White House, Hot Seat.

Has South Africa succeeded in resetting its US relations?

South Africa is in a tight spot. Thirty years after having dismantled the apartheid system and ushered in full democracy, the promise of a prosperous, free, and equal society remains as elusive as ever. Poverty, unemployment, inequality, a corrupt and inefficient administration, dysfunctional coalition politics, crumbling infrastructure, violent crime, and an impending fiscal cliff These are the many wretched faces of South Africa’s looming polycrisis, the silent constants of all our days. However, as Adam Smith famously reminds us, “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation” In an uncertain world like ours, things could always be worse.

It was likely this fear that drove the once recalcitrant South African government to put together its diplomatic A team for a face-to-face discussion with Donald Trump at the White House on May 21st. At stake was nothing less than the US–South Africa relationship, which had bestowed upon us valuable lifelines—chief among them AGOA (the African Growth and Opportunity Act), a load-bearing crutch for our export industries that kept the US consumer market accessible.. The threat of direct sanctions against some of the country’s leaders may also have had something to do with it.

Prior to their arrival, local officials indicated that their objective with these talks was nothing short of a “strategic reset” of relations, The delegations composition certainly spoke to this. Besides himself, President Cyril Rhamaposa had in tow a veritable whos who of political leaders, economic magnates and individuals with whom Trump himself has had past dealings. Ronald Lamola, the minister for international relations. Khumbudzo Nsthaveni & Parks Tau, responsible for State Security & Trade respectively, John Steenhuizen, minister of agriculture and (more importantly) the head of the economically liberal, pro-US, opposition party, the democratic alliance Bringing up the rear were Johan Ruppert, the countries most important oligarch, and more curiously, Retief Goosen and Ernie Els, SA pro golfers who Trump already knew personally due to his well-publicized personal fondness for the sport.

However, if the South African delegation believed that a few rounds of golf would be enough to smooth things over, they were badly mistaken. Personally, I find the media’s decision to label what followed in the Oval Office as an “ambush” misleading. That term suggests Ramaphosa and his team were blindsided, yet the warning signs were clear. In the weeks leading up to the meeting, issues such as Afrikaner refugees, farm murders, land expropriation without compensation, and Julius Malema’s inflammatory antics were all trending in both mainstream U.S. media and the dissident Twitter ecosystem that Trump’s advisors actively monitor. Equally foreseeable was the awkward, reality-TV-style moment when Trump tried to put Ramaphosa on the defensive in front of the cameras, a tactic he had previously used on Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky earlier this year. Brash and confrontational as it was, the episode was entirely predictable.

Sadly, in their rush to always take the opposite position on whatever is occupying Trump's mind at any given time, international commentators have forgotten the original purpose of the meeting entirely. As I outlined in my last piece, the Afrikaner rights controversy is a sideshow to the actual source of friction between the two countries - that being South Africa's waning commitment to free market economics and most importantly, its diplomatic provocations since the October 7 attacks against Israel.

So did the closed-door conversations that followed the initial minstrel show reset relations at all? The sudden shift in government PR over the last week or more certainly suggests this may be the case. Both the government and its cheerleaders in the press suddenly pretend to care about farm murders again after having spent the last few months condemning concerned activists as liars. Elon Musk's starlink may potentially be allowed to circumvent BEE legislation, a landmark ruling in the wider context of increasing legal challenges to such laws. Ronald Lamola even went so far as to send his condolences to Israel for the recent loss of their two embassy staff during his recent CNN appearance..

Is this diplomacy in earnest, or a carefully staged performance? It's too soon to tell, but experience with the ANC gives reason for skepticism. Since 1994, the party has gained a strong reputation for corruption and excess, but this appetite for material wealth shouldn’t be mistaken for a genuine embrace of capitalism. At heart, the ANC remains a deeply ideological organization, committed to redistributive economics at home and anti-colonial/anti-western politics abroad. Its contrary reputation stems from its strategic use of what Lenin called the “balance of forces” or the idea that parties seeking revolution have to occasionally moderate their behaviour during times of relative vulnerability.

Nothing encapsulates this quite like the figure of Cyril Ramaphosa himself. A born chameleon, his ability to curry favour with key business elites whilst simultaneously seeking left-wing political objectives is emblematic of the party at large. Originally a union boss, he rose to prominence as the ANC’s chief negotiator during the transition in the early 1990s. One of his key objectives at that time was achieving buy-in from big business and the investor community, a rapprochement that was so successful that he subsequently became one of the wealthiest men in the country. In 2017 he cashed in his political and financial clout to secure the ANC leadership and national presidency, positioning himself as a liberal reformer intent on saving the economy. The resulting “Ramaphoria” in the media was short-lived. By mid-2018, Ramaphosa appeared to reverse course, announcing his intention to implement EWC and other radical reforms under the ANC’s National Democratic Revolution plan.

Fortunately, Ramaphosa himself has been on record to clear up the mystery of this apparent duplicitousness. In the 1990s, when asked about what the ANC’s ultimate plan was for dealing with its domestic enemies, he reportedly replied that it would be done the way one “boiled a frog”, i.e by slowly raising the temperature in such a way that the frog is killed without ever provoking a violent reaction. What Ramaphosa likely didn't know at the time however was that the 1870 experiment of Friedrich Goltz that this phrase was based on likely only got this result because the subjects in question had parts of their central neural system removed In other words, this stunt only works on you if you no longer have a brain.

Sadly for the ANC, and despite some evidence to the contrary, this does not in fact seem to be the case with the Americans. Although South African officials confidently claimed the strategic reset was successful, the Americans seem hesitant to offer any wholehearted endorsement for now. For one they've announced their intent to snub the G20 agriculture summit specifically, a gesture that carries some heavy symbolism at the moment. The Trump team is likely expecting some radical reversals in policy from the ANC but could Ramaphosa deliver even if he wanted to? Unlike his predecessors, Zuma & Mbeki, he has no large ethnic base to draw from, which means that he has always gotten ahead by telling his present interlocutor everything they wanted to hear. Doubling back on core tenets like land redistribution and support for Palestine,, -or worse, being seen to be doing so under pressure from Trump-would evaporate Ramaphosa’s support overnight at best. At worst, it could destroy the ANC’s electability altogether, handing momentum to its more radical offshoots like the EFF and MK, who would likely respond by doubling down on those very issues purely out of spite.

That would be the pessimistic view, but more positive outcomes are possible if the stars align. Despite its flaws, South Africa is not just another African country that global powers can afford to overlook. Its significant role as a supplier of key minerals and as a guardian of a crucial maritime trade route ensures that an America intent on preserving global influence will continue to pay close attention. With an economy too small and dysfunctional to sustain itself independently, aligning with a reluctant yet capable development partner willing to invest in infrastructure and support local industries in exchange for political neutrality may be the most pragmatic option. And realistically, there are no viable alternatives. Russia and Iran are too small and too entangled in their own regional crises to fill the gap. China, meanwhile, has scaled back its engagement as it grapples with post-COVID economic decline. Try as it might, the ANC might find that the balance of forces is not as much in its own favour as it would like to think.