President Cyril Ramaphosa is well suited to take on Donald Trump.
His history and negotiating experience in national matters both locally and internationally has already set him apart from the 76th US president, who considers himself a master in the “art of the deal”.
It is negotiation in SA’s national interest — not aggression and retaliation — that would be most suited to navigating these torrid waters.
Ramaphosa’s suitability for this time in history shines through when one considers the likely diplomatic fallout under former president Jacob Zuma or future contenders Fikile Mbalula, Paul Mashatile and Julius Malema — a shuddering thought.
While it is easy to dismiss Trump’s comments as the rantings of a misinformed bully, Ramaphosa’s national security adviser Sydney Mufamadi disagrees.
“The man is not crazy. The apparent craziness has a logic in its function. We are dealing with a superpower in a world economy that’s more integrated than ever before. Integrated, but with an over-concentration of wealth in a few spaces, including his country with the largest economy in the world,” he says.
"American policy makers have already relied on interchangeably using coercive diplomacy and soft power to get what they want from the world economy. Therefore the use of protectionism as well as free access to other markets is a playbook which Trump has inherited from his predecessors."
Ramaphosa has to tap dance stealthily through this one — while the Trump administration is unfriendly — hostile even — the US remains a crucial trade partner to SA. The US African Growth & Opportunity Act is up for review, and though it accounts for only 3% of the actual trade between the two countries, the US is SA’s second largest trading partner so it is a relationship we need to nurture.
Ramaphosa’s immediate response to Trump’s post indicating SA was doing “terrible things”, confiscating land and treating “certain classes of people” — presumably white South Africans — “very badly”, was firm but avoided provocation.
“SA is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice and equality. The SA government has not confiscated any land,” was the president’s initial response to Trump’s statement.
It was classic Ramaphosa, using the constitution as a lodestar in the face of rising temperatures.
“The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution,” he added.
There was a subtle dig in the last lines of his statement: “The US remains a key strategic political and trade partner for SA. With the exception of Pepfar aid, which constitutes 17% of SA’s HIV/Aids programme, there is no other funding that is received by SA from the US.”
The bottom line is that SA is a sovereign country, land expropriation has been part of our legislation since 1975, the ANC was in power for 30 years, during which it had an entire five-year term between 2004 and 2009 in which it had a two-thirds majority.
If it wanted to introduce Zimbabwe-style land grabs, that would have been the time to do it. There was also an opportunity in the last term when the EFF offered the ANC its vote in parliament to do exactly that.
The Expropriation Act is not perfect, but it is not malignant and even if it were it can — and certainly will — be challenged in the courts, which remain unyielding in their independence. There is simply no factual grounding in the land-grab narrative pushed by AfriForum and others.
But the whole furore is not really about land grabs or the new law. It is about SA’s stance on Israel, its relationship with China and Russia, and its push for a fairer global order. It is all rather obvious. Trump is using aid and trade to whip the global community into line, a transactional approach to international relations that is true to form. He is not the first US president to do so and won’t be the last.
The toolkit for managing economic relations globally is a mix between protectionism and uncomplicated access to other markets — a give-and-take situation that Trump looks set to turn on its head (but not without blowback, likely even from within the US).
“We cannot deal with it by being alarmist... there are sections of American capital that will gain from what he is doing... but some will be hurt by retaliatory actions. Imagine Americans wanting to participate in the Chinese or Canadian economy and those countries retaliate, leaving US companies at the losing end,” Mufamadi says.
It will be a gruelling five years ahead for Ramaphosa as he takes on the historic challenge to maintain cordial ties with the US while shrugging off the public growl of bullies.
• Marrian is Business Day editor at large.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.