In February, I wrote up some thoughts about what a South African delegation could say to Donald Trump and his administration to salvage something of the relationship between the two countries. Since then, things have tumbled from bad to worse.
So, when news broke that President Ramaphosa would be travelling to Washington for discussions with President Trump, I was probably not alone in hoping that this might be an opportunity for some progress.
I emphasise that this is hope, rather than optimism.
Interestingly, the news came in as the first planeload of South Africans admitted to the US touched down in that country. The frenetic media coverage and furious government denouncement of this initiative shows that it has deeply unsettled many people in positions of authority in South Africa.
As a statement from the Department of International Relations and Co-operation (DIRCO) put it: “It is most regrettable that it appears that the resettlement of South Africans to the United States under the guise of being “refugees” is entirely politically motivated and designed to question South Africa’s constitutional democracy; a country which has in fact suffered true persecution under Apartheid rule and has worked tirelessly to prevent such levels of discrimination from ever occurring again, including through the entrenchment of rights in our Constitution, which is enforced vigorously through our judicial system.”
That’s an important comment, containing as it does multiple insights into official thinking: the indignation; the accusations; the reflexive invocation of the country’s past; and the denial that anything is amiss in the Rainbow Nation, aside perhaps from the need for more transformation. Certainly, this has been the preferred narrative when facing the outside world.
On to something
It also seems to me that DIRCO may be on to something in alleging that this is “designed to question South Africa’s constitutional democracy”. The scenario of its citizens seeking refuge elsewhere – spin that how you will – is an indictment on the country. That these may be white Afrikaners (Boers, land thieves, good riddance etc.) is beside the point. South Africa’s moral claims are premised on being a successful, non-racial, post-transition society.
The refugee programme leaves an impression, less as an avenue for a mass exodus of a forlorn minority than as a high-profile, sensational form of diplomatic trolling. It’s meant to knock South Africa off the moral perch it has occupied. Trump is playing hardball – as Joel Pollack predicted, when he seemed like the probable ambassadorial choice – and seems willing to inflict a lot of pain. The trouble is that it isn’t quite clear what he wants.
So, the big question is what President Ramaphosa will say to President Trump. The harsh reality is that good diplomatic relations are simply not on the table. South Africa’s global positioning (and, with President Trump, its internal policies) have placed it too sharply at odds with the US for these to be viable now. We will, I fear, be living with this antagonism for some considerable time to come.
The South African government claims a “principled non-alignment”. This is patent nonsense, but its representatives have invariably feigned wounded innocence and surprise when confronted about its conduct.
President Ramaphosa should acknowledge that the US has legitimate concerns and genuine grievances over South Africa’s position. This won’t resolve anything, but at least it might signal a degree of honesty and maturity in the relationship, and perhaps an opening to try and work towards improvement over time.
It’s the economy, stupid
But it’s really the economy that interests President Trump, and his administration has put a lot of emphasis on cutting trade and investment deals. The lure of wealth will trump (pun intended) the odium of politics.
Media reports indicate that proposals for an economic deal are well advanced, and these will be presented by President Ramaphosa. There are no details of this, but economics would be a good place to start. Money, after all, wears a very faded ideological jacket.
This is also the side of the matter that counts for most of us. It’s about the thousands of jobs that are linked to the US market – not least high-wage, value-adding work in manufacturing – about the 600 US companies invested in South Africa, about the ability to access US financial services, about American tourist dollars, and even about whether we can get hold of the cool stuff that American companies bring to market. Love Trump or hate him, love the US or hate it (and there is more than enough hatred in official circles in South Africa), it’s a relationship that matters.
The big question – literally, the million-dollar question – is what President Ramaphosa will be willing to offer, and in exchange for what.
Central offering
News reports suggest that gas is a central offering: US involvement in exploration and the construction of infrastructure in South Africa, and South African procurement of gas from the US. There have been other, less specific suggestions of co-operation in energy, transport, and agriculture.
One obvious competitive advantage for South Africa is our mineral wealth and perhaps even more, our mining expertise. Both would be useful resources for the US, given Trump’s emphasis on industrialisation. (Fun fact: miners from the US were strongly represented among those who came to South Africa in the 19th Century Gold Rush – their experience in California was of enormous value.)
Beyond that, South Africa has a population, which – by African standards – has significant purchasing power and a taste for foreign products. Shopworn though market opportunities may be, they still have their attractions.
The question will be whether President Ramaphosa will offer anything substantive in relation to the various policy positions that President Trump has attacked, directly and obliquely.
The most crucial issues here are empowerment and employment equity. They are a particular disincentive to doing business in South Africa, and a significant concern to US firms doing business here. Recent amendments to make them more punitive and coercive (along with suggestions to do so even more aggressively in future) only add to South Africa’s malaise. They’ve also played a role in the absence of StarLink from South Africa, even as its services are rolled out to our neighbours and even as we bemoan our unsatisfactory connectivity. These are longstanding barriers to economic growth and job creation and need to be reviewed in any event – or, at any rate, given the state of the country, they should be.
Property rights
Then there is the question of property rights. This is hardly a peripheral matter. We at the IRR have spent considerable time and energy making the case that there has been a long-running strategy to expand the latitude of the state to seize property. This, too, has been part of Trump’s grievance against South Africa, although he has fallen into exactly the same trap as have many other commentators, in referring to this as all about land and specifically farms.
And no, this is not happening as yet. The issue is far broader, and the new legislation creates enormous potential for abuse in respect of all types of property – shares, artworks etc. – and land may well not be the most imperilled or important.
Along with this, some re-examination of the localisation framework would be in order, especially since a lot of it is simply implausible in any event. Imports are not the enemy but are rather crucial enablers.
Unfortunately, all this is likely to run into the kill zone of ideology. These policies are firmly rooted in the ANC’s worldview, and are, as Rob Davies once said, something that South Africa would “not be able” to abandon. Therein lies the problem, since the policies have hardly worked wonders for us so far.
And for his part – as I said in my February contribution – President Ramaphosa is and always has been fundamentally a party politician rather than a statesman. I fear he would rather accept the economic damage of failing economic relationships than risk offending any of the interests within his party.
Some days ago, he said: “I had a conversation with President Trump on the phone, and he asked me, ‘What’s going on down there?’ and I told him that what you are being told by those people who are opposed to transformation back in South Africa is not true.”
Danger
Herein lies a danger. The stock response to President Trump from the South African authorities has been that this is all a big, fat misunderstanding. Misinformation (careful of this: the word has a distasteful resonance to Trump). If it can be “explained” everything will fall back into line. This is poppycock, and it also echoes the line that the previous government took. South Africa’s crisis is largely one of its own making.
The risk is that President Ramaphosa will approach this engagement with the idea that he can set his American counterpart right and make him understand that counterproductive policy is really an imperative. This will backfire spectacularly. I imagine that President Trump knows very well that there is no genocide, even though – I’m equally confident – he’s not well informed about it. But Ramaphosa would challenge that in public at his great peril.
Swallowing national and personal pride – still more, the pride and self-conception of a liberation movement that has shown itself bulletproof to meaningful introspection – will be tough. If he can’t, he can expect to endure his own Zelenskyy moment, and we can all forget a deal.
On past experience, I reiterate that I’m hoping, but I’m not optimistic.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend
Image: ChatGPT