Remedies come from accurate diagnoses. Before we can deal with a problem, we have to admit it exists.
The nature of the problem then needs to be recognised: not just that something is amiss, but what brought it to this point. From this, solutions can be designed to address issues as they exist – or, perhaps, an acceptance that no resolution is possible.
Part of this process requires being able (and willing) to determine how various parties have contributed to the issue at hand. Sometimes, after all, solutions can only be produced by particular participants and would require them to change their behaviour.
These thoughts occurred to me over the past few weeks, as South Africa steamed towards the tariff deadline and had to confront the reality that its relationship with the United States had broken down. I had numerous discussions with people from all walks of society, and it was clear that these matters were front-of-mind for them. Much the same was reflected in public discourse as a whole, except perhaps where it really counted: in the country’s diplomacy.
There, the prevailing impression was of nodding complacency. Yes, it’s a concern. We’ve done our bit. We even made the slog over there to explain things. Passed over some ideas, and waiting to hear back. Looking for an extension. Don’t really understand it all, since our relationship with America is great, sort of. Key partner (though not when we’re with the Chinese, as we’ve been over the past few weeks).
This unfolded while South Africa had no ambassador in Washington, and, as it turned out, the “special envoy” wasn’t welcome either. (It now turns out that his remit was North America, so perhaps we can still iron out those crippling confrontations with the perfidious Canadians. If we can identify any.)
Still, the message from the government – and specifically the ANC component, which, as the party likes to put it, is its “leader” – is that it will do what it is doing, no more (possibly less). It will then shake its head ruefully at the consequences, with a “whowouldathunkit” look on its face. Then a shrug.
Deeply symbolic
And, as Tony Leon pointed out in his column, on the day set for the introduction of the tariffs (in the event, they were announced – we get 30% – and are due to be implemented in the coming days), President Ramaphosa would be in Guinea-Bissau. Guinea-Bissau, for those not up to date with it, is an unstable narco-state with which we do about R12 million in trade a year. There is something deeply symbolic about this.
I’ve detected a definite strain of confusion as to how this could be the case. Trade with the US may not be the entirety of our portfolio, but it’s important. South Africa, with an economy struggling to clear 1% annual economic growth and battling unemployment and associated deprivation, not to mention its aspirations for industrialisation, cannot afford to just let that go.
Now don’t misunderstand. I can’t imagine that dealing with the Trump administration is easy, especially since in this iteration, most of the old guard Republicans who maintained an even keel are no longer around. South Africa is not the only country entering this period with big (not so beautiful) tariffs clouding the horizon. It’s just that I don’t see any significant drive towards dealing with the US.
Perhaps it’s just incompetence. This would be an easy explanation, since it is a daily reality, from the state of municipal governance to the operation of our embassies. It’s been noted for years – and this includes from within the state itself – that our diplomatic corps is failing to promote the country’s interests abroad. The failure of the relationship between South Africa and the US has been brewing for years – think of the friction over the docking of the Lady R – with little having been done to deal with it. When faced with something of this magnitude, South Africa’s diplomats were out of their depth.
Ideological obsession
Maybe it’s a case of ideological obsession and a sense of South African exceptionalism. A worldview so entrenched, in relation to domestic and global issues, makes compromise difficult to countenance, if not impossible. So, when an issue such as race-based empowerment policy arises, there is no latitude to rethink it, irrespective of the real-world consequences that it is inflicting. Ideas are in a sense more real than reality.
Along with that, South Africa has become accustomed to a view of itself as somehow “special”. This is the view that shines from officialdom (though seen rather more sceptically by the rest of us), and which occasional plaudits from abroad have encouraged. This is former Ambassador Rasool’s fantasy of being a “moral superpower”. Perhaps “moral superpowers” are accustomed to the adoration of their peers, and expect that ultimately they will be indulged. That moral credibility was always a declining asset, and for some time I have suspected that it has been exhausted. President Trump – to use a phrase much invoked in recent years – merely made explicit what was implicit.
The issue may also relate to the fact that the consequences of these tariffs will be borne, immediately, by the firms whose goods will now be uncompetitive in the US market. For a political party imbued with a strong strain of hostility towards “capitalism”, this may not find much resonance.
Others have suggested that this is something of a geopolitical gambit, with the ANC daring the US to do its worst, or even welcoming it. This would force South Africa to decouple from the US and to direct its full energies towards like-minded revisionist powers. (BRICS is the solution, though we’re not entirely sure how.) This would align with the positioning that the ANC has adopted for around two decades. ANC discussion documents reveal a deep hostility to the US, so perhaps – combined with a dramatic and inflated estimation of the party’s role in history – this is seen less as a calamity than an opportunity.
Simply exhausted
All of these may play some role, though I suspect that something else may be at play. The ANC in particular, and the government it heads, is simply exhausted: out of ideas, out of idealism, and unable to think of positive outcomes. Its record in office has been a patchy one, though clearly more successful in its earlier phases than in those that have followed. President Ramaphosa can call upon precious little to celebrate. Shrugging shoulders may come more naturally.
In the face of what is likely to be a very damaging reality, and lacking the wherewithal and the urgency to address it, South Africa’s response has defaulted to two well-rehearsed responses.
The first of these is palliatives. With the looming loss of competitiveness in the US, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition has announced “urgent interventions”, principally an export advisory service that is meant to help affected companies keep abreast of developments and find alternative markets. I suspect that many firms would have entered such markets on their own if this was a viable strategy, and it’s an open question why the DTIC has not for years been assisting them to do so – if indeed it has the capacity. I’m afraid I’m not sold on the prospects for this.
The second is scapegoating. This is something the ANC has been doing with relish as long as I can remember. Its view of itself as the natural leader of society is not conducive to productive self-evaluation, and unfortunately, many observers have been willing to go along with that view. Political violence, corruption, dishonesty, misgovernance: one could probably go on. If there was an admission that the ANC or its members were involved (and not infrequently, this was not admitted), well, it needed to be understood in view of the intolerable behaviour of everyone else.
It was the third force, counter-revolution, opposition groups, the media, apartheid-era operatives, business (or white monopoly capital), or some other untransformed entity.
It’s the same thing this time. If averting the tariffs was not given adequate priority, plenty was given to pointing fingers at those who weren’t sufficiently deferential to the sentiments prevalent in the ANC, such as DIRCO or the Presidency.
Solidarity, AfriForum, the Democratic Alliance (not least the formidable Emma Powell), the Freedom Front Plus, Theo de Jager, Gerhard Papenfus, Zionists, Elon Musk and probably a number of others not listed here. It’s nonsense of course, and if those who are meant to be at the wheel had any sense of humility (perhaps any sense at all), they would have tried to use the access that such organisations had opened, rather than deploring them for having such access in the first place. But maybe there was never an expectation that anything could be done – or needed to be done – so any small opportunities that presented themselves were irritably waved aside.
Tragic or farcical
I can’t decide whether it’s tragic or farcical.
So here we are. Unless something can be negotiated, we’re staring down the barrel of a severe trade problem. I suspect that this will not end well for the US either, but only a fool would take comfort in that; the problem is there are more than a few fools about. Unfortunately, I have my doubts that this situation really is understood for the mess it is.
I can say with certainty that there is as good as no recognition that the action (and inaction) of those who’ve presided over South Africa’s foreign relations have anything to reflect on. I imagine there might even be a sense of smug satisfaction that they stuck one in the imperialist eye, and that they would have suffered no consequences, had this legion of disloyal foreign agents not been inveigled into a campaign against the national interest. The country’s security services can even produce a hokey report on it.
Perhaps that’s a comforting narrative in certain quarters. But it misstates the situation in which South Africa finds itself, and until there is an appreciation of this, I’m not encouraged about the future course of events.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend