Is Rupert's place in US delegation double standards or just good for business?
South African businessman and Chairman of Remgro, Johann Rupert speaks at the University of Pretoria in Pretoria, South Africa on 15 October 2008. Picture: Gallo Images/Foto24/Cornel van Heerden
President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to include controversial billionaire Johann Rupert on his negotiation team with the US government has been fiercely criticised by opposition parties and drawn questions from an expert.
Rupert has been seen as a controversial figure in local politics and has been criticised by leftist parties such as the EFF for gaining enormous wealth through racist policies that benefited white South Africans before 1994.
Rupert will enter the negotiations alongside South African golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen.
Ramaphosa will also be flanked by his core political team, which includes the Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, the International Relations Minister, Ronald Lamola, the Agriculture Minister, John Steenhuisen, and the Trade & Industry Minister, Parks Tau.
Rupert's influence over Ramaphosa
African Transformation Movement (ATM) spokesperson Zama Ntshona told The Citizen that the party is concerned with the inclusion of powerful 'white figures' in Ramaphosa's delegation.
'President Ramaphosa's decision to include predominantly white figures in this delegation may be perceived as an appeal to 'whiteness' in addressing complex economic challenges.
'This approach prioritises the interests of historically privileged groups and, in doing so, undermines the transformative goals of the post-apartheid era.
'Economic solutions must not come at the expense of inclusivity and should be rooted in equitable representation that acknowledges the historical injustices faced by the majority of South Africans,' he said.
It is a criticism echoed by the EFF, who suggested Ramaphosa may be controlled by big business.
'This can only be described as a capture and an exhibition of the undue influence of big business in an interaction between two nations premised on democracy and sovereignty.' EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said.
ALSO READ: Rupert in Ramaphosa delegation is 'spitting in face of democracy' – EFF
The party has threatened legal action if a reported 'workaround' to allow Trump-backer Elon Musk to bring his Starlink internet services into the country without abiding by local employment equity laws is achieved.
ALSO READ: Will Ramaphosa fall into the same trap as Zelensky? — Experts weigh in
Double standards?
Political analyst Professor Ntsikelelo Breakfast from Nelson Mandela University (NMU) told The Citizen that Ramaphosa likely brought Rupert along to represent the interests of big business in South Africa.
'Rupert's investments are wide and they cut across different sectors, so part of our government's mission is to pitch a proposal for business to the US administration.
'Ramaphosa also wants to show that the government of the day is supported by business in its endeavour to make a change in resetting South Africa's relationship with the U.S,' he said.
However, Breakfast said Rupert's inclusion also raises some questions about Ramaphosa's proximity to South Africa's white elite.
'Imagine what would have happened if the president had taken the Guptas as part of his delegation. People would have said state capture, but the same argument is not raised when it comes to Rupert,
'We have double standards when the Guptas had some influence over Jacob Zuma that was seen as state capture,' he said.
NOW READ: Is Ramaphosa in trouble? US Secretary of Marco Rubio calls out SA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Unfazed: South Africa's stance on US visa policies impacting Zimbabwe
US President Donald Trump continues to disrupt global diplomacy after a recent visa ban imposed on Zimbabwe. Image: Picture: Evan Vucci/AP The South African government seems unaffected by the recent US visa ban imposed by the embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite President Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to global diplomacy through tariff increases and immigration policies. The US has suspended all routine immigrant and non-immigrant visa services to Zimbabwe due to concerns over misuse and overstays, although other visa types remain unaffected. Although South Africa was exempt from new Trump visa restrictions on SADC countries, a new policy has been implemented for Malawi and Zambia. Citizens of these nations are now required to pay a bond of $5 000 (R88 656) to $15 000 (R265 967) to travel to the US. Additionally, the citizens are required to use one of three airports—Boston's Logan International, New York's JFK International, or Dulles International near Washington D.C.—for both arrival and departure. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ When asked whether South African citizens should be worried, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri gave a brief response: "We do not provide commentary on other countries' visa regimes, and this is our general position, it's not specific to the US." A senior government official, however, downplayed the likelihood of South Africans being affected by the US visa restrictions. "Remember Trump is only in our case because of the International Court of Justice case against Israel and our involvement in BRICS. Nothing more and nothing less," the official said. "South Africans visiting the US are mostly professionals who either go for business or a holiday. We seldom have citizens wanting to immigrate to the should have nothing to worry about,' he said. The US embassy explained that the reasons for the restrictions was because the administration was working to prevent visa overstay and misuse as part of national security. "The Trump administration is protecting our nation and citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the embassy said. "We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse." In June, the US imposed travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, with seven of them located in Africa. Additionally, heightened restrictions were applied to seven other nations, three of which are African. The US has issued a demand to 36 countries, predominantly in Africa, to enhance their traveler vetting procedures. Failure to comply could result in a ban on their citizens visiting the US. International Relations analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said it was unfortunate that the US had an obsession with immigration issues. "All democratic countries must encourage international country movements. However it is incumbent upon citizens that they don't abuse regulations. But one thing to acknowledge in terms of implementation of immigration laws globally is not to interfere and dissuade inter country movements of students because knowledge sharing and education is a universal right,' Ngwenya said.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Sanction Rosatom and send clear signal that occupation of nuclear plants will not be tolerated
The occupation by Russia of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and operated for over three years during active warfare. The deadline that US President Donald Trump had established for Russia to start a ceasefire, stop its aggression against Ukraine, or otherwise face the threat of sanctions was 8 August 2025. This was the sixth time that Trump had demanded that Vladimir Putin stop the war; however, Putin had previously declined such offers. The day passed uneventfully. During the 11 years of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, numerous peace initiatives have emerged, including the African Peace Mission. But analysts see little sign that Putin is prepared to abandon his intention to take control of Ukraine. In 2022, Russia declared in its Constitution that four Ukrainian regions were part of its territory, but failed to fully take over any of them militarily. Now Putin would have to amend the Russian constitution to halt the aggression at the current frontline — a highly risky political move that could bring about the end of his political power. Thus, he is demanding that Ukrainians leave their homes 'voluntarily' because the Russian army failed to take these territories by force. In July this year, Russia launched more than 6,000 drones and fired dozens of missiles targeting Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, killing civilians far from the frontline. Just in the first half of this year, 6,754 civilians have been killed or injured, according to the UN. The war remains intense, and no one is safe in Ukraine. Nevertheless, hopes are high again for 15 August, when Trump is expected to meet with Putin in Alaska, the territory the US once bought from Russia. President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has previously spoken in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity, also spoke with both the Russian and Ukrainian presidents last week, raising expectations that a ceasefire may be possible. Sanctions The expectations are that Trump can speak from a position of strength and threaten sanctions. However, given Russia's negligible trade with the US, what sanctions could Trump introduce that would be meaningful? The Russian state budget used to receive about 50% of its revenue from oil and gas exports; this had already dropped to 30% in 2024. Further sanctions could seriously undermine the Kremlin's ability to fund the war, which is expensive to run. In 2025, a record 40% of Russia's state budget has been allocated to defence and security. Another 6%-10% of revenue comes from the Russian state agency Rosatom, which serves a dual role: developing civilian nuclear reactors and acting as a strategic arm of the Kremlin's military sector by producing parts for non-nuclear weapons and other defence technologies. Rosatom's subsidiaries supply components to Russia's military-industrial complex, including drone technologies. Some of these facilities, such as the drone production factory in Alabuga, have been accused by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime of recruiting African women aged 18 to 22 to drone production under allegedly false promises of a 'work-study programme'. Rosatom, whose regional office has operated in South Africa since 2012, plays a key role in the military occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest nuclear power plant, seized by Russian military forces in March 2022 and turned into a geopolitical hostage. The occupation of the plant is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and has been operated for more than three years during active warfare. Rosatom plays a key role in this precedent. The violations of the International Atomic Energy Agency's seven nuclear safety pillars — the physical integrity of facilities, operability of safety systems, autonomy of staff decision-making, secure off-site power, uninterrupted logistics, effective radiation monitoring and reliable communication with regulators — have already been documented at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The detailed analysis of these violations and what they mean for the African continent is presented in the Policy Brief on Nuclear Safety during Military Invasion, presented ahead of the African Union's Mid-Year Coordination Meeting in Accra in July 2024. The brief presents a comprehensive case study of nuclear vulnerability during wartime and calls for urgent action by African countries, including South Africa, to prevent similar situations on the continent. However, the challenges at the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant go beyond the risk of physical damage to the facility. In May 2025, the International Labour Organization (ILO) reported that 13 Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant employees had been abducted, including three cases this year. The whereabouts of at least one detained worker remains unknown. The organisation also documented forced labour, coerced union membership and serious occupational safety risks for staff. Pressure to sign contracts More than 40 documented witness accounts by human rights organisations such as Truth Hounds suggest that since March 2022, Rosatom experts were fully aware of the pressure that the military personnel were putting on the nuclear operators to sign contracts with Rosatom. They were aware of interrogations, detentions, torture, psychological coercion and decisions to deny shift rotations. This is not a technical dispute. It is a systematic breach of international humanitarian law and nuclear safety norms, and of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. International mechanisms such as the UN have been powerless in the face of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant occupation. In July 2024, the UN passed a resolution — 'Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant' — condemning the Russian occupation of the plant and calling for the immediate withdrawal of military forces to ensure global nuclear safety. Many African countries supported this resolution, recognising the threat to international peace posed by the militarisation of a civilian nuclear site. In addition, 13 African states — including Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia — endorsed the Peace Summit Communiqué in Switzerland, affirming Ukraine's sovereign control over its nuclear sites. However, these international documents lack binding power. Torture Instead, sanctions or a refusal to cooperate with organisations that support torture could reduce the funding available for the war. Such sanctions can be implemented by any country that aims to promote human rights and nuclear safety. South Africa co-chairs the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ukraine is one of the few countries that gave up its nuclear weapons, despite holding the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal prior to 1994. That year, it voluntarily disarmed, joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepted International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and allowed international inspections. In return, the US, the UK and Russia committed to respecting and protecting Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. The silence and acceptance of military risks, and the violations of international labour practices, corporate responsibilities and human rights, show why governments that want to protect their population must act — not in reaction to a European war, but in defence of their own nuclear future. DM Dzvinka Kachur is with the Ukrainian Association of South Africa. Volodymyr Lakomov and Ilko Kucheriv are with the Democratic Initiatives Foundation.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA's vital marine manufacturing industry faces existential threat from new US tariffs
Almost $10-billion worth of South African goods exported annually to the United States are now subject to a 30% 'reciprocal' tariff. This move not only threatens production and job losses in local manufacturing and agriculture, but also affects the maritime sector as the provider of transport and logistics that moves these locally produced goods and raw materials to export markets. The overall impact will reshape South Africa's maritime trade flows as the country's goods become less competitive in the US, especially compared with suppliers in countries with lower tariffs. The new tariffs mainly target manufactured goods, including vehicles and components, machinery and equipment, and leisure craft, which have higher value added, while key mining commodities are exempt — effectively derailing South Africa's export-focused industrial growth path. This extends to the marine manufacturing sector, as South Africa's boat and yacht builders that export almost a third of their production to the US — their most important market that was previously duty free under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) — are now also subject to the 30% tariff. Jobs and future investment at risk This has an immediate impact on the competitiveness of the South African marine manufacturing sector, putting jobs and future investment at risk in a growing, highly export-oriented sector that is considered one of the keys to unlocking SA's maritime economic potential. A near-collapse of South African vehicle exports to the US since the tariff hikes were first announced in April, with an 87% drop over three months, compared with Q2: 2024, is among the first signals of the impact on manufacturing production and exports. Reduced exports mean lower shipping volumes from South African ports to the US, affecting the capacity utilisation and revenues of the container and vehicle shipping lines that serve these routes. The only shipping line currently providing direct sailings from SA ports to the US east coast (Mediterranean Shipping Company, MSC) told Freight News that it would be maintaining its dedicated SA-US service of four vessels currently in weekly rotation, despite the potential impact of the tariffs on trade volumes. Logic, however, suggests that the number of vessels and/or frequency of sailings of any shipping line on a particular route are likely to be reduced if these are not sailing at capacity as the service becomes less profitable. Logistics bottlenecks and congestion at South African ports, a situation now slowly improving, have resulted in several shipping lines reducing their local ports of call in recent years, or excluding SA's ports altogether. Reduced export volumes as a result of the US tariffs may make South Africa an even less attractive destination to service, further reducing access to shipping capacity, and thus limiting the ability of SA manufacturers and other producers to secure new export business. For exporters, the challenge is not only producing the right goods at the right price, but also delivering them on time at a landed price not excessively inflated by import duties. While the impact of the US tariffs must accelerate efforts to seek new export markets, securing new business and complying with myriad associated regulations is not an overnight process; particularly in a global trading environment that now encourages isolationism and protectionism following the lead of the US. When those new markets are secured, the capacity to ship to them needs to be in place — in other words, we cannot afford to lose the confidence of the global shipping industry nor the capacity of our ports to handle cargo. Declining exports would lead to reduced throughput at South African ports and reduced capacity utilisation, which affects their global rankings and ability to attract shipping lines and generate revenue through port dues. Ports need to be busy, moving volumes at scale, which facilitates imports and competitiveness, enabling cost-effective exports and access for South African producers to global markets. Increased tariffs and trade barriers cause delays, cancellations and disruptions in maritime shipments, leading to higher insurance claims and logistical challenges for cargo insurers and shipping companies. All of these challenges in reduced volumes of trade and reduced export capacity would in turn affect employment in our ports, in the maritime logistics and transport value chain, and in the surrounding network of suppliers and service providers to the maritime sector. Marine manufacturing The SA boat-building industry, primarily focused on leisure craft, has shown impressive growth of over 20% annually in the years following Covid-19. South Africa is the world's second largest producer of catamarans, after France, with more than 90% of our leisure craft exported — and 29% of production exported to the US, which is SA's largest market valued at approximately R1.6-billion in 2024. These exports to the US were duty free under Agoa, which has now been nullified by the imposition of the 30% reciprocal tariff, placing a R3-billion industry that supports up to 10,000 jobs, under existential threat. The sector is characterised by high input and operating costs. Given that aluminium and steel are critical components and inputs in the construction of boats and superyachts, the imposition of the additional 50% tariff on these materials will further harm the sector's competitiveness in the US market. High-value exports stifled The US tariffs are reshaping South Africa's economy and maritime trade by stifling high-value exports, increasing costs for importers and redirecting cargo flows towards exempted raw materials — negating the drive for local beneficiation of raw materials to shift the proportion of exports to higher value finished goods. The US is South Africa's third-largest overall trading partner, after the European Union and China. However, the EU and the US are arguably more important markets than China, as they are destinations for diversified, high value-added manufactured goods, supporting local employment, while exports to China and other BRICS countries are largely low margin, unbeneficiated raw materials and a small basket of agricultural products. Strategies to support local manufacturing and pursue alternative markets, including boosting intra-Africa trade through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and leveraging BRICS membership to unlock higher value trade, must incorporate measures to incentivise the local processing of minerals and other resources. While the government continues negotiations with the US towards a mutually beneficial trade deal, the announcement earlier this week by the ministers of Trade, Industry and Competition, and International Relations and Cooperation, of an Economic Response Package to assist businesses affected by the tariffs is most welcome. We trust that the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition's newly formed Export Support Desk will support not only businesses in manufacturing in finding and accessing new markets, but also those in maritime transport and logistics sectors adapting to altered volumes and trade flows. Businesses seeking to enter new markets will also need support in ensuring that shipping routes and capacity are available to service new destinations, and meeting logistics and policy requirements of those new markets. DM
