logo
Ivor Ichikowitz: South Africa's visit to the US shows how diplomacy has changed

Ivor Ichikowitz: South Africa's visit to the US shows how diplomacy has changed

Chicago Tribune29-05-2025

Diplomacy is an art that has often most effectively been practiced behind closed doors. But the 47th president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, has changed that. Diplomacy is now practiced in the full glare of the world's TV cameras and media, leaving very little room to wriggle — but an ocean of opportunity for disaster.
The net effect has been a total recalibration of the practice of diplomacy, with May 21 being a perfect case in point when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa led his entourage to the White House.
The fact that the meeting even took place was a triumph of old-school diplomacy given the unprecedented depths that the historic relationship between the two nations has plunged, especially since the advent of the 47th administration in January this year.
There was massive trepidation back home in South Africa about just how this meeting would evolve, especially after the public dressing down that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was forced to endure in February. This time, the tactics were the same: The White House presented unvarnished beliefs about the situation in South Africa, which Trump has held very firmly, this time via a video pastiche.
Ramaphosa's party was astutely selected, blending key political leaders, including organized labor, with officials, business leaders and golf champions, who were neither politicians nor administrators.
It was an example once again of how much has changed in the last six months — and even beyond — in Africa and in the world. South Africa has moved from declaring itself neutral in the war in Ukraine to actively protecting Russia from censure to inviting Zelenskyy to a state visit in April. The U.S. has moved from actively, and sometimes unquestioningly, backing Kyiv and sanctioning Moscow to actively engaging with President Vladimir Putin rather than isolating him.
Both countries' approaches seem poles apart and inherently contradictory — and yet they share very similar motivations and characteristics. Washington and Pretoria want the war to end, both are working hard to do just that and both are using nontraditional, sometimes disruptive, methods.
The Black Sea Grain Initiative was the first seed in a bid to reap a harvest of peace. It was sown by an initiative under South Africa's leadership to get Ukraine and Russia — or their proxies — to a table. The first hoped-for outcome was to prevent Africans from starving after they were cut off from the breadbasket of Eastern Europe and the fertilizers produced there to grow their own crops. But the bigger prize was to forge swords into ploughshares because the geopolitical tensions of an increasingly volatile and multipolar world were playing out in African countries as they became substitute battlegrounds in the war for global influence.
Private individuals, business leaders and philanthropists helped to bring the different parties together by leveraging their networks and stepping in where normal diplomatic channels had failed. The Black Sea Grain Initiative led to a previously unthinkable invitation: Pretoria offered to host Zelenskyy. Previously, Pretoria had earned Washington's ire for refusing to back a United Nations General Assembly resolution censuring Russia.
The intervention of unorthodox players happened in Washington, too, as Ramaphosa sat in the Oval Office with Trump. It was no surprise that some at the meeting were golfers themselves, stepping in where diplomats and political leaders could not, to help drive through Pretoria's message.South Africa came to the U.S. to recalibrate a relationship that has been increasingly under threat for months; a growing ideological gulf in the majority party of its unity government has been a contributor. Coming to America forced a timely reappraisal of South Africa's issues, and in the process, the South African delegation did much to disabuse the U.S. administration of some of its most firmly held views.
South Africa does have serious societal issues to contend with, including high levels of violent crime — and no one shied away from this problem, but white South Africans are not disproportionately affected by it. To properly address the issue is not a matter of being a supplicant who begs for international aid, but rather of building the economy, creating jobs and instilling hope in new generations of South Africans. To achieve that, the U.S. must be an active trade partner with South Africa — continuing with the current trade agreements and even boosting investment in the country, to everyone's benefit.
There is no doubt that the recent meeting between U.S. and South African officials was an inflection point in Washington-Pretoria relations. Taking a cue from Trump, it was akin to sinking a 3-foot putt in the full glare of the cameras, which isn't an easy thing to do — and yet, I think the South Africans, together, might just have done it.
Ivor Ichikowitz is a South African-born global industrialist and African philanthropist. He chairs the Ichikowitz Family Foundation, which played a leading role in facilitating the talks that led to the Black Sea Grain Initiative.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What are stablecoins? Everything to know about the crypto being debated in Congress
What are stablecoins? Everything to know about the crypto being debated in Congress

CNN

time28 minutes ago

  • CNN

What are stablecoins? Everything to know about the crypto being debated in Congress

Stablecoins are on the verge of going mainstream, analysts say, as a landmark regulatory bill makes its way through Congress. The Senate is deliberating the GENIUS Act, which would provide a framework for regulating stablecoins. The bill last week passed a major procedural hurdle in the Senate after initial resistance from some Democrats. Stablecoins are a type of crypto asset that is tied to the value of another currency, such as the US dollar or gold. They were initially created as a way for crypto investors to store their money but have grown in popularity in recent years for their use in digital payments. The landmark bill would provide a boost of legitimacy to the crypto industry and is another example of how cryptocurrencies have had a major revival under President Donald Trump's second term. Proponents of crypto have welcomed the focus on advancing stablecoin regulations. Yet critics have pointed to the Trump family's ties to the crypto industry: For example, World Liberty Financial, a company tied to the Trump family, has issued its own stablecoin. 'Stablecoins seem (to be) here to stay,' analysts at JPMorgan Chase said in an April note. 'A few years ago, we probably would have debated the accuracy of that sentence. Not today.' While cryptocurrencies are known for being volatile and fluctuating in value, stablecoins are supposed to be, as their name suggests, stable. This is because stablecoins are pegged one-to-one to another asset. They are most often linked to the US dollar, making one stablecoin worth $1. Companies that issue stablecoins hold other assets to back their coins and assure buyers about their value. For example, a company issuing stablecoins pegged to the US dollar could buy and hold high-quality assets like US government bonds. Two of the major stablecoin issuers are Tether, which issues USDT, and Circle, which issues USDC — and both of these stablecoins are pegged one-to-one to the dollar. Tether accounts for 62% of the total stablecoin market, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank. The total market value of stablecoins surged from $20 billion in 2020 to $246 billion in May 2025, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank. Stablecoins emerged in 2014 as way for crypto investors to park their money while buying and selling other more volatile cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. Since then, Stablecoins have ballooned in popularity particularly for their potential use in digital payments, said Darrell Duffie, a professor of finance at Stanford University. Stablecoins, given their stable value, can serve as a medium of exchange and function as a digital currency. The crypto coins have emerged as useful in helping speed up payments. 'Cross-border payments are providing the most exciting new use cases,' Duffie said. 'Making a payment, such as a remittance or a vendor payment to or from an emerging-market country, can now be made faster and at lower cost than a conventional correspondent banking payment.' While stablecoins are significantly less volatile than other crypto coins, they are not without risks. If the assets backing the coin drop in value and the one-to-one peg falls apart, it could cause the equivalent of a bank run, said Duffie. Stablecoins gained notoriety in 2022 when TerraUSD, an obscure type of coin called an algorithmic stablecoin, crashed in value and caused a panic among investors. There are also security risks like people forgetting the pass-code to their crypto wallet. The GENIUS act stands for 'Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins of 2025.' Circle would likely benefit from increased regulation more than Tether as Circle is a US-based company while Tether is based in El Salvador, Del Wright, a professor at Louisiana State University Law School who specializes in crypto, told CNN. If the legislation passes, it could usher in mainstream adoption of stablecoins for digital payments and spur growth in the stablecoin industry, said Christian Catalini, founder of the cryptoeconomics lab at MIT. He added that traditional Wall Street firms and startups would also compete to offer stablecoins. Visa (V) in May announced a partnership with Bridge, a stablecoin company owned by fintech startup Stripe, to enable payments using stablecoin in countries across Latin America. 'Stablecoins are on the cusp of mainstream adoption in 2025 as the US pushes forward with landmark legislation,' analysts at Deutsche Bank said in a May note. Despite the resistance in the Senate, 'we still expect progress this year.'

Trump asks Congress to make (some of) DOGE's illegal cuts legal
Trump asks Congress to make (some of) DOGE's illegal cuts legal

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump asks Congress to make (some of) DOGE's illegal cuts legal

President Donald Trump sent Congress a memo Tuesday night asking lawmakers to sign off on his administration's demand for roughly $9.4 billion in immediate spending cuts. If Congress passes that rescissions package, funding to NPR, PBS and a slew of foreign aid programs would be officially slashed. If this idea sounds familiar, it's because Trump is asking Congress to take back money for programs that he and Elon Musk have illegally refused to spend. The request is a nod to the way things are supposed to work under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, a law that makes it clear that the president has no authority to unilaterally withhold, or 'impound,' money the legislature has appropriated. Thus, the request itself is a tacit admission from the Trump administration that its refusal to spend money Congress has appropriated is against the law. If an administration doesn't want to spend money that has been budgeted, a 1974 law requires the White House to submit what boils down to a request for Congress to take its money back. Only after both chambers approve would the budget authority granted to specific departments and agencies be rescinded. Congress now has 45 days to pass the package before it expires and the administration is once again legally required to spend that money. In the memo passed on to Congress, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought laid out 22 specific cuts to be made. The largest single item in Vought's request would fully eliminate $1.07 billion allocated over the next two fiscal years to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB, as those of us who grew up watching 'Sesame Street' know, is the biggest source of funding for many PBS stations. Trump signed an executive order to slash the CPB's funding last month, but NPR and PBS have called the order unconstitutional and sued to have it overturned. But the bulk of the requested cuts are focused on drawing down funding to various international projects the Trump administration has decided 'do not align with an America First foreign policy agenda.' They apparently include such controversial concepts as promoting democracy ($83 million rescinded from the Democracy Fund), helping children ($437 million in contributions to UNICEF and other United Nations programs terminated), fighting HIV/AIDS ($400 million cut from programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR), and saving lives after natural disasters ($496 million withdrawn from the International Disaster Assistance account). Among the smaller but pettier cuts requested is $125 million of the U.S. Agency of International Development's operating budget. It has been months since the Department of Government Oversight de facto shuttered USAID, which Musk famously boasted had been fed 'into the woodchipper,' with most of its contracts illegally cut and its employees fired. Many of those laid-off employees are also suing the administration for circumventing Congress in trying to shut down an agency Congress established by law. As with many things budget-related, several things are true at once here. On the one hand, the money that would be clawed back would undoubtedly have major, catastrophic impacts on the work it's funding. On the other, the $9 billion package is a drop in the bucket compared to the $2 trillion in savings that Musk originally promised to find with DOGE and a drop in the ocean compared to the annual $6.8 trillion federal budget. Getting the package through Congress would require only Republican votes, but that doesn't mean it will succeed. There has historically been little appetite from Congress for rescission requests; many lawmakers are aware of the political risk that comes with publicly voting to cut specific programs, especially popular ones. As Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, recently noted to reporters, 'there hasn't been a successful rescission package in many, many years.' But Musk has been unhappy with the lack of enthusiasm from Congress for codifying DOGE's cuts. The Tesla CEO, who just left his quasi-official government role, slammed the House's megabill as a 'pork-filled ... abomination.' Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he called Musk to talk to him about the bill but got no answer. Even if congressional Republicans balk at the relatively small package, Vought has a backup plan: keep breaking the law. The OMB director recently appeared on CNN not only to say this was 'the first of many rescission bills,' but also to insist that impoundment remains on the table. He also echoed a truly absurd claim from his former think tank that as long as you illegally withhold money within the 45-day window before a fiscal year ends, you can do an end-run around Congress. To repeat, in presenting congressional Republicans with the chance to place a veneer of legality on DOGE's actions, the White House is tacitly admitting that the power of the purse still lies in Congress' hands. But Vought's attitude makes it clear this is a 'heads I win, tails you lose' proposition. If Congress doesn't go along with its rescission package, the Trump administration will simply continue to do as it has done and usurp the power of appropriation for itself. The sad thing is there are surely plenty of GOP lawmakers who, to avoid risking difficult votes, are willing to surrender their awesome power. This article was originally published on

Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University

time36 minutes ago

Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is moving to block nearly all foreign students from entering the country to attend Harvard University, his latest attempt to choke the Ivy League school from an international pipeline that accounts for a quarter of the student body. In an executive order signed Wednesday, Trump declared that it would jeopardize national security to allow Harvard to continue hosting foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 'I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' Trump wrote in the order. It's a further escalation in the White House's fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. A federal court in Boston blocked the Department of Homeland Security from barring international students at Harvard last week. Trump's order invokes a different legal authority. Trump invoked a broad federal law that gives the president authority to block foreigners whose entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' On Wednesday, he cited the same authority when announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the U.S. and those from seven others would face restrictions. Trump's Harvard order cites several other laws, too, including one barring foreigners associated with terrorist organizations. In a statement Wednesday night, Harvard said it will 'continue to protect its international students.' 'This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' university officials said. It stems from Harvard's refusal to submit to a series of demands made by the federal government. It has escalated recently after the Department of Homeland Security said Harvard refused to provide records related to misconduct by foreign students. Harvard says it has complied with the request, but the government said the school's response was insufficient. The dispute has been building for months after the Trump administration demanded a series of policy and governance changes at Harvard, calling it a hotbed of liberalism and accusing it of tolerating anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard defied the demands, saying they encroached on the university's autonomy and represented a threat to the freedom of all U.S. universities. Trump officials have repeatedly raised the stakes and sought new fronts to pressure Harvard, cutting more than $2.6 billion in research grants and moving to end all federal contracts with the university. The latest threat has targeted Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students, who account for half the enrollment at some Harvard graduate schools. 'Admission to the United States to study at an 'elite' American university is a privilege, not a right,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X. 'This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the President's proclamation suspending the entry of new foreign students at Harvard University based on national security concerns.' Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the measure ridiculous and said it has nothing to do with national security. 'It's a thinly veiled revenge ploy in Trump's personal feud with Harvard, and continued authoritarian overreach against free speech,' Jayapal said on the social media site X. The order applies to all students attempting to enter the United States to attend Harvard after the date of the executive order. It provides a loophole to allow students whose entry would 'benefit the national interest,' as determined by federal officials. Trump's order alleges that Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students in response to the Homeland Security request, and it lacked the detail to gauge if federal action was needed. Trump concluded that Harvard is either 'not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.' 'These actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law,' the order said. For foreign students already at Harvard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will determine if visas should be revoked, Trump wrote. The order is scheduled to last six months. Within 90 days, the administration will determine if it should be renewed, the order said. A State Department cable sent last week to U.S. embassies and consulates said federal officials will begin reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. In a court filing last week, Harvard officials said the Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion.' Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said in the filing. ___ ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store