Trump's tariffs on SA goods kick in
President Donald Trump imposed duties on countries worldwide to balance what he calls 'trade deficits'.
The duties will affect some of the 7.5 percent of products exported to the US.
Copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and critical minerals are excluded.
Stainless steel scrap and energy and energy products are also exempted.
But, there are concerns that the automobile and agriculture sectors will be hit hard.
Government has outlined urgent interventions, setting up a support desk t to help exporters.
It also says it will continue engaging the Trump administration to strike a deal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Goose-step by goose-step, Republican Party authoritarianism marches into the political arena
Donald Trump's efforts to channel his authoritarian-wannabe style are bringing forth new insults to democratic practice and coherent governance. These run from the vindictive firing of a government labour statistician to the promotion of ultra-partisan redistricting of congressional districts to fend off a Democratic majority in the 2026 mid-term election. On the mean-spirited, small-minded side of the ledger, US President Donald Trump abruptly announced he was firing Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. This office is one of the government's most important economic data compiling and analysis agencies. Among other things, it tracks the country's unemployment rate and the number of new jobs being created — information crucial for decisions and calculations by the government and business. The ostensible reason for Trump's ire was that the most recently reported number of new jobs created was well below what he had hoped to hear. That came in tandem with significant downward revisions to earlier monthly totals of new jobs. The Trump administration, however, took these mundane, even ordinary statistical calculations and routine revisions as direct slaps at the imaginary triumphs of Trumpian economic policies. The resulting damage from this firing to a heretofore broad trust in the reliability of the government's economic data will be difficult to repair, almost regardless of who is handed the poisoned chalice as the new head of that bureau. For many, any replacement's judgment and independence may well be seen as a politically tainted toady, tweaking (or falsifying) the data to curry favour with the current administration — and maybe the succeeding ones as well. While that position is a high-level yet specialised political appointment, when she was initially nominated and confirmed, McEntarfer had overwhelming support in the Senate. But to Trump, she was just one more agent of the imaginary deep state designed to bring him low. It's another of Trump's efforts to channel his authoritarian-wannabe style, bringing forth new insults to democratic practice and coherent governance. Attack on DEI Reaching deeply into the standard ways of academic appointments, the president's team usurped the authority of the commandant and staff of the US Military Academy at West Point to appoint lecturers. The Trumpians forced the withdrawal of the appointment of a highly regarded, academically qualified, experienced former military officer to a prestige professorship, Jen Easterly, a West Point graduate who served as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under Biden. The ostensible grounds for this sudden decision remain somewhat murky, but presumably it was something she had said or written in the past, plus the fact that she is, well, quite obviously, female. Academic performance and the enthusiastic support for her by the school's commandant and academic officers were insufficient to secure the appointment. Yes, in the larger picture of a vast defence and security establishment, this personnel action might be seen as pretty small beer, but it is simply one more demonstration of the administration's desire to extirpate every supposed tendril of DEI — diversity, equity, inclusivity — in the Department of Defense. Trump's fury Then, the other day, one of those young comrades who are the hoplites of the so-called Doge — or Department of Government Efficiency — whose online moniker was Big Balls (we're not making this up), was the victim of an assault on the streets of Washington, DC. This single act was sufficient to drive Trump into a fury. He publicly threatened to seize control of the city's government on the grounds that it was an ungoverned, chaotic, crime-ridden shambles. All this fire and brimstone came despite the reality that ultimate control of the city's governmental mechanisms is constitutionally vested in the Congress and that branch of government has delegated some, but not all, of its powers to an elected mayor and city council. The president is not involved. Random tariffs Meanwhile, the Trumpian tariff roulette wheel continues to spin, with the pointer seemingly landing at random at new levels and countries. Okay, there are actually two pointers: one is for the applicable tariff rates, and one for the country. Regardless, it is hard to discern much deeper logic behind many of these choices (ask the gobsmacked folks in Lesotho or Laos), save for the impact of leaders expressing demurs over US policy or their economies' abilities to generate trade surpluses. All of that utopian nonsense about free trade, the World Trade Organization and most favoured nation treatment is going out the window, and the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is now in the saddle and will be riding humankind. That Act is regarded as having provoked massive trade wars, cuts in international trade and contributed to the Great Depression. Oh, and Germany's slide towards dictatorship as a result of the economic collapse there. Most economists believe the costs to US consumers from these new tariff regimens will, soon enough, begin to bite as importers pass along the new tariff charges (even if foreign producers cut prices a bit to hold on to market share). It will take years for most producers to meet the ostensible goal of forcing manufacturers to move their production to the US, if ever. So far, at least, the impact on prices has been modest — if only because importers worked to bring in their import orders before the new tariffs kicked in. Much of what will stock US stores for the holidays has already been manufactured and exported, but not necessarily landed yet. The reported dampening of economic growth is one reason that drove that Trumpian hissy fit about the Bureau of Labor Statistics' head. Russian confusion One example of the lack of any larger strategic thinking for all these tariffs is that after years of Trump lavishing praise on the Indian government of Narendra Modi (and courting support and campaign contributions from the Indian-American community in the US, it must be said), India has just been hit with punitive tariffs on the grounds it is financing the Russian war machine by importing its discounted oil below global market prices. That punishment meted out might seem confusing, given Trump's unrelenting, increasingly desperate effort to make nice-nice with Vladimir Putin so he can be the man who brought an end to Russia's assault on Ukraine. On Friday night, following a White House ceremony that brought together Armenia and Azerbaijan for a handshake to end their decadeslong conflict, it was announced that Trump would host Putin in Alaska this week for a summit designed to end the Russia-Ukraine war. This putative ending of hostilities would be grounded in the harsh reality of a Ukrainian cession of territory to Russia — presumably Crimea and much of the eastern Ukraine already seized by Russia in the years of fighting, although Trump positioned this as 'exchanges of territory'. It does not seem the Ukrainians will get much of a voice in this, nor will Nato's European nations. As the ancient Greek historian Thucydides put it: 'The strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must.' But Trump's unrelenting campaign to win a Nobel Peace Prize continues unabated. Gilded ballroom A Trumpian propensity for his grandiosity has been manifested in his plans to add a massive new ballroom onto the eastern side of the White House. It will be decorated in what should be called Trumpian Second Empire Grotesque — with an overabundance of gilt, painted ceilings, massive chandeliers, and oversized gold sconces and wall hangings everywhere possible. The plan to have this construction financed by private donations (and thus free from outside oversight) has led to concerns that it will be another effort at 'pay to play' special dealing, similar to corporate sponsorship of the traditional White House Easter egg roll. If one needed any further clarity about the ghastliness of such plans, the White House's Rose Garden — site of innumerable memorable public events — has now largely been replaced by an unrelenting concrete plaza. Joni Mitchell's 1970 lament in ' Big Yellow Taxi,' that '…they put up a parking lot', seems eerily appropriate. Contorted districts Still more astonishing behaviour by Trump has been his enthusiastic engagement with a gerrymandering initiative in Texas. Gerrymandering is an old habit in US politics, but this newest effort is proceeding down an especially problematic path. The term refers to the early 19th-century Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry, who insisted upon shaping legislative districts that were so twisted and contorted in their boundaries that a famous political cartoon about it drew one of those districts in the shape of a winged salamander wiggling its way through the map of the state, hence the portmanteau word 'gerrymander' that has become the common description of problematic legislative constituencies. The number of each state's congressional districts is determined by the country's decennial census. (Yes, slaves were initially counted as 3/5ths of a person, a provision that became null and void after the abolition of slavery in 1865.) A Supreme Court decision subsequently upheld the requirement that congressional districts must be largely equal in population, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act mandated that minority-majority districts should be protected, rather than diminished by slicing up the state's minority populations and squeezing them into surrounding districts, thus effectively nullifying any possibilities of minority group voting power. Common sense has dictated that the districts must be, as much as possible, geographically cohesive, rather than, for example, being a modern manifestation of Governor Gerry's scheme, following a highway and including various bits of cities and towns along the way for many kilometres. One other key factor is that redistricting in accordance with the population figures after a census takes place state by state, rather than being a federal decision. Appalling redistricting plans deliberately squeezing minority populations into just one district, regardless of geography and at the expense of other plans have ended up in the courts. Clinging on The current imbroglio has arisen from the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, and that party's majority in the Texas state legislature — under the goad of Trump — to carry out a redistricting effort five years before a census takes place. That would rearrange the congressional districts in the state such that Texas would most likely end up with five additional Republican-leaning districts. The goal here is to build a bulwark that can bolster the razor-thin Republican majority in the House of Representatives in time for the mid-term election next year. The growing Republican fear is that sufficient numbers of voters in some marginal districts will be so significantly annoyed by the actual outcomes of the taxation and spending arrangements coming out of that now-passed 'Big Beautiful Bill' that Republicans may well lose control of the House. If that were to happen, investigations of Trump's governmental actions, public and adversarial hearings, and all manner of other efforts could stymie — and maybe even roll back — some of Trump's more egregious demands and desires. It could make his last two years as president a misery. In response, a significant caucus of Texas' Democratic state legislators fled the state, taking up temporary residence in Illinois (with the blessing of that Democratic Party-governed state's governor), preventing any legislative action in Texas because of the absence of a quorum. Escalating the fight, the Texas governor has threatened to have these malefactors arrested and shanghaied back to Texas, and then drummed out of office, thus allowing the redistricting to go forward without any obstacles by those pesky Democrats. Abbott has asked the FBI to help track down and arrest those dangerous criminals. The FBI, of course, is run by über-Trump loyalist Kash Patel, who is apparently itching to join the action. This is despite the absence of federal laws regarding the absence of state legislators from sittings of state legislatures. The National Review, a stoutly conservative journal, weighed in, with one columnist writing, 'Readers, we are in the midst of a major political Mexican standoff, one that feels surprisingly unremarked upon as we accelerate pell-mell toward the inevitable consequences of the breakdown of a series of electoral norms. 'I cannot help but think about it in cinematic terms. First Sergio Leone, then Quentin Tarantino, and now Democratic and Republican lawmakers across the nation are holding one another at electoral gunpoint, threatening mutually assured construction: the abrupt and hyper-partisan redrawing of congressional boundary lines in every state where it is politically possible.' In response to the Texan shenanigans, governors in Democratic Party-governed states such as Illinois, California, and New York have threatened to engage in the same kind of punitive redistricting, squeezing out Republican majorities in various congressional districts. This move has been labelled the 'nuclear option'. Such redistricting decisions would, of course, be a blow against the equal representation in Congress for the nation's citizens. And the blame for this belongs with a Republican Party desperate to hang onto power, despite changes of heart by voters. A path forward Taken together, the Trumpian onslaught is very real and, at times, startlingly specific and targeted deep in the bureaucracy. It draws on Trump's usual grievances about the government, the elites and the so-called deep state. It also draws on his famously thin skin. Together with Republican allies elsewhere, they seem determined to bring lasting change. But nothing is forever, and one election could overturn much of it. The Democrats may be coming together to draw their own lines in the sand. Going forward, salvaging the situation for the future with positions like the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics will require making such appointments fully independent of presidential choices, or, at the minimum, subject to unbreakable multiyear contracts. The model might be like the heads of the Congressional Budget Office or the Government Accountability Office. Solving the current tariff shambles is harder, but limiting presidential authority to decide on new tariffs in response to 'national emergencies' needs a serious rethink. Setting tariffs is, after all, listed constitutionally as one of Congress's enumerated powers. Finally, somehow, in some way, a new structure arbitrating redistricting for congressional seats must be found before the gerrymandering conflict locks in a deeply unrepresentative landscape that excludes political minorities, state by state. But don't count on any of this happening soon. The US's contemporary political culture is growing increasingly toxic. DM
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Jacob Zuma Morocco visit
Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs meeting the ANC SG Fikile Mbalula, while the flag is displayed Image: Supplied In a press statement published on the 6th of August 2025, DIRCO has registered 'its strong objection and concern regarding circumstances around the recent visit of an eminent South African leader, former South African President Mr Jacob Zuma, who is the Leader of the Umkhonto We Sizwe Party, to Morocco on the 15th of July 2025'. Whilst recognising and respecting the sovereign right of Morocco to invite individuals and groups, DIRCO stated that 'it strongly protests the use of South African national symbols, in this instance the use of the South African National Flag, in the meeting between Mr Jacob Zuma and the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco'. This statement, which has been published three weeks after the visit, uses the excuse of the flag previously mentioned in the ANC press release concerning the visit of the previous Head of State to criticise the presence of the latter in Morocco. Indeed, the hypersensitivity of DIRCO and its unusual and exaggerated reaction raise several questions about the priorities of Foreign Policy in our country, especially during these tough times. Amidst the recent punitive Trump Tariffs, the focus should be to mend the trade relationship to assert the economic diplomacy plan that was adopted by DIRCO, DTIC and the Ministry of Finance. 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 Nonetheless, DIRCO took time among these huge trade problems with the USA that threaten our national interest to publish a press release concerning the visit of the former Head of State. This is not the first trip undertaken by Jacob Zuma as the former head of state outside of South Africa. It is indeed worth mentioning that M. Zuma has been invited this year to the inauguration ceremonies of both newly elected Ghana and Gabon presidents in his capacity as an ex-President of South Africa. During those two trips, M. Zuma received a warm welcome from the authorities of those two African countries without sparking any reaction from DIRCO. During his trip to Morocco, M. Jacob Zuma, who voiced his party's support for the autonomy proposal over the Sahara, has been very clear in his address, stating that it was his party's view and not of the State, thus closing the debate about any confusion regarding the South African Government's position concerning the conflict. This position expressed by MK was not a surprise at all. The South African Party published, nearly two months ago, a detailed document named 'A strategic Partnership for African Unity, Economic Emancipation and Territorial Integrity: Morocco', in which it detailed its stance concerning Morocco and the Western Sahara conflict In this document, Umkhonto WeSizwe stated that: 'Commitment to sovereignty: Morocco's efforts to reclaim its full territorial integrity align with the MK Party's commitment to preserving the sovereignty and unity of African states. This resonates more than ever with South Africa as our country battles against internal forces aiming at breaking our country's territorial integrity. Thus, MK party remains steadfast in defending the territorial integrity of South Africa as a sacrosanct principle of its foreign policy'. This statement of MK brought to light the inexistence of a consensus concerning the issue of Western Sahara among the political sphere in South Africa. It is also worth recalling that when the ANC reacted to the position expressed by MK concerning Western Sahara citing 'the right of Self-determination of Western Sahara', the separatist movement 'cape independence' published, on the 20th July 2025, a tweet saying:' Hypocrisy Alert! ANC pushes for Western Sahara independence while denying Western Cape & other SA groups the same right to self-determination. What's good for one isn't good for all?'. Coming back to the issue of the flag, well-informed cadres among the MK party said that 'The South African flag displayed during Mr. Zuma's visit was done at his express request, as a gesture of honour and respect for his position as a previous Head of State'. Moreover, it is universal practice for national flags to be present in nongovernmental contexts and engagements: sporting competitions, cultural events, civil forums, etc, added the cadres of MK. Thus, the DIRCO statement raises the issue of the use of the national flag by South African citizens, organisations and political parties in General. Expressing concerns over this issue, the spokesperson of MK, M. Nhlamulo Ndhlela, said that 'Mbalula, on his visit in 2023 in Algeria, had a national flag of South Africa in a picture taken with him and the foreign minister of Algeria and DIRCO said nothing. Why now? The ANC and its GNU do not own the South African flag; it belongs to South Africans, and President Zuma is a South African, and a former head of state'. On the details of Zuma's trip to Morocco, IOL was able to confirm that the visit was prepared with the involvement of the South African Embassy in Rabat, which officially asked the Moroccan authorities to grant Mr. Zuma protocol treatment. Under these conditions, some experts contacted by IOL declared that it is 'totally contradictory for the South African authorities to request that Mr. Zuma be treated as a high dignitary, only to criticise the use of the South African flag during his visit'. It is worth noting that all the previous Heads of state in South Africa, when they undertake a trip abroad, are asked to communicate all the details of their trip to the State protocol, who then inform DIRCO to take all the measures to coordinate with the relevant authorities of the country all the aspects of the visit including the protocol. The aspects raised above are just a reflection of the existing deep disagreement of different South African political parties with the ANC's foreign policy, which has sparked a big debate about the national foreign policy of South Africa and the actual existence of a consensus around its priorities. Indeed, the DA, which is a partner of the ANC in the GNU, has undertaken, in March 2025, a trip to the USA, which was officially communicated by the previous DA Spokesperson on International Relations & Cooperation, Mrs Emma Powell, in total contradiction with the official position expressed by the South African Government and DIRCO.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
National Dialogue may not be a success
President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the National Dialogue, which aims to facilitate conversations among diverse South African stakeholders, including government, civil society, and political organisations. However, it has already drawn criticism regarding its high costs. Image: ANC/X The much-anticipated National Dialogue, set to kick off with a National Convention at the University of South Africa (Unisa) in Pretoria on 15 and 16 August 2025, is facing mounting challenges, with the withdrawal of several high-profile foundations raising questions about its future success. The dialogue, which aims to facilitate conversations among diverse South African stakeholders, including government, civil society, and political organisations, has already drawn criticism regarding its high costs. The reported R700 million price tag for the event has caused concern, despite the Presidency's efforts to manage expenses and reduce the financial burden on taxpayers. In response to the growing criticism, the Presidency assured the public that the budgetary process for the National Dialogue adhered to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and that efforts had been made to secure services and facilities at no cost. 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 ✕ Unisa, for instance, has offered to host the event for free, providing a range of services such as venues, catering, Wi-Fi, and printing of discussion materials. Additionally, the government has secured further in-kind donations, including transportation, public viewing screens, and other logistical support, which the Presidency claims will significantly reduce the overall cost of the dialogue. The National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) and the Presidency will also contribute from their existing budgets to cover communication and logistical expenses. However, despite these efforts, the National Dialogue faces a crisis of participation. Key players in South Africa's civil society and political landscape have pulled out of the event. Prominent foundations, including the Steve Biko Foundation, the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, have all announced their decision to withdraw. These organisations have expressed concerns about the lack of adequate financing, the erosion of citizen leadership in the dialogue process, and the shift of control towards the government. According to the foundations, what began as a citizen-led initiative has gradually become dominated by government interests. They argue that the event, which was originally intended to empower citizens, has lost its focus due to the government's insistence on pushing forward with the convention, despite advice from the organising subcommittee chairs. The foundations further criticised the lack of a proper platform for meaningful dialogue, as well as the misalignment within the organising committee and the short timelines involved in organising the event. 'In pushing forward for a convention on 15 August at the will of government officials and against the advice of the subcommittee chairs, we believe that a critical moment in which citizens should be leading will be undermined,' the statement from the foundations read. While the dialogue is expected to draw leaders from various political parties and civil society organisations, the absence of these key foundations casts doubt on the true inclusiveness and effectiveness of the event.
