South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is under growing pressure from Washington to sever ties with Iran, Russia, and China, potentially threatening Pretoria’s role in groups like the BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Despite tensions, Ramaphosa downplayed the absence of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio from the recent G20 foreign ministers meeting, calling it “not a train smash” since the U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission was present.
He reaffirmed South Africa’s commitment to strong U.S. relations, stating, “We are committed to maintaining a good relationship with the United States. Through diplomatic engagement, we will address any wrinkles that may have emerged in our relationship.”
To ease tensions, Ramaphosa plans to send a high-level delegation to Washington. Analysts suggest that withdrawing South Africa’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel and distancing itself from Russia, China and Iran could help retain African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade benefits after the agreement expires in September, protecting over 200,000 jobs that depend on South African auto exports to the United States.
What Does China Bring to the Table?
Gideon Chitanga, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for China-Africa Studies at the University of Johannesburg, argues that South Africa has never been able to choose between China and the United States. Instead, its foreign policy must balance both relationships strategically.
“I don’t think South Africa has the flexibility to reduce its ties with China,” Chitanga said. “China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, and economic relations between the two nations are expanding.”
He highlights the scale of trade between the two countries, noting that South African exports to China amount to $29.5 billion, while imports stand at $21 billion. Given these figures, Chitanga asserts that South Africa’s only real option is to clarify its foreign policy stance and maintain active engagement with Washington.
Siseko Maposa, a political consultant at Surgetower Associates, adds that while AGOA provides trade advantages, closer alignment with the U.S. risks sparking geopolitical friction with China and Russia, weakening South Africa’s strategic autonomy, and increasing its vulnerability to trade fragmentation and reliance on U.S. markets.
Can South Africa Afford to Have the U.S. as a Rival?
Warner Human, head of the Afrikaner advocacy group Solidarity, warns that alienating the U.S. would have serious economic and diplomatic consequences.
“The risks would be far greater by choosing China as a preferred partner in international affairs. South Africa will continue down the road of international isolation, a stagnant economy, and worsening of relations with many more countries,” he argues.
Political consultant Maposa adds that while China’s economic power is undeniable, South Africa must assess whether Chinese aggregate demand can absorb key exports such as manufactured goods.
Human argues for a stronger alliance with the U.S. which offers clear economic and security advantages for South Africa. However, Human notes that Ramaphosa’s party, the ANC, seems driven more by ideological nostalgia from the Cold War than by pragmatic benefits.
Is the Non-Aligned Path Fence Sitting or Mending Fences?
Political consultant Maposa suggests that Ramaphosa may attempt to maintain a delicate balancing act, but this is becoming increasingly untenable.
As South Africa strengthens its partnerships with China and other BRICS nations, Western powers are growing increasingly wary of its strategic loyalties.
Chitanga contends that many of the concerns the U.S. raises regarding South Africa’s foreign and land policy overstep the country’s sovereignty. He suggests that South Africa is not alone in facing pressure from Washington, particularly under the Trump administration.
Within the G20, South Africa has received backing from the European Commission and several other nations, which Chitanga believes could be forming a broader coalition against Washington’s increasingly adversarial stance. “Many countries that have been subjected to similar punitive measures by the U.S. seem to be aligning in response,” he notes, emphasizing the messages of support from ambassadors from China, France, Germany Italy that Ramaphosa received after U.S Secretary of State boycotted the G20 foreign minister’s meeting.
Ramaphosa’s Quiet Diplomatic Gamble
The Trump administration’s confrontational approach challenges Ramaphosa’s strategy of quiet diplomacy, raising questions about whether Pretoria will bow to pressure and distance itself from China and other BRICS nations.
Former UN diplomat E. Daniel Kinnear, now a director at the Johannesburg-based consultancy Africa Insights Associates, warns that such a move “would discredit South Africa’s posture of supporting a multipolar world and weaken its position as an advocate for greater South-South cooperation.”
Kinnear argues that Pretoria must refine its diplomatic strategy. “Ramaphosa has done well thus far. However, as we saw with the recent tussle with the U.S., they were caught flat-footed. This comes down to the country’s sometimes amateurish approach to foreign policy and diplomacy. He has to up his game.”
Chitanga points out that the ball is now in Washington’s court. “It is up to the U.S. to reassess its approach. The current administration appears less rational and more vindictive, with an inherent desire to punish rather than engage constructively,” he says.
Political analyst Itumeleng Makgetla advises Ramaphosa “to resist responding to taunts from Trump and to focus on consolidating relations with willing allies.”
Whether he can do so without alienating either the U.S. or China remains to be seen.
Nkateko Mabasa is an independent journalist based in Johannesburg
