Donald Trump's doctrine of transactionalism has seismic global implications

Daily Maverick

22-04-2025

There is a chilling Darwinian undertone to the world's evolving global order. The principle of survival of the fittest — once confined to the natural sciences — has found disturbing resonance in contemporary geopolitics.
At a time when the international system desperately needs cooperation, stability and shared responsibility, it is instead slipping back into an unforgiving jungle where only the most adaptable, ruthless, venal or well-resourced states survive.
Nowhere is this regression more evident than in the foreign policy of the United States of America under President Donald Trump, whose second term has entrenched a doctrine of transactionalism with seismic global implications.
Multilateralism, once the cornerstone of the post-World War 2 international order, is in retreat. The rule of law — both domestic and international — has been relentlessly assailed, weakened by the very power that helped build the edifice.
Ad hoc alliances
Trump's disdain for global institutions is no longer rhetorical flourish, it is a governing principle. From the United Nations, International Court of Justice, to the World Trade Organization, vital institutions have been sidelined or undermined, and replaced with ad hoc alliances based not on shared values, but on expedient deals.
Trump-era diplomacy is unambiguously transactional: alliances are only as good as their immediate returns, and loyalty is expected to be bought — often literally.
In such a world, diplomacy resembles a global auction more than a forum for principled negotiation.
This shift has placed developing nations in a precarious position. They must now barter access to resources or strategic concessions in exchange for support from the world's most powerful nation.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for instance, is reportedly offering access to its vast stores of cobalt and lithium — minerals crucial for the global transition to clean energy — in return for US military assistance against Rwandan-backed rebel forces.
But perhaps even more revealing is who is shaping these negotiations. Businessman Massad Boulos, the father-in-law of Trump's daughter Tiffany, has been appointed to explore such deals in the DRC and across the continent under the guise of Trump's senior adviser for Africa.
That a presidential in-law is acting as a quasi-diplomatic envoy, brokering access to critical minerals in exchange for geopolitical favours, reflects the growing conflation of personal networks and state power — a deeply troubling hallmark of Trump-era diplomacy.
One cannot help but speculate, perhaps naïvely, that South Africa's abrupt withdrawal from its long-standing peacekeeping mission in the DRC may be more than a matter of logistics or regional recalibration.
Strategic goals
Could it be that the move was conjured to clear the path for the US to assert greater influence in the region, considering that there are clear areas of friction that complicate South Africa and Washington's strategic goals on the continent?
This withdrawal coincides with other notable shifts in DRC policy. Not long ago, the Congolese government firmly rebuffed what it perceived as coercive tactics by Starlink, the Elon Musk-owned satellite internet provider, in its pursuit of a telecommunications operating licence.
Yet, recent reports suggest a reversal in posture: DRC leaders are now said to be engaged in talks and increasingly amenable to a potential agreement with Starlink.
Furthermore, it is plausible that Musk is positioning himself to secure access to rare earth minerals from the politically unstable DRC to meet the growing demands of his Tesla electric vehicle company and battery foundries scattered across the globe.
Such developments raise pertinent questions about the interplay of geopolitical pressure, resource diplomacy and the recalibration of sovereignty in the face of mounting global interest in the region's strategic assets.
Meanwhile, the oligarchs who played a significant role in championing Trump's re-election campaign now find themselves perilously close to the levers of US foreign policy. This proximity poses a troubling prospect, as it risks entrenching a foreign policy agenda that undermines multilateralism and erodes the sovereignty of nations.
Their influence risks transforming America's global engagements into a mirror of plutocratic interest — where foreign policy is no longer a public good but a private enterprise.
Multilateralism, in this context, is not simply under pressure — it is endangered. The idea that nations can come together to solve global problems, from climate change to security threats, is being supplanted by a Darwinian struggle for influence, greed and survival.
For weaker states, the lesson is sobering: principles are costly, and pragmatism is the new price of entry.
Profound consequences
The consequences are profound and perilous. Global governance has long been imperfect, but it relied on a set of shared assumptions: that power should be tempered by law, that institutions matter and that cooperation was preferable to coercion. These assumptions are rapidly collapsing.
It is more precise to frame South Africa's foreign policy positioning as one of strategic autonomy rather than, as some might think, adversarial intent. It is driven by a commitment to multilateralism, Global South solidarity and sovereign decision-making free from bloc-based coercion.
This stance may frustrate US ambitions for influence or alignment on certain geopolitical issues, but it does not amount to adversarial behaviour in the sense of active obstruction or hostility.
It is not beyond the realm of plausibility that strategic interests of some economic hitmen, jockeying to leverage Trump's geopolitical orientation, particularly in the Great Lakes region, collide with South Africa's foreign policy independence and national interests.
In this context, President Cyril Ramaphosa's appointment of certain individuals — particularly business figures who are not universally accepted in some quarters — to strategic positions may well be perceived as a potential impediment to the pursuit of opaque and possibly nefarious agendas that run counter to South Africa's national interests.
In the jungle of international affairs, where the rule of law is assailed and multilateralism mocked as weakness, only those prepared to play by the ruthless rules of transactionalism are likely to survive. But in the long run, even the fittest will find that a world without rules is a world without refuge.
We have reached a new frontier, where foreign policy is no longer a public good but a private enterprise. What remains to be asked of South Africa's foreign policy orientation is this: Quo vadis? Where are we headed — and at what cost to principle, sovereignty, and strategic coherence?
It is high time South Africa shed the veneer of naïveté, timidity and appeasement that seems to characterise its posture in dealings with the United States and organised business. DM