Trump pushes ahead with 30% tariffs on SA
South African exporters to the US are waking up to a grim new reality on Friday, as that country's import tariffs are set to rocket from 10% to 30%.
On Thursday, the White House confirmed that South Africa's new 'reciprocal' tariff rate will be 30%. This will come into effect in seven days.
US president Donald Trump has announced new tariffs for seventy countries that failed to strike trade agreements.
Lesotho's tariff rate was lowered from 50% in April to 15%, but other countries – including Switzerland (39%) and Canada (35%) now face higher rates.
In April, the Trump administration announced that SA will be hit with 31% import tariffs. The tariff was then suspended for 90 days, with all imports to the US facing a 10% tariff.
For many SA exporters, import duties were zero under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The new tariffs made local products – particularly vehicles and citrus - more expensive in the US.
On 7 July, US President Donald Trump issued a letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa, warning that there would be a 30% blanket tariff on all South African goods.
The US rejected South Africa's first trade offer to avoid the new tariffs in May. This was followed by a sweetened offer in June, which has also not been accepted.
South Africa has offered commitments for US natural gas and fracking technology imports in exchange for duty-free quotas for steel and vehicles. SA also offered the US farmers tariff-free access to the local market on a counter-seasonal basis (when SA fruit is not in season).
The offer also included nearly R60 billion in local investment pledges into American industries such as mining and recycling, and contained proposals to remove non-tariff measures that the US was unhappy with, including SA's restrictions on US poultry and pork imports, which were imposed due to animal illnesses in that country.
Last week, Zane Dangor, director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco), confirmed that the US has included its concerns about black economic empowerment (BEE) in trade negotiations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
CNN
8 minutes ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
The Middle East Israel-Hamas war UK Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Did the Fed just royally screw up?
Federal agencies Job market EconomyFacebookTweetLink Follow It took only a few days for the Federal Reserve's latest decision on interest rates to age like milk. The central bank on Wednesday said it was holding borrowing costs steady yet again, extending a wait-and-see pattern that began in January. That same day, Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters that a 'solid' labor market means central bankers still have the luxury of waiting to see how President Donald Trump's tariffs affect prices before resuming rate cuts that could help boost jobs but could also reignite inflation. Just two days later, it turned out that the job market is on shakier ground than Powell had suggested. It may take a bit more time to know if that's really the case. But the Fed may walk away with egg on its face. The Fed did not respond to a request for comment. On Friday, the Labor Department reported that employers added just 73,000 jobs in July, well below the threshold of monthly job growth necessary to keep up with population growth. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%. And the monthly report was even worse than it seems: The Labor Department also massively revised downward the job gains for the prior two months. It's now clear that job growth has been anemic, based on the newly revised data: The average pace of monthly job growth from May through July was the weakest than any other three-month period since 2009, outside of the pandemic recession in 2020. 'Powell is going to regret holding rates steady this week,' Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, said in commentary issued Friday. But not everyone at the Fed shared Powell's view on the labor market. The Fed's latest decision generated pushback from within like it hasn't seen in decades. Fed Governor Christopher Waller and Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman cast dissenting votes, marking the first time that more than one Fed governor has done so since 1993. In statements issued Friday, both officials pointed to signs of weakness in labor market as a major reason why they dissented, while downplaying the potential effects of Trump's tariffs on prices. The Fed is tasked by Congress to address both high inflation and a weakening labor market. 'The labor market has become less dynamic and shows increasing signs of fragility,' Bowman wrote, adding that just few industries have propelled job growth this year, which remained the case in July, according to the latest data. Still, it may be too soon to conclude that the Fed has royally screwed up. 'It was a disappointing report to be sure, but when I look at the data, we try not to make too much out of any one individual report,' Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack told Bloomberg on Friday after the July jobs report was released. 'I feel confident with the decision we made earlier this week.' Last year, after the unemployment rate climbed quickly in a short period of time and there were similar calls that the central bank was too late to lower rates, the Fed stepped in with a bold, half-point rate cut to stave off any further weakening. By the end of last year, it turned out that the labor market wasn't falling off a cliff: In December, employers added a massive 323,000 jobs as the unemployment rate edged down from the prior month to 4.1%.
