Latest news with #US-SouthAfrica
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
With Mcebisi Jonas in limbo, SA is dangerously exposed to false US narratives
New challenges have emerged for South Africa's bilateral relations with the US after the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution calling for a full review of the relationship, which must now pass the House itself. In this context, and amid the little visible progress made by South Africa's special envoy to the US, Mcebisi Jonas, it is particularly concerning that Pretoria still finds itself without a fully accredited ambassador in Washington. Jonas' appointment was intended to stabilise relations after the dramatic expulsion of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool before the appointment of a new ambassador. However, while Jonas is an experienced and credible figure, well versed in statecraft and economic diplomacy, even the most qualified envoy cannot act if they are not granted access — and by most accounts, Jonas has been unable to even enter the US. Multiple sources have reported that Jonas was denied a diplomatic visa by Washington, effectively grounding the very individual meant to serve as Pretoria's bridge-builder. US officials have been silent on the matter, while South Africa's Presidency has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, but has insisted Jonas is working 'behind the scenes'. This is useful, but diplomacy does not occur behind closed doors alone; it requires presence, visibility, and access. This is especially true in a place like Washington, where decisions are often influenced through informal networking as much as they are through formal negotiation. At the same time the US-South Africa trade relationship and notably our membership of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Agoa, which enables exporters preferential access to the US market, is also under threat. The Trump administration has been clear about its intention to impose sweeping tariffs on countries across the board, and signalled that Agoa renewal is by no means guaranteed. Key sectors face potentially devastating consequences. Averting further escalation South Africa has proposed a framework agreement to avert further escalation, but implementation requires intensive, high-level engagement in Washington. The issue is not that Jonas lacks competence, but rather that the current arrangement is structurally flawed. A special envoy denied entry to the country he is meant to engage cannot serve as the country's effective diplomatic point person. This is not a reflection on Jonas, but on the untenability of his position. Pretoria must thus urgently consider appointing a new, formally accredited ambassador to the United States — someone acceptable to Washington, with the diplomatic standing to be received at the appropriate levels, and with the political dexterity to navigate what has become an unusually hostile climate. There is precedent for special envoys playing useful behind-the-scenes roles, but these are typically complementary to, not substitutes for, formal diplomatic channels. South Africa's decision not to rush a new appointment may have been calculated. Given the acrimony surrounding Rasool's expulsion, Pretoria has probably sought to avoid appearing to capitulate or endorse the basis for his removal. But that moment has passed. The longer the post remains vacant, the more likely South Africa's absence is interpreted not as defiance, but as disengagement. Ultimately, it sends the wrong signal to its allies, adversaries, and the South African public. It also leaves South Africa dangerously exposed to narratives it cannot contest in real time. US right-wing media and several lawmakers have infamously amplified unfounded claims of a 'white genocide' in South Africa, which then not only entered mainstream discourse but also shaped US policy, culminating in the recent arrival of Afrikaner 'refugees' in the US. Without a strong and present ambassador to push back forcefully, this kind of distortion risks calcifying into accepted wisdom among Washington decision-makers, with South Africa becoming an ideological talking point in a wider culture war it never intended to join. Beyond managing crises, a new ambassador would also be important in shaping what remains salvageable in the bilateral relationship. The US remains a vital trade and investment partner. And Washington, despite its flaws, is still a power that can make, or break, international norms (at least for now). Pretoria has made clear that it will not be bullied into submission, which is both consistent with the ANC's post-liberation foreign policy and broadly defensible in a world where smaller states must assert their sovereignty. But resistance should not and does not mean retreat — strategic diplomacy requires being both principled and present. Re-engagement with Washington should not have to translate into abandoning South Africa's position on multipolarity or Palestine or its relationship with BRICS+, but does mean ensuring these positions are articulated clearly and defended robustly in the arenas that matter. Right now, that defence is not happening. It cannot happen without someone physically in the room. Good faith If the US administration had no ambassador in Pretoria for six months while threatening trade sanctions, few would interpret it as a gesture of good faith. The same logic applies in reverse. The appointment of a new ambassador won't resolve all points of tension. But it will signal seriousness, restore basic diplomatic protocol, and could help in reclaiming some narrative agency. It would also give South Africa the ability to engage Congress, the State Department, and US civil society on its own terms, rather than as a passive subject of increasingly hostile debate. This is not about capitulation. It is about capacity. Pretoria cannot afford to appear adrift. Now is the time to fill that post in Washington to counter those speaking in our place. DM
IOL News
4 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
Understanding the cost implications of the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act on the property sector
If foreign investors exit the South African property market, property prices may cool. Image: Leon Lestrade, Independent Newspapers. The US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 will negatively affect the local property sector's investment dynamics and have cost implications if it becomes law. The bill was introduced by Ronny Jackson, a congressman from Texas, in April. For it to become a law, it will need to be approved by the House and Senate before being signed by President Donald Trump. It accuses South Africa of undermining the United States' interests by maintaining close relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, nations that are Pretoria's strong allies and key trading partners. On investment dynamics, Dr Farai Nyika, an academic programme leader in the School of Public Administration at the Management College of Southern Africa(MANCOSA), says South Africa's property sector depends significantly on both domestic and international investment. He said foreign involvement includes not only direct investment in physical developments but also the purchase of South African property-related shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). 'Should the bill become US law, the geopolitical risks associated with doing business in South Africa may deter foreign investors. This could result in a slowdown in physical property developments by foreign investors and a sell-off of South African property stocks. "Such a sell-off would constrain these companies' ability to raise capital, potentially leading to reduced profitability, operational cutbacks, and, disastrously, job losses,' Nyika told "Independent Media Property". The academic leader said it is key to note that the bill, in its current form, may change to broaden penalties beyond what is currently stated, so they could only speculate on its current form. He said it should be remembered that the bill is really targeting South African individuals, rather than the country as a whole. 'However, perceptions matter more than reality and legal precision; for example, though Zimbabwean politicians were the target of U.S sanctions in 2003, the Zim government claimed that the country's subsequent economic hardships were the result of the entire country being sanctioned. "By extension-sanctions that target individuals indirectly harm the economy. Because many property investors will say that they do not want to do business in a country that the 'US is sanctioning'. "Perversely, there could be some economic benefits to the local property market from the U.S sanctioning local politicians. If foreign investors exit the market, property prices may cool. "This could make housing more affordable for locals who have previously been priced out-particularly in urban centres like Cape Town, where gentrification has greatly limited social mobility and access to property ownership,' Nyika said. 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 With regards to cost implications, he said a large proportion of building materials, especially high-end fixtures for luxury properties and solar technologies, are imported. He said in a country that has been grappling with persistent load shedding and a transition to cleaner energy, the demand for solar and energy-efficient solutions is rising. 'However, if the bill disrupts trade relations or leads to broader sanctions, the cost of these imported materials may increase, raising construction and development costs. This could slow down South Africa's Just Energy Transition in the short term.' With that said, Nyika said economic pressure often fosters innovation. He said historical precedents show that sanctions or trade restrictions can trigger industrial growth-as was the case in both Zimbabwe and apartheid-era South Africa during the 1960s and 70s. 'In the long run, if the South African government were to prioritise industrial policy and local manufacturing, the country could reduce reliance on imports. "This would benefit the property sector by fostering domestic production of certain formerly imported building materials and solar items, improving resilience, and potentially creating new economic opportunities to expand local property.' Asked whether the South Africa property sector will have resort in this regard, Dr Thandile Ncwana, also an Academic Programme Leader at the same institution, said but some of the possible strategic play for South Africa in this situation should the bill be approved, is to mitigate escalation and maintain its relationship with the US by considering engaging in high-level bilateral diplomacy aimed at clarifying its foreign policy positions while reaffirming its commitment to democratic values, trade and multilateral cooperation. She said proactive parliamentary diplomacy, Track II dialogue forums, and regular engagement with the US Congress and civil society actors could help reframe South Africa's stance as one of principled non-alignment rather than strategic antagonism. 'Because reinforcing bilateral economic ties and highlighting areas of mutual benefit, such as climate action, infrastructure development and health, can serve as diplomatic buffers. The government also have a chance to carefully balance between asserting its foreign policy independence and avoiding diplomatic or economic isolation. "This can be achieved by adopting a transparent foreign policy communication strategy, clearly articulating the principles behind its international engagements, and avoiding actions that may be interpreted as tacit support for states or groups under U.S. sanctions,' Ncwana said. She added that multilateralism should remain at the heart of South Africa's diplomacy, and efforts must be intensified to build consensus with African partners, BRICS allies, and Western institutions alike to maintain strategic flexibility and avoid becoming a casualty of great-power rivalry. Politically, she said South Africa should adopt a dual-track diplomacy strategy that preserves its non-aligned international stance while actively engaging U.S. policymakers to dispel misconceptions about its foreign policy positions. 'This includes convening high-level bilateral dialogues, leveraging multilateral platforms like the United Nations and African Union to clarify its principled positions, and re-establishing structured parliamentary exchanges with the US Congress. "South Africa's leadership can also benefit from a strategic public diplomacy campaign that communicates its commitment to constitutional democracy, human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution principles historically shared with the US. "These efforts can de-escalate tensions and rebuild political trust, allowing space for honest disagreement without undermining the broader relationship.' Ncwana said that overall, the South African government can lastly play a strategic move by enhancing interdepartmental coordination, particularly between the Departments of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), Trade and Industry, and National Treasury to ensure cohesive messaging and responsiveness to external developments like the US legislative process. Independent Media Property
The Citizen
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
Ramaphosa hopes diplomacy amid US push for sanctions on SA
The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a bill tabled by Republican Ronny Jackson calling for a full review of US relations with South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa is in the dark about the United States' push to ban ANC leaders, hoping that diplomacy will prevail. The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week passed a bill tabled by Republican Ronny Jackson in April, calling for a full review of US relations with South Africa. Sanctions bill The Committee voted 34-16 on Tuesday to send the 'US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act' to the full House of Representatives, where it could be subject to a vote. Jackson introduced the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act, providing tools to impose sanctions on 'corrupt South African government officials' who support America's adversaries like China, Russia and Iran, among others. ALSO READ: US Congressman Ronny Jackson introduces bill to hold SA accountable He introduced a bill that would mandate a comprehensive review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa. Jackson said Representative John James was co-leading the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act legislation. Ramaphosa responds The bill comes as relations between the US and South Africa are at an all-time low after US President Donald Trump cut financial aid to South Africa, citing Pretoria taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and 'strengthening ties with Iran, which supports terrorism globally'. Speaking to the media after his visit to the BMW plant in Rosslyn, Pretoria, Ramaphosa said he and his administration had taken note of the passing of the bill, adding that it would not impact South Africa's approach to dealing with the United States. 'We have heard what has happened in the US House committee, and that whole process still has a long way to go,' he said. 'Discussions will be ongoing, and we don't know exactly what is driving all this.' 'Our bilateral discussions and dealings with the United States will continue, and we will talk about all manner of things, including precisely this issue and many others. We've got good diplomatic relations with the US, and we want to enrich them and make them better. So, we are very positive,' Ramaphosa said. [WATCH] President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa is in the dark about the United States' push to ban ANC leaders. He adds that he is positive about the outcome of engagements between the two countries.#Newzroom405 — Newzroom Afrika (@Newzroom405) July 24, 2025 ALSO READ: Is Trump about to slap sanctions on SA for misguided 'white genocide?' US tensions South Africa's relationship with the US sharply deteriorated during Donald Trump's second term, during which he has accused the government of anti-white racism and started a refugee programme for white farmers and Afrikaners. Relations were further strained following the remarks of former South African Ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool on Trump. Rasool was expelled by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio after he claimed in a webinar that US President Trump (and, later, Elon Musk) are leading a global white supremacist movement. Rasool was not replaced, and it was recently revealed that the US had, several months ago, rejected the South African government's appointment of Mcebisi Jonas as a special envoy to its country. The Presidency said that while Jonas, as special envoy, does not present diplomatic credentials to host countries in the way designated heads of mission or other diplomats do, he had helped facilitate trade and international relations efforts 'to reset diplomatic relations and all areas of cooperation between South Africa and the United States'. Tariffs Ramaphosa met with Trump in May amid the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the two countries. Earlier this month, the US hit South Africa with 30% tariffs 'on any and all South African products sent into the United States'. The tariff will take effect on 1 August. In a letter to Ramaphosa, Trump claimed that the steep tariffs were necessary to correct what he described as 'a persistent trade deficit between the two countries'. However, this was challenged by Ramaphosa, who said the decision was based on a flawed interpretation of trade data. ALSO READ: WATCH: Donald Trump ambushes Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office
The South African
6 days ago
- Politics
- The South African
'There's no white genocide': US lawmaker pleads SA's case amid sanctions bill
US Representative Jonathan L. Jackson, during an address to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has opposed H.R. 2633, the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 that aims to sanction South Africa and some ANC officials. On Wednesday, he said the bill 'does absolutely nothing to advance our bilateral relations with South Africa and in fact threatens to undermine it'. Jackson described the bill as 'not diplomacy' but 'coercion', based on a 'deeply fogged premise' that ignores the complexities and significant progress made together. Jackson stated that there was 'no credibility, no truth to saying white South Africans have experienced genocide'. 'Those were manufactured pictures,' he added, and emphasised the absence of a white genocide in South Africa. Jackson noted South Africa is the largest US trading partner in Africa, with over $20.5 billion (R359 billion) in two-way trade. He described South Africa as a strategic partner and a strong democracy committed to human rights. The two countries cooperate on global issues like health, climate, trade and education, Jackson added, stressing the importance of 'mutual respect' and 'respectful dialogues' to build on progress and yield benefits for both nations. Jackson warned that the proposed bill would increase tensions and undermine the progress South Africa and the US had already made. He urged Congress to allow diplomacy to 'play a central role in resolving political differences' based on international law and respect for sovereignty. He reminded the committee that the US had had relations with South Africa for less than 30 years since apartheid ended, and said South Africa had the right to an independent point of view. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Daily Maverick
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
US House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passes first round of anti-SA Bill
The Bill calls for a review of US-SA relations and for sanctions against the South African government and ANC leaders. A Bill that would require the Trump administration to conduct a full review of US-South Africa relations and to identify South African government and ANC leaders eligible for sanctions, passed the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee this week. The committee passed the 'US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025' by a vote of 34-16, with 28 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it and only Democrats opposing. It will now go to the full House of Representatives, where observers believe it will pass. It envisages SA government and ANC leaders being sanctioned under America's Global Magnitsky Act, which imposes financial and visa restrictions on individuals deemed guilty of human rights abuses or corruption. The Bill would also require the US Administration to determine if South Africa has undermined US national security or foreign policy interests. 'Aligning with America's adversaries' The Bill cites a long list of actions by the ANC government which it says have offended the US, centred on its good relations with Russia, China and Iran, and its hostility to Israel and Taiwan. The Bill was introduced by Texan Republican Ronny Jackson, a firm supporter of President Donald Trump. He told the committee that South Africa, while claiming to be non-aligned, had recently abandoned the US and its allies by increasingly aligning with America's adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Iranian military proxies such as Hamas. He cited SA hosting the Chinese government's Confucius Institutes, conducting military exercises with China and Russia, and its alleged involvement in efforts to downgrade the US dollar. He also said, 'South Africa is systematically going after our partners and allies.' He cited its downgrading of Taiwan's presence in the country, 'falsely accusing the State of Israel of genocide at the illegitimate International Criminal Court and mimicking Iran's disgusting dismissal of the atrocities committed by Hamas on October the 7th' (the date of the attack by Hamas on southern Israel). Jackson said 'extreme politicians from the African National Congress have led efforts to target Afrikaners'. Daily Maverick recently revealed that the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) was a significant donor to Jackson, the sponsor of the Bill, and several other members of Congress hostile to SA. Of the six Democrats who voted for the Bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee, Brad Sherman and Jared Moskowitz are known to be strong Israel supporters. Bill Keating and George Latimer represent districts with large Jewish populations and Ted Lieu was born in Taiwan. Gregory Meeks, senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and most other Democrats on the committee, strongly opposed the Bill. Meeks said SA acted as a leader not only among African countries, but also on the world stage – and was this year chairing the G20. The US and SA had a long history of partnership, which the Bill 'will not help to deepen or further'. 'South Africa has taken a number of foreign policy positions that I happen not to agree with. But in mature relations between countries, we can deal with those differences through diplomacy and dialogue. This legislation does just the opposite, taking a heavy hand'. He said, 'President Trump has already disproportionately targeted South Africa. He's done this by trying to embarrass President Ramaphosa in the Oval Office, with faulty evidence of purported atrocities in the country, by instituting an executive order cutting all US assistance in the country, and putting in its place a special refugee resettlement programme for Afrikaners. 'Glaring hypocrisy' 'And at the same time, he's blocking the resettlement of literally all other refugees to the United States… This is glaring hypocrisy.' Jackson's Bill is an updated version of a Bill which was introduced last year, but which ran out of time when Congress ended before elections in November.
