The recent diplomatic efforts by Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations, to engage with the United States of America, represent a complex and significant shift in the international relations landscape.

Pandor is currently on a working visit to the US and Jamaica.

The Department of International Affairs and Co-operation (DIRCO) advises that the purpose of Minister Pandor’s visit to the US is ‘to engage in high-level consultations and discussions with various stakeholders and organisations, ranging from government, non-governmental, captains of businesses, academia and key figures’.

Other activities will include a Roundtable discussion with the US-Africa Business Centre; a Fireside Chat hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; engagements with Members of religious organisations, as well as meeting Members of Congress.

The members of Congress she’ll be meeting are unknown, but on Wednesday, 20 March 2024 the House of Representatives will debate and vote upon he bipartisan “U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act” (Here).

In essence the Act aims set in progress at review of the bilateral relationship between the US and South Africa in light of South Africa’s non-aligned foreign policy position.

Background

Since the ANC assumed power in South Africa in 1994, it has publicly committed to a policy of nonalignment in international affairs, emphasising neutrality and independence in global conflicts.

However, the South African government has, in recent years, been accused of siding with ‘malign actors’ like Hamas, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation, and fostering closer ties with both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Russian Federation.

Contradictions and Criticisms

The critique from Congress claims an inconsistency in South Africa’s foreign policy.

It highlights a discrepancy between the ANC’s stated policy of nonalignment and its actions, which appear to show a leaning towards certain controversial actors on the global stage.

The support for Hamas, in particular, alongside anti-Israel statements from ANC leaders, especially in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, has drawn sharp criticism.

Such actions have raised questions about the ANC’s commitment to its nonalignment policy and its implications for South Africa’s international relations, especially with Western countries like the United States.

Shuttle Diplomacy

Naledi Pandor’s diplomatic engagement with the United States could be viewed as an attempt to navigate these complex geopolitical waters.

This “diplomatic shuttle” comes at a time when South Africa’s foreign policy choices are under scrutiny, not just by the US but by the broader international community.

Pandor’s mission could be aimed at clarifying South Africa’s positions, mending fences, and potentially re-aligning South Africa’s foreign policy in a way that is more palatable to Western sensibilities.

The visit could:

  • Rebalance Relationships with still the richest and most powerful country in the world;
  • Attract critique both domestic and international;
  • Internationally, critics may view the visit as an insufficient measure to counterbalance the ANC’s previous actions and statements;
  • Pandor’s efforts could recalibrate or aggravate South Africa’s foreign policy, especially regarding its stance towards the Middle East, and its now favoured relations with the autocracies of China, Russia and Iran.

The outcomes of this diplomatic engagement could have far-reaching implications for South Africa’s foreign policy, its international standing, and its relationships with key global powers.

However, the lack of diplomatic prowess displayed in the exercise of its foreign policy by pivoting so undiplomatically away from the West will require a critical examination of the ANC’s foreign policy.

The chilling of US/SA relations may result in a strong response, including the potential removal of South Africa from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) agreement, a punitive measure that underscores the seriousness of the situation.

The Case for Punitive Measures

The unwavering support for Hamas, which Pandor said in Parliament South Africa does not consider to be a terrorist organisation, and the antisemitic rhetoric emanating from some of its members, are not just troubling but are antithetical to the values espoused in the AGOA framework.

AGOA stands as a testament to the US’s commitment to supporting African nations in their pursuit of economic growth and development, provided they uphold principles of human rights, rule of law, and political pluralism.

South Africa’s continued preference for aligning with governments and organisations that directly contradict these values not only undermines the ethos of AGOA but also questions the integrity of South Africa’s commitment to a fair and just global order.

The ANC’s actions have further cast a shadow over South Africa’s international reputation, raising valid concerns about its reliability as a partner in promoting the democratic values and economic opportunities AGOA seeks to foster.

The Necessity of a Strong Stance

Removing South Africa from AGOA is a measure that, while severe, may be necessary under the circumstances of an ANC whose foreign policy is at odds with the desperate needs of the South African public.

It would serve as a clear signal of the limits of the international community’s tolerance for South Africa’s support of terrorism or engagement with malign actors that threaten global peace and security.

Such a step would be the ultimate message, that the credibility of AGOA and the importance of alignment in foreign policy with internationally accepted norms and values, is not to be sneered at.

It’s a call for South Africa to realign its foreign policy in a way that is congruent with the principles of democracy, human rights, and international solidarity, which were pivotal to its own struggle against apartheid and its aftermath.

Considerations and Implications

South Africa’s removal from AGOA would have significant economic repercussions, potentially harming not just the South African government but also the citizens, who may face increased unemployment and economic instability.

Once again the ANC’s myopic approach to the fact that what is good for the ANC may be disastrous for the country, risks the wrong approach being taken by Pandor.

The problem is whether Pandor has the skills, understanding and heft to navigate what could be an extremely unfriendly reception by some of her interlocutors. 

At a Palestinian solidarity event in Laudium in Pretoria last week encouraged people to protest outside the embassies of what she called the “five primary supporters” of Israel and its military action in Gaza. Some foreign diplomats have protested to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation and will demand police protection.

At a recent “A football for Humanity” soccer match at Athlone Stadium held recently between a ‘hand-picked Western Cape 11 and Palestine’, Pandor enthusiastically raised her fist and chanted ‘From the river to the sea’ in response to exhortation by the master of ceremonies. She knows that the call is for genocide of Jews.

There are no words to describe the diplomatic bomb that she unleashed given the position she holds in government. Speaking in any other capacity does not cut it.

Problematic affiliations

The necessity to respond firmly to the ANC’s contradictory foreign policy, particularly its problematic affiliations and actions, is undeniable.

The irony is that strictly speaking South Africa didn’t qualify for participation in AGOA: its inclusion served political and strategic purposes.

Removing South Africa from the AGOA agreement stands as a potent reminder of the consequences of straying from the path of shared democratic values and international norms.

Such a measure, while harsh, may be necessary in reaffirming the principles that underpin international cooperation and economic development initiatives like AGOA.

It is a necessary step to ensure that the spirit of mutual respect, democratic integrity, and commitment to global peace and security is maintained and respected by all participating nations.

South Africa is a global minnow and the ANC ignores it at our peril.

The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR

If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend

Image: Flickr, GCIS, https://www.flickr.com/photos/governmentza/52276107631/in/photostream/

contributor

Mark Hyman is a healthcare professional with over four decades of experience in the industry. Among his accomplishments include the very first integration of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) of Pharmacy Claims in real time; and starting the PharmaPlus Chain of pharmacies with a clinic, nursing sister, and medical doctors, which grew to 54 clinics. He also started PharmaPlus Capitated Medical Aid focusing on smaller Unionised Groupings as clients. In 2018, Mark founded MediCheck, which helps members of medical aids with claims difficulties. In 2020, he was appointed to the Council for Medical Schemes Advisory Board on Fraud, Waste, and Abuse, acting in the interests of members of medical schemes. In 2023, Mark was appointed the External Ombudsman for the FedHealth Medical Aid Scheme. In 2021, Mark founded Citizens for Integrity with Willie Hofmeyr (former Head of SIU and AFU) to do pro bono work in Members of Medical Aids interests in any matter going to litigation.