South Africa's biggest party defends black economic policy
South Africa faces a potential 30% tariff on exports to the US.
He warned the ANC would not abandon its transformation agenda, including Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE), despite pressure from Washington and its political allies.
Addressing the media in the post-NEC briefing on Wednesday, Mbalula said the ANC is not prepared to abandon its economic transformation policies to appease the United States. 'You must understand that the tariffs imposed by the United States of America are going to negatively affect our economy,' he said.
Mbalula accused the DA of lobbying during US visits to have policies like BBBEE scrapped, which he said aligns with longstanding imperialist attitudes.
'You can't, for national interest, say undo BEE to appease the United States of America because, among others, this is what the US wants of us, that we must do away with certain policies which, for us in terms of transformation, are not going to assist us,' Mbalula said.
He recalled how, during apartheid, the US under President Ronald Reagan labelled the ANC a terrorist organisation. 'Now we are in a democratic dispensation, and then the US says on the basis of videos the whole of our nation must be punished, despite the fact that facts say something different,' he said.
'Even if it means we're going to suffer through sanctions as leaders of the ANC, let it be.
'We'll never beg imperialists to subvert our democracy, to subvert our sovereignty,' Mbalula said. 'We will never forsake our country, which we fought for its liberation. Not this ANC, not this leadership."
Mbalula further criticised what he called a 'right-wing fringe' in South Africa that travels abroad to undermine the country's democratic policies, drawing parallels with the US-Cuba tensions under Fidel Castro.
He also rejected US attempts to decide the country's rules and laws. 'You are asking us to abandon what we stand for. You are asking the ANC to stop struggling and then close shop and become something else.
'We are not DA, the DA will address that because they do not want affirmative action, they don't want redress, they don't believe in transformation,' Mbalula said.
He further criticised the Trump administration's decision to grant special status to some white South Africans, framing it as part of a broader narrative to portray South Africa as a racist state.
'Donald Trump called for whites here, gave them special status in America. 49 car guards arrived in America. They didn't leave this country, South Africa. They are still here,' Mbalula said, claiming the narrative pushed by the US was misleading and misinformed.
Mbalula defended BBBEE and transformation policies as essential for equity and redress in an economy he said remains 'male-white dominated'. He said the ANC would not submit to the agenda of 'a party of anti-transformation.'
'If they want to bring sanctions on us, let them bring them. This country, South Africa, and all its citizens, know that it's a democratic country, it's a liberated country and we are still transforming this country in order to achieve equity.
'If we are punished for advancing and defending South Africa, that should be the case,' he said. First published by IOL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
7 hours ago
- Russia Today
Cold hard land, cold hard bargain: Putin and Trump head off to Alaska
Steve Witkoff's visit to Moscow has marked a striking shift in American rhetoric. Just a couple of months ago, in June and July, Donald Trump was threatening the Kremlin with new sanctions and issuing ultimatums. Now the agenda includes a Putin-Trump summit scheduled for August 15 in Alaska. This 180-degree turn has been accompanied by leaks hinting at possible deals and a return to the 'thaw' in relations we last saw in the spring. If the meeting goes ahead, the Russian president will come to it in a far stronger position than he did a few months ago. Back in the spring, Trump's push for a peace deal looked like a personal whim, and the so-called 'party of war' and globalists still had cards to play: Senator Lindsey Graham's sanctions package, fresh US arms deliveries to Ukraine, and the proposals floated by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer about sending Western troops to Ukraine. Now it looks as if Trump is the one coming back to Vladimir Putin – driven by the failure of his oil embargo. On top of that, there's an appearance – an illusion, perhaps – that Putin is backed by a united BRICS front, something Trump's own moves have helped bring about. Whether that front actually exists, or can survive for long, is another matter. But at this moment, one of Trump's key pillars of leverage looks shaky, if not entirely knocked out from under him. The other pillar is the war itself. In February and March, the front lines were static, and Ukrainian forces were still holding a foothold in Russia's Kursk Region. Kiev was touting its 'drone wall' project, billed as an impenetrable shield against the Russian army. Since then, Ukraine has suffered a major defeat in the Kursk border area, and the summer offensive that followed has gone Moscow's way – more decisively than at the same point last year. The much-hyped 'drone wall' turned out to be far less sturdy than promised. Kiev still clings to the hope of holding the line, but barely. Even the most pro-Ukrainian Western analysts now admit, in so many words: We don't understand how they're still hanging on. From the rhetoric of even the fiercest globalist hawks, it's clear they know no amount of weapons shipments can reverse the battlefield trend – at best, they can slow it. That's why the 'party of war' in the West, and Kiev itself, have suddenly taken up Trump's earlier call for a cease-fire. Which means Trump now needs talks with Putin not because he personally wants peace, but because the battlefield realities are pushing him there. Nobody knows how much longer the Ukrainian military can hold. From Trump's point of view, the sooner he can lock in some kind of deal with Moscow, the better. And that urgency is another advantage for Putin. If the second round of talks collapses, he loses nothing: the Russian army can simply keep advancing until the Ukrainian front breaks – or until the next peace initiative with Washington, whichever comes first. Does Moscow have vulnerabilities? Yes – and the biggest is the economy. Even without the oil embargo, a surging ruble has blown a hole in the federal budget: by the end of July, the deficit had already reached 4.9 trillion rubles ($61.4 billion) – 1.1 trillion rubles more than the planned deficit for the entire year. But Russia's financial buffer is strong enough that it can run shortfalls like this for years without crippling the economy. Whatever Putin and Trump agree on, it will be Trump's job to make sure Ukraine and Europe fall in line. That didn't happen last time: even if the two leaders had the outlines of a deal, European hawks and Kiev managed to torpedo it. Now, it looks as if Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky and the 'big three' in Europe – Macron, Starmer, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – are trying to do it again. Even if Ukraine's army is on its last legs and the front is on the brink of collapse, don't expect Ukraine's commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Syrsky, to pull a General Ludendorff and tell Zelensky the war is lost. And don't expect Zelensky to act like Kaiser Wilhelm and take responsibility for surrender. Far more likely, with encouragement from Europe, they'll fight to the bitter end – only to blame Putin for the disaster and hand Trump his own personal Afghanistan. *** All of these contradictions are almost impossible to untangle in a single summit. So what's the likeliest outcome if the Putin-Trump meeting does happen? Probably a set of grand, dramatic, but ultimately empty promises – just enough for Trump to tick the 'peacemaker' box on his personal scoreboard, and just as quickly forgotten. At best, we might get a document with the fate of the first Minsk agreement: signed in the fall of 2014, it was followed by another six months of fighting that ended with Ukraine's defeat at Debaltseve, paving the way for Minsk-2 – a deal that held for the next several years.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Alaska showdown: Who really needs this summit more?
Steve Witkoff's visit to Moscow has marked a striking shift in American rhetoric. Just a couple of months ago, in June and July, Donald Trump was threatening the Kremlin with new sanctions and issuing ultimatums. Now the agenda includes a Putin-Trump summit scheduled for August 15 in Alaska. This 180-degree turn has been accompanied by leaks hinting at possible deals and a return to the 'thaw' in relations we last saw in the spring. If the meeting goes ahead, the Russian president will come to it in a far stronger position than he did a few months ago. Back in the spring, Trump's push for a peace deal looked like a personal whim, and the so-called 'party of war' and globalists still had cards to play: Senator Lindsey Graham's sanctions package, fresh US arms deliveries to Ukraine, and the proposals floated by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer about sending Western troops to Ukraine. Now it looks as if Trump is the one coming back to Vladimir Putin – driven by the failure of his oil embargo. On top of that, there's an appearance – an illusion, perhaps – that Putin is backed by a united BRICS front, something Trump's own moves have helped bring about. Whether that front actually exists, or can survive for long, is another matter. But at this moment, one of Trump's key pillars of leverage looks shaky, if not entirely knocked out from under him. The other pillar is the war itself. In February and March, the front lines were static, and Ukrainian forces were still holding a foothold in Russia's Kursk Region. Kiev was touting its 'drone wall' project, billed as an impenetrable shield against the Russian army. Since then, Ukraine has suffered a major defeat in the Kursk border area, and the summer offensive that followed has gone Moscow's way – more decisively than at the same point last year. The much-hyped 'drone wall' turned out to be far less sturdy than promised. Kiev still clings to the hope of holding the line, but barely. Even the most pro-Ukrainian Western analysts now admit, in so many words: We don't understand how they're still hanging on. From the rhetoric of even the fiercest globalist hawks, it's clear they know no amount of weapons shipments can reverse the battlefield trend – at best, they can slow it. That's why the 'party of war' in the West, and Kiev itself, have suddenly taken up Trump's earlier call for a cease-fire. Which means Trump now needs talks with Putin not because he personally wants peace, but because the battlefield realities are pushing him there. Nobody knows how much longer the Ukrainian military can hold. From Trump's point of view, the sooner he can lock in some kind of deal with Moscow, the better. And that urgency is another advantage for Putin. If the second round of talks collapses, he loses nothing: the Russian army can simply keep advancing until the Ukrainian front breaks – or until the next peace initiative with Washington, whichever comes first. Does Moscow have vulnerabilities? Yes – and the biggest is the economy. Even without the oil embargo, a surging ruble has blown a hole in the federal budget: by the end of July, the deficit had already reached 4.9 trillion rubles ($61.4 billion) – 1.1 trillion rubles more than the planned deficit for the entire year. But Russia's financial buffer is strong enough that it can run shortfalls like this for years without crippling the economy. Whatever Putin and Trump agree on, it will be Trump's job to make sure Ukraine and Europe fall in line. That didn't happen last time: even if the two leaders had the outlines of a deal, European hawks and Kiev managed to torpedo it. Now, it looks as if Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky and the 'big three' in Europe – Macron, Starmer, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – are trying to do it again. Even if Ukraine's army is on its last legs and the front is on the brink of collapse, don't expect Ukraine's commander-in-chief, Aleksandr Syrsky, to pull a General Ludendorff and tell Zelensky the war is lost. And don't expect Zelensky to act like Kaiser Wilhelm and take responsibility for surrender. Far more likely, with encouragement from Europe, they'll fight to the bitter end – only to blame Putin for the disaster and hand Trump his own personal Afghanistan. *** All of these contradictions are almost impossible to untangle in a single summit. So what's the likeliest outcome if the Putin-Trump meeting does happen? Probably a set of grand, dramatic, but ultimately empty promises – just enough for Trump to tick the 'peacemaker' box on his personal scoreboard, and just as quickly forgotten. At best, we might get a document with the fate of the first Minsk agreement: signed in the fall of 2014, it was followed by another six months of fighting that ended with Ukraine's defeat at Debaltseve, paving the way for Minsk-2 – a deal that held for the next several years.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
US role in nuclear bombings omitted at commemoration events
The United States' role in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki 80 years ago went unmentioned during the city's commemoration events on Friday, continuing a long-standing practice at such memorials. Speeches by Japanese and international officials focused on the destruction caused by the bomb and calls for nuclear disarmament, but avoided naming the US as the country that carried out the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final stage of World War Two. 'We must pass down as memories what unfolded here in Japan 80 years ago — the reality and the tragedy of war, and the brutal impact of the harm wrought by the atomic bombings,' Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru said. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in remarks delivered by his disarmament chief Izumi Nakamitsu, urged nations to 'move from words to action by strengthening the global disarmament regime,' with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at its core. Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki called on world leaders to present a 'specific course of action for achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons.' The US remains the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in warfare – a fact that was also left unacknowledged during Wednesday's commemoration of the Hiroshima bombing. The attacks killed an estimated 200,000 civilians and have been defended by US officials as necessary to avoid a costly invasion of Japan. However, a 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that 'Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.' Last month, the US carried out airstrikes on three Iranian sites tied to Tehran's nuclear program. Washington said the attacks were aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a goal Tehran denies pursuing. Under the NPT, signatories, including the Islamic Republic, are entitled to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Several nations, including Russia and China, have accused the US of seriously undermining global non-proliferation efforts with its strikes on the Iranian facilities.
