Pretoria at a crossroads with the US
Relations between Pretoria and Washington have once again plunged into a new historic low following a series of moves by US President Donald Trump.
In a single sweep, Washington has imposed punitive 30% tariffs on South African steel, citrus and automotive exports. These duties take effect from tomorrow after the US failed to respond to South Africa's trade proposals.
The tariff blow has escalated diplomatic tension, with the US expressing disdain for South Africa's broad-based black economic empowerment and land reform policies.
In addition, Trump announced a boycott of the G20 Summit in Johannesburg in November and there has been an intensified criticism of Pretoria's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing the country of 'supporting genocide denial'.
At the heart of this diplomatic crisis, it must be admitted that US reaction is motivated by South Africa's growing leadership within the Brics bloc – now expanded to include Iran, Ethiopia and Egypt – and its outspoken support for Palestine, including its ICJ case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
ALSO READ: US tariff an existential threat for a third of metals and engineering sector
These positions have drawn fierce condemnation from the Trump administration and triggered a dramatic shift in US policy toward Pretoria.
As much as the Trump administration seeks to shield American industries, these protectionist tariffs smell of political motivation and economic recklessness.
They could cost thousands of South African jobs, disrupt key industrial supply chains and severely undermine efforts toward African industrialisation.
With such consequences, it leaves one to believe that South Africa is being punished for its exercise of sovereign foreign policy.
South Africa's foreign policy shift has been years in the making. There have been talks for de-dollarisation, reform of global institutions and solidarity among developing nations in an attempt to challenge this entrenched Western-led domination of the world.
ALSO READ: As if US tariff is not enough, more bad news for South African exporters
Therefore, it ought not to be surprising that its firm stance on Palestine, including the closure of its embassy in Israel and calls for sanctions, has drawn civil society praise and Western disapproval.
Both Brics activism and pro-Palestinian diplomacy have made South Africa a target for ideological pressure from Washington.
And not only is this diplomatic row having grave consequences on paper, but the 30% tariffs which affect over R50 billion in annual exports, also threatens Pretoria's continued participation in the African Growth and Opportunity Act – a US trade preference programme that has historically boosted African economies.
This moment signifies more than a breakdown in bilateral relations. It exposes the balance of forces in global governance where rising powers challenge the hegemonic influence of the West.
With Trump absent from the G20, the summit now ought to become a platform for global south leaders to resist US bullying and advocate for alternative visions of a new world order.
ALSO READ: Beyond Trump's pointless pause
As for Washington, the path of coercion is now proving unsustainable. Because by alienating democratic partners like South Africa, it undermines its long-term influence in Africa, especially taking the rise of Chinese and Russian engagements into consideration.
However, Pretoria must not give up on engaging the US because, economically, a lot is at stake. But if South Africa is expected to forfeit its sovereignty, then this is the moment the country needs to look for other avenues that can ensure its survival without the US.
This diplomatic standoff is not simply about trade disputes or summit politics. It raises deeper questions about sovereignty, justice and the rules-based system that will define international relations in the 21st century.
A return to dialogue, mutual respect and principled engagement is not just desirable, it is imperative.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
4 hours ago
- eNCA
SA agricultural exports under pressure
JOHANNESBURG - A 30% tariff on South African agricultural exports to the US takes effect on Thursday. READ: G20 : Opportunity to use agriculture to put Africa on the map The National Agricultural Marketing Council's Bernard Manganyi elaborated on the expected impact on South Africa's farming sector.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Political pressure mounts for banking sector regulation in South Africa
SA's big banks' trade policies in the spotlight Image: IOL HEATED calls for a body to regulate the practices of the country's banking sector, especially from political circles, have emerged once again. They are dismayed with the wanton power that banks currently possess, which included cherry-picking which clients' accounts could be shut without justification. Parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Umkhonto WeSizwe Party (MKP) were very vocal about the establishment a formal adjudication body to oversee banks. Donald Trump's tough stance on US banks has got South Africans thinking Image: Lee Ronganger 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 ✕ The conversation resurfaced yet again after US President Donald Trump's plans to have their nation's banks powers reviewed for what he called 'politicising or unlawful banking practices'. However, unlike the US, the South African Constitution does not give President Cyril Ramaphosa such leverage to regulate the powers of the country's banks, due process must be followed. Earlier this year, the South African banks came under strong criticism at a Parliamentary standing committee on finance meeting. The meeting focused on issues pertaining to competition, the provision of credit for productive activities, and transformation. The South African Reserve Bank (SARB), along with its Prudential Authority Institute, the Banking Association South Africa (BASA), Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), Standard Bank, FNB, Absa, Investec, Nedbank, and Capitec were in attendance. In the latter part of 2023, there were reports that banks were charging clients rates based on the colour of their skin. That revelation caused people to ask pertinent questions about the regulation of banks. The move by Trump's got people asking similar questions as well as why doesn't Ramaphosa implement similar policies as his US counterpart. Labour expert Michael Bagraim responded that the country's Constitution doesn't allow for Ramaphosa to exercise absolute authority and interfere with the banking sector. 'There is no possibility that our president can do something similar to what the Trump presidency has done. We are governed by a much more inclusive constitutional democracy and our laws would not allow such horrific powers to be given to an individual. "The American system gives despotic power to the American presidency,' Bagraim explained. His sentiments were echoed by Professor Siphamandla Zondi, who said the constitutional and political system does not give the president such executive power to punish such wrongdoings. 'In our case, the president should be reporting these matters of debanking and banks' misdemeanors to the regulators and the reserve bank. "The fact these issues continue in our banking sector means those tasked with supervisory and oversight roles are weak and ineffective,' said Zondi. Previously the MK Party had expressed its concerns about banking issues through its member of parliament, Sanele Mwali. Mwali raised concerns that the banks were displaying and "perpetuating unfairness and neo-apartheid systems of racist practices post-1994". He accused banks of exercising double standards when dealing with clients. "We have seen that there were companies covered in controversy in the financial sector, for instance Tongaat, Steinhoff, and Glencor, but they still have accounts with the major banks. "But Sekunjalo and others have already faced their day in court and they've already experienced closure of their accounts. Mwali said such actions by the country's major banks was a concern and he supported the notion that there discrimination within the financial sector still existed. DAILY NEWS
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA's trophy hunting quotas spark legal battles and civil society backlash
A fierce battle over South Africa's hunting quotas has erupted, drawing sharp lines between three opposing camps. Animal protection NGOs and conservation groups have sent submissions to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment's (DFFE) Government Gazette for what they call the illegal, unethical and unscientific issuance of hunting quotas. At the same time, pro-hunting groups, led by Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA), have taken legal action against the DFFE for failing to issue quotas for three CITES-listed species – African elephant, black rhinoceros and leopard – for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. The dispute issue has reignited the national debate about conservation, ethics and the future of South Africa's biodiversity economy. Court order On 21 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court ordered Environment Minister Dion George to produce all decision-making records related to the quota process within 10 days. The court also awarded costs against the minister, a move seen as a judicial rebuke of executive inaction. WRSA's press brief accuses the minister of engaging in 'a gross dereliction of duty', warning that the absence of quotas has 'crippled the regulated hunting industry, undermined rural livelihoods, and thrown South Africa's conservation credibility into question'. George responded in a press statement, calling WRSA's 'rhetoric inflammatory and misleading' and saying 'the court has not ruled on the substance of WRSA's application'. NGOs: quotas without science are illegal WRSA's legal offensive and the DFFE have both drawn sharp criticism from animal protection and conservation NGOs, including Humane World for Animals, the EMS Foundation and the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA). These organisations argue that DFFE's failure to publish quotas is not the real problem but a symptom of a deeper breakdown in scientific integrity and public accountability. Humane World for Animals (formerly HSI Africa), which temporarily interdicted the 2022 export of trophies, says the department's prior decisions were 'unlawful' because they were issued without valid non-detriment findings (NDFs) and without proper public consultation, which are requirements under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). For 2022, the DFFE set quotas for 150 elephant, 10 leopard and 10 black rhinoceros trophies. These quotas do not represent actual export volumes since the South African government releases typically report quota allocations, not actual export counts. While exports were temporarily halted in 2022, the hunting of trophies continued unabated. There is no reliable current data on exports, but historically, according to a Humane World for Animals report, from 2014 to 2018 South Africa exported an average of 4,204 trophies per year, representing 16% of global exports. This included 1,337 elephant trophies (about 268 a year), 574 leopard trophies (about 115 a year) and 21 black rhino trophies (about five a year). The EMS Foundation echoed Humane World for Animals' view in its own 51-page objection to previous quota processes, calling them 'arbitrary, opaque, and devoid of transparent ecological reasoning'. The EMSF, supported by WAPFSA (a coalition of more than 30 organisations focused on animal welfare, biodiversity, ethics and public participation), filed formal objections to DFFE's 2024 and 2025 public notices on non-detriment findings (NDFs) for CITES-listed species and for input on the Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES), which presents the government's desire to ramp up trophy hunting to industrial levels. They argued that the public consultation processes and the scientific methodologies were procedurally and substantively flawed, undermining CITES compliance and NEM:BA obligations. The NGO perspectives counterbalance industry-led claims, stressing ecosystem and welfare-centred conservation, and demand timely, transparent governmental response. Their involvement signals potential avenues for amicus support, broader civil society litigation or independent scientific intervention should the case escalate further. Legal framing: action vs inaction Despite their common focus on the DFFE's governance failures, WRSA and the NGOs present diametrically opposed legal arguments: WRSA Legal position: The DFFE's failure to issue quotas is unlawful; Objective: Compel the minister to act. NGOs Legal position: The DFFE's prior issuance of quotas without legal basis is unlawful; Objective: Block quota decisions lacking science and consultation. In short, WRSA's litigation attacks ministerial inaction, while the NGOs challenge unlawful action. Challenge in the Constitutional Court In another major legal development, the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association has launched a Constitutional Court challenge against provisions in the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2 of 2022. These contested provisions introduced a definition of 'animal wellbeing' into South Africa's biodiversity legislation, a move the association claims is problematic. It is asking the court to declare these provisions either invalid or temporarily suspended. The DFFE, listed as one of the respondents, has stated that the legislative process was complied with constitutional and administrative requirements, and asserts that public participation was facilitated adequately, and thus there was no procedural irregularity worthy of invalidation. Animal protection groups have again responded with fierce opposition. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), also a respondent in the case, firmly opposes the challenge, describing the wellbeing definition as essential, constitutionally sound and reflective of both animal sentience and international obligations. In late 2024, the NSPCA secured a high court interdict after learning SA Hunters had allegedly tried to reach a private settlement without involving key stakeholders. The NSPCA has since formally joined the Constitutional Court proceedings and filed its opposition, labelling the challenge as legally flawed and procedurally opportunistic. Similarly, the EMSF (also a respondent) has called on all state respondents, including the minister, to reject the challenge. EMSF argues that the wellbeing provisions are justified, scientifically grounded and necessary for effective wildlife protection – warning that their removal would undermine both conservation and legal integrity. What's at stake? The outcome of these challenges could redefine the legal responsibilities of the state in managing South Africa's wildlife. The wellbeing definition before the Constitutional Court plays a key role in shaping these legal reforms and views the provisions as vital for protecting wildlife from cruelty and neglect. The NGOs maintain that the new laws empower the minister to act on evidence of harm and apply a precautionary approach – critical for ethical wildlife governance. In the other case, a ruling compelling the department to publish quotas may force transparency, but could also deepen the rift between industry and civil society over what kind of wildlife economy the country should pursue. The NGOs warn that without robust processes, the DFFE risks turning quotas into rubber stamps for an unsustainable and exploitative system. With the minister now legally required to disclose internal records behind the quota delays, the next phase of litigation could expose how quota decisions – or indecisions – were made. WRSA has already hinted at further action, including potential contempt applications, if the department fails to comply. As South Africa balances conservation, economic development, ethical consideration and public accountability, these legal battles offer more than just a clash over hunting – they are a litmus test for the future of biodiversity governance in the country. DM Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa, to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.
