-West and pro-China or Russia but non-aligned like India and Brazil.
South Africa’s association with the Global South or BRICS is not synonymous with pro-China. India’s posturing is a good example to demonstrate it. Similarly, the ICJ case is not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel and pro-Hamas.
The ANC’s traditional Palestinian ally has been the PLO. South Africa’s foreign policy objective of a rules-based international order and respect for international law is the overarching principle. A communication message has to be developed regarding the post-apartheid policy objectives of social and economic development, how restructuring and transformation are envisaged and how racial denotations are used as policy categories.
Emphasis will have to be placed on how foreign confidence can be developed and that these policies are not discriminatory, do not threaten constitutional guarantees and do not undermine investment opportunities.The effectiveness of the envisaged diplomatic missions is not guaranteed.
So far, Mexico and Canada engaged in talks with the Trump administration on trade tariffs with some success. The Indian prime minister’s visit to Trump also produced good results for him.
Direct engagement with Washington, DC can therefore make a difference, but it requires diplomatic finesse and not grandstanding. The relationship between South Africa and the US is not set on a level playing field managed by a non-partisan referee.
South Africa’s diplomatic strategy therefore cannot use power to push the US back. The diplomatic missions will have to identify whether an improved, longer-term relationship with the US is possible or whether other options (such as the African Free Trade Area) must be developed thus reducing the country’s dependence on US trade and investments.
* Prof Dirk Kotzé, Department of Political Sciences, Unisa.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.