Ebrahim Rasool, a veteran leader within the African National Congress (ANC), has served as South Africa’s ambassador to Washington for two separate terms. His reappointment last year has sparked significant controversy. But the United States should reject Rasool’s continued ambassadorship due to his alleged connections to international terrorism, his explicit support for extremist organizations such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and his historical role in straining U.S.-South Africa relations.
Rasool’s tenure as a political figure and diplomat has been marked by his advocacy for causes that align with organizations designated as terrorist groups by many Western nations. His alleged ties to Hamas and PIJ raise serious concerns about his ability to represent South Africa’s interests without compromising the nation’s international standing.
Through his influence within the ANC, Rasool has been accused of advancing a narrative that demonizes Israel while promoting the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood—a controversial Islamist organization with global influence. Such actions have alienated significant segments of the global community and South Africa’s diverse population.
Paramount importance
During his previous term as ambassador, Rasool’s actions reportedly undermined the historically strong relationship between South Africa and the United States. This relationship, characterized by mutual economic and political benefits, is of paramount importance. The United States is South Africa’s second-largest trading partner after China, and jeopardizing this partnership is ill-advised. Rasool’s divisive rhetoric and controversial affiliations have already strained this relationship, and his reappointment risks further deterioration.
The Biden administration’s patience with South Africa has been notable, especially following the controversial docking of the Russian cargo ship Lady R at Simon’s Town Naval Base, which raised suspicions of South Africa’s support for Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, South Africa’s decision to bring Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on allegations of genocide in Gaza has exacerbated tensions with the U.S., a staunch ally of Israel.
These developments highlight the precarious nature of U.S.-South Africa relations, which Rasool’s continued ambassadorship could further jeopardize.
Rasool’s political career within South Africa has not been without controversy. As a leader in the ANC, he failed to secure the Western Cape province for the party, which repeatedly lost to the Democratic Alliance (DA) under his watch. The ANC’s hopes that Rasool would consolidate Muslim electoral support in the province proved futile. His inability to deliver politically raises questions about his effectiveness as a representative of South Africa’s interests on the global stage.
AGOA
South Africa’s participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has been a cornerstone of its economic relationship with the United States. This agreement provides South African products, brands, and services with access to one of the world’s largest markets. However, the U.S. has reportedly considered withdrawing South Africa’s AGOA benefits due to recent geopolitical tensions and South Africa’s perceived alignment with authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China.
Rasool’s continued ambassadorship could exacerbate these tensions, potentially leading to economic repercussions for South Africa. His alleged involvement in mobilizing financial support for extremist organizations not only tarnishes South Africa’s reputation but also undermines the economic stability that AGOA provides. It is nonsensical to risk such an important economic relationship over actions that yield no tangible benefits for South Africa.
Autocrats
Rasool’s diplomatic efforts have often appeared to prioritize relationships with autocratic governments and organizations that have little regard for democracy or human rights. His alleged ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, as well as his support for regimes in Iran, China, and Russia, run counter to South Africa’s stated foreign policy pillars of promoting democracy and human rights. These affiliations not only damage South Africa’s international standing but also divert attention from the nation’s pressing domestic challenges.
South Africa’s role within the BRICS economic bloc has become increasingly controversial with the inclusion of Iran, a nation widely criticized for its human rights abuses and support for terrorism. Rasool’s advocacy for closer ties with Iran and other BRICS members risks alienating South Africa from its traditional allies in the West. While BRICS aims to establish an alternative global economic order, its alignment with authoritarian regimes undermines the principles of democracy and human rights that South Africa purports to uphold.
Ebrahim Rasool’s reappointment as South Africa’s ambassador to the United States poses significant risks to both nations. His alleged ties to extremist organizations, divisive political history, and prioritization of autocratic alliances over democratic values make him an unsuitable representative. The United States, as South Africa’s critical trading partner and ally, should reconsider its acceptance of Rasool as ambassador.
For South Africa, the stakes are high. The nation’s economic future, international reputation, and adherence to democratic principles hang in the balance. Appointing a diplomat who embodies these values is essential for preserving South Africa’s relationships with its allies and ensuring a prosperous future for its citizens.
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