Ramaphosa hopes diplomacy amid US push for sanctions on SA
President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa is in the dark about the United States' push to ban ANC leaders, hoping that diplomacy will prevail.
The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week passed a bill tabled by Republican Ronny Jackson in April, calling for a full review of US relations with South Africa.
Sanctions bill
The Committee voted 34-16 on Tuesday to send the 'US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act' to the full House of Representatives, where it could be subject to a vote.
Jackson introduced the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act, providing tools to impose sanctions on 'corrupt South African government officials' who support America's adversaries like China, Russia and Iran, among others.
ALSO READ: US Congressman Ronny Jackson introduces bill to hold SA accountable
He introduced a bill that would mandate a comprehensive review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa.
Jackson said Representative John James was co-leading the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act legislation.
Ramaphosa responds
The bill comes as relations between the US and South Africa are at an all-time low after US President Donald Trump cut financial aid to South Africa, citing Pretoria taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and 'strengthening ties with Iran, which supports terrorism globally'.
Speaking to the media after his visit to the BMW plant in Rosslyn, Pretoria, Ramaphosa said he and his administration had taken note of the passing of the bill, adding that it would not impact South Africa's approach to dealing with the United States.
'We have heard what has happened in the US House committee, and that whole process still has a long way to go,' he said. 'Discussions will be ongoing, and we don't know exactly what is driving all this.'
'Our bilateral discussions and dealings with the United States will continue, and we will talk about all manner of things, including precisely this issue and many others. We've got good diplomatic relations with the US, and we want to enrich them and make them better. So, we are very positive,' Ramaphosa said.
[WATCH] President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa is in the dark about the United States' push to ban ANC leaders. He adds that he is positive about the outcome of engagements between the two countries.#Newzroom405 pic.twitter.com/0Xhop3NNFC — Newzroom Afrika (@Newzroom405) July 24, 2025
ALSO READ: Is Trump about to slap sanctions on SA for misguided 'white genocide?'
US tensions
South Africa's relationship with the US sharply deteriorated during Donald Trump's second term, during which he has accused the government of anti-white racism and started a refugee programme for white farmers and Afrikaners.
Relations were further strained following the remarks of former South African Ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool on Trump.
Rasool was expelled by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio after he claimed in a webinar that US President Trump (and, later, Elon Musk) are leading a global white supremacist movement.
Rasool was not replaced, and it was recently revealed that the US had, several months ago, rejected the South African government's appointment of Mcebisi Jonas as a special envoy to its country.
The Presidency said that while Jonas, as special envoy, does not present diplomatic credentials to host countries in the way designated heads of mission or other diplomats do, he had helped facilitate trade and international relations efforts 'to reset diplomatic relations and all areas of cooperation between South Africa and the United States'.
Tariffs
Ramaphosa met with Trump in May amid the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the two countries.
Earlier this month, the US hit South Africa with 30% tariffs 'on any and all South African products sent into the United States'.
The tariff will take effect on 1 August.
In a letter to Ramaphosa, Trump claimed that the steep tariffs were necessary to correct what he described as 'a persistent trade deficit between the two countries'.
However, this was challenged by Ramaphosa, who said the decision was based on a flawed interpretation of trade data.
ALSO READ: WATCH: Donald Trump ambushes Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
an hour ago
- The Herald
IEC rejects former ANC MP Boy Mamabolo's ‘Mandela for President' party registration
The Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) has rejected former ANC MP Jacob Boy Mamabolo's registration of his new party 'Mandela for President'. The IEC said Mamabolo applied for registration but was rejected due to his failure to meet basic requirements to register a new party and concerns about the name. 'The IEC clarifies the party 'Mandela for President' applied for registration but was rejected for non-compliance with signature requirements and the threshold of required registered voters,' the IEC said. 'Furthermore, the name 'Mandela for President' with associated green and black colours may be construed by voters as connected to founding president Nelson Mandela.' The IEC highlighted inconsistencies with regard to the founding convener's details. 'Discrepancies exist between the party's constitutional documentation and our registration records regarding party leadership. In the preamble of their constitution the party proclaims their founding convener is Mandela Jacob Boy Mamabolo. However, in our registration records in respect of the party leader he appears as only Jacob Boy Mamabolo, which suggests a material aspect in the registration of the party may have been misrepresented. The party remains unregistered.'
Mail & Guardian
an hour ago
- Mail & Guardian
Reciprocity or retaliation? The semantics of US trade power
Trump's trade tantrums reflect the US president's transactional politics. Photo: File It's hard to decide what's more surreal — that the US is threatening 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports in the name of 'reciprocity' or that global markets, once jittery at the mere whisper of Trumpian trade tantrums, are now brushing off these ultimatums with a shrug and record-breaking rallies. In a letter campaign launched on 7 July, the US administration warned dozens of nations that, unless bilateral trade deals were reached by 1 August, punitive tariffs would be unilaterally imposed. Brazil, the current chair of Brics and a nation with a sizable trade deficit vis-à-vis the US, was told in no uncertain terms that its exports would be slapped with 50% tariffs. The premise is both stark and familiar: comply or pay. But this time, something has shifted. Unlike the uproar that followed the first wave of tariff threats in April — when emergency summits and legal challenges rippled across the globe — the second wave has been met with a remarkable degree of composure. The world isn't retreating. It's recalibrating. Take Brazil, for example. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, just days after hosting the 17th Brics Summit in Rio de Janeiro, responded with restraint. 'We don't want an emperor,' he quipped, declining to engage in crisis theatrics. It was a sharp, yet composed, rejoinder to an ultimatum that would once have triggered panic. This moment marks more than defiance, it signals a strategic turning point. The Rio Declaration, adopted unanimously by Brics nations and invited partner countries, issued the bloc's clearest rebuke yet of US trade practices. 'We are seriously concerned about the rise of unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures, which distort trade and violate WTO [World Trade Organisation] rules,' the declaration read. More than rhetoric, it outlined a coordinated vision — strengthen local currency trade, expand the role of multilateral development institutions and build resilient frameworks beyond the reach of US coercion. The contrast couldn't be clearer. While Washington leans on tariffs as a blunt tool of pressure, the Global South is coalescing around a more deliberate, cooperative trade vision. It's worth interrogating the logic behind these US threats. The idea that trade imbalances are inherently unjust and must be 'corrected' through punitive measures is a populist oversimplification. Economies specialise, consumers choose and deficits emerge naturally. Punishing countries for selling what Americans want to buy is not reciprocity – it's retaliation. Moreover, Washington's coercive strategy stands on shaky legal ground. The US Court of International Trade ruled in May 2025 that the administration's use of emergency tariff powers was incompatible with trade law. Yet, legality seems increasingly irrelevant in the face of a foreign policy that views the WTO not as a rules-based arbiter, but as an inconvenience. And still, the global economy hums. The Dow and Nasdaq have posted historical highs. Inflation remains subdued. Emerging markets, far from fleeing, are holding their ground. It's tempting to believe the tariffs are toothless. But that would be premature. Beneath the surface, a quieter reordering is underway. Countries are no longer scrambling to appease Washington. They're building buffers. From the Association of Southeast Asian Nations's supply chain diversification to the African Continental Free Trade Area's intra-regional push, nations are insulating themselves — not just economically, but diplomatically. The Brics bloc is central to this shift. No longer just a symbolic grouping, it has taken tangible steps toward a multipolar economic architecture. New initiatives unveiled in Rio — such as the Brics Pay platform, the Multilateral Guarantee Mechanism and ethical AI cooperation — are not mere declarations of intent. They are building blocks of a system that does not rely on Western-dominated institutions for validation. China's role in this transformation is pivotal. As the world's second-largest economy and a founding Brics member, China has consistently championed win-win cooperation over confrontation. Its advocacy for local currency-based payment systems, climate financing for the Global South and expanded youth and trade exchanges underscore a strategic, long-term vision. One not built on coercion, but on connectivity. India, too, proposed a forward-looking four-point agenda for the 2026 Brics Summit it will host: demand-driven development financing, climate adaptation support, ethical AI regulation and a framework for South–South food security. Together, these form a quiet, yet deliberate, counter-narrative to the transactional diplomacy of tariffs and threats. It's important to note that this isn't anti-Americanism. It's post-Americanism. Countries are not trying to isolate the US, they are trying to insulate themselves from its volatility. And the backlash is not limited to Brics. The EU, long seen as a compliant economic partner of the US, is beginning to show signs of fatigue. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has floated anti-coercion instruments aimed at retaliating against US overreach in public tenders and service sectors. Canada is considering reciprocal tariffs on US steel and agriculture. Even smaller nations like Malaysia are defending domestic policy space while exploring countermeasures. This isn't surrender. It's maturity. The world is learning that the US, for all its economic might, cannot permanently bend the global system to its will — at least not without consequences. Of course, the asymmetry of power remains. A 50% tariff from Washington still packs a punch. But its effectiveness as a shock tool is eroding. Countries are beginning to treat American threats not as destiny, but as one variable among many. If anything, the US approach might hasten what it fears most: a decentralised, multipolar trade regime. By using tariffs to enforce compliance, Washington is nudging others towards de-dollarisation, alternative payment networks and regional trade accords. Already, energy deals between Russia and China are settled in yuan and rubles. India pays for oil in dirhams. Brics's expansion to include Argentina, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — and talks with Saudi Arabia as a strategic partner — further signals a pivot toward greater autonomy from Western leverage. As the 1 August deadline nears, some nations could still pursue tactical deals with Washington. India is reportedly close to a metals agreement. Pakistan is finalising a tariff adjustment deal. But the broader picture is one of divergence, not capitulation. The Rio Declaration summed it up best: 'Only when more and more economies issue a unanimous voice of condemnation and more and more actions form a counter-force can bullying be stopped.' The world is not panicking. It is prepared. And in that preparation lies not just the defiance of the present, but the blueprint of the future — a future where trade is negotiated, not dictated; where cooperation triumphs over coercion and where no nation, however powerful, can hold the global economy hostage to its whims. Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
The hypocrisy of South Africa's arms trade: Job creation or genocide?
IOL As South Africa grapples with its legacy of apartheid, the arms trade raises profound ethical questions. This article explores how economic arguments for job creation mask a troubling complicity in global atrocities, argues EFF MP, Carl Niehaus Image: File By Carl Niehaus As a proud South African and a staunch member of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), I am compelled to speak out against the grotesque hypocrisy embedded in our nation's arms manufacturing industry. Companies like Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM), a joint venture between German arms giant Rheinmetall and South Africa's state-owned Denel, are churning out weapons of death—155mm Assegai artillery shells, high-explosive munitions, and components linked to incendiary horrors like white phosphorus bombs. These are exported to NATO countries, only to be funnelled onward to conflict zones where they fuel atrocities. In Ukraine, they bolster a grinding war; in Gaza, they enable a wanton genocide against Palestinians. And let's not forget shipments to places like Sudan, where human rights abuses are rampant. This is not economic progress—it's blood money, and the tired excuse of 'job creation' is a morally bankrupt shield that crumbles under scrutiny, much like the defences of German companies complicit in Nazi crimes after World War II. RDM's operations exemplify this depravity. As recently as July 2025, Rheinmetall announced a massive order for 155mm artillery ammunition from a European NATO member, with production heavily reliant on its South African subsidiary. Similar deals have poured in: Sweden signed a $526 million contract with RDM for ammunition, and multiyear frameworks supply NATO states with Assegai 155mm projectiles. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading These aren't benign exports—they feed into a shadowy supply chain. NATO allies, including Germany, have ramped up arms transfers to Ukraine, with Rheinmetall directly involved in delivering 155mm rounds to Kyiv under Bundeswehr frameworks. But the trail doesn't stop there. Rheinmetall's global network has been implicated in arming Israel, whose military operations in Gaza have drawn well documented accusations of war crimes from bodies like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Apartheid Israel has repeatedly used white phosphorus munitions—incendiary weapons that burn through flesh and cause excruciating, long-term suffering—in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon, violating international humanitarian law when deployed against civilians. While Rheinmetall publicly disavows certain 'controversial' weapons like cluster munitions, their denial rings hollow amid reports of phosphorus use in ongoing conflicts, and their ammunition often ends up in the hands of those who wield it indiscriminately. This isn't speculation; it's a pattern of complicity. Rheinmetall's secretive factory expansions cater to 'friendly' NATO countries while parallel businesses arm volatile regions. Exports have reached Sudan, where civil war rages with documented atrocities, and Malaysia, a market for RDM's munitions amid regional tensions. But the most egregious is the indirect flow to Israel. German arms exports to Israel surged in recent years, including Rheinmetall components, enabling the bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and razed infrastructure in what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has termed genocidal acts. South Africa's own history of apartheid should make us viscerally opposed to such enablement—yet here we are, manufacturing the tools of oppression in our factories, exporting them under the guise of legitimate trade, and watching as they rain down terror on innocents. The defenders of this industry—corporate executives, government officials, and even some economists—invariably trot out the 'job creation' argument. They claim that RDM's operations in South Africa provide employment for thousands, boosting local economies in a country plagued by unemployment rates hovering above 30%. Yes, factories hum with activity, workers earn wages, and supply chains ripple through communities. But this is a deeply flawed, ethically void rationale. Manufacturing weapons that enable mass murder cannot be justified by economic gains, no matter how desperate our nation's need for growth. The EFF is unapologetically committed to job creation and economic liberation— we fight for land redistribution, nationalization of mines, and policies that uplift the black majority disenfranchised by centuries of colonialism and apartheid. But we draw a red line: prosperity cannot come at the expense of human rights, nor can it rationalize the production of instruments of genocide and war crimes. This principle isn't novel; it's etched in the annals of history, particularly in the aftermath of World War II when German companies like Mercedes-Benz (then Daimler-Benz) and BMW faced reckoning for their collusion with the Nazis. During the Third Reich, Daimler-Benz transformed into a pillar of the Nazi war machine, producing vehicles, aircraft engines, and tanks while exploiting forced labor from concentration camps, prisoners of war, and Jewish slaves under barbaric conditions. Adolf Hitler himself favoured Mercedes vehicles for propaganda parades, and the company donated cars and funds to the regime. BMW, meanwhile, manufactured aircraft engines for the Luftwaffe and motorcycles for the Wehrmacht, with its founding Quandt family amassing fortunes through expropriated Jewish businesses and slave labor that claimed lives at an appalling rate—up to 80 deaths per month in factories. These companies weren't passive; they actively profited from the Holocaust, enforcing racial hierarchies and supplying the machinery of genocide. Post-war, the Allies imposed denazification, stripping Nazi-affiliated executives and seizing assets under the Potsdam Agreement. Factories were dismantled, foreign holdings lost, and production halted temporarily. While not dissolved outright—due to the need for West Germany's reconstruction—these firms faced investigations, management purges, and later, voluntary reparations. Daimler-Benz paid $12 million in 1988 to forced labor survivors, and BMW contributed to a 2000 industry fund totaling $5 billion for victims. Crucially, neither could hide behind 'job creation.' Their employment of thousands didn't absolve them; it compounded their guilt, as jobs were sustained through slave labor and war profiteering. The Nuremberg trials targeted industrialists like those from IG Farben for similar crimes, establishing that economic arguments don't excuse complicity in atrocities. BMW's Günther Quandt was classified a 'collaborator' and was forced to issue a public acknowledgement and apologies and also pay restitution to the families of the victims of the Nazis, but the moral stain lingers up to today. South Africa must learn from this. RDM's exports mirror that era's moral failure: producing arms that end up in genocidal hands, all while claiming economic benefits. In Gaza, white phosphorus shells—linked to suppliers like Rheinmetall—have caused horrific burns and environmental devastation, with Israel admitting use in past operations. In Ukraine, incendiary weapons have been deployed amid accusations of war crimes. Sudan and Malaysia add layers of instability, where munitions exacerbate conflicts. The EFF rejects this unequivocally. We demand an end to such exports, sanctions on complicit firms, and a pivot to ethical industries—renewable energy, agriculture, manufacturing for peace. Jobs yes, but not built on graves. Our nation's soul is at stake. We overthrew apartheid; we cannot now arm modern equivalents. Let history judge us not as enablers of evil, but as warriors for justice. The EFF stands firm: no rationalization of the indefensible. Stop any arms trade with enablers of genocide and war crimes now, before more blood stains our hands. *** Carl Niehaus is an EFF member of Parliament ** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL IOL Opinion
