Over the past 12 months South Africa’s trade and political relations with the US have been a case study of chaos and confusion.
As a country bold enough to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to lodge a case against Israel, South Africa’s foreign policy orientation and its international alliances have been determined by many within the US establishment to be “acting against American interests”.
This ubiquitous term generally attracts a backlash against such countries, which can range from sanctions to diplomatic isolation and even invasion by the US.
Over the years the US has been able to leverage a combination of such hard power and soft power through instruments such as foreign aid and favourable trade agreements such as the African Growth & Opportunity Act (Agoa) to get many nations to fall in line.
The dependency many nations have on the US is evident across multiple prisms. Its 300-million strong high-income consumer market makes it a critical export destination. Its support of military alliances such as Nato, where it contributes a significant proportion of its resources, means alliance members want to ensure the US remains inside the tent.
Multilateral agencies and institutions such as the UN depend on US contributions to balance the books. Losing access to the US largesse carries great interruption risks on economic, social and security fronts for some nations.
South Africa’s insistence on approaching the ICJ led many to contrast South Africa’s stance — premised on its longstanding support for the Palestinian cause — and the anticipated fallout and to question the wisdom of its actions.
The additional complexity of the disinformation campaign led by individuals such as Elon Musk and other agencies, and the own goals committed by South Africa’s ambassador, elevated tensions and led many to assume that whatever opportunity the US could find to express its displeasure would be invoked without hesitation.
South Africa’s participation in Agoa was regarded as one of the easier instruments that could be used as leverage, firstly because the agreement was nearing an end, and because the US has the right to decide which countries can participate.
The nature of the agreement — which essentially removes tariffs on goods from participating countries — is diametrically opposed to US President Donald Trump’s own commitment to a global tariff war. When he launched his economically dubious and mathematically flawed Liberation Day tariffs in April 2025, much of the confusion stemmed from the fact that Agoa participants such as South Africa went from zero to extortionate tariffs on some goods overnight.
The ensuing confusion and carve-outs on the tariffs then dragged South Africa’s negotiators towards a war on two fronts — negotiating relief from the liberation day tariffs and also seeking to ensure continuity of Agoa beyond its expiry date.
The inconsistencies within the Trump administration, and the emergence of many other issues that seemed to occupy Trump’s mind or form instruments of attack — leading to the US boycott of the G20 leaders’ summit — left the impression South Africa’s efforts at maintaining working relations with the US were a lost cause, and all we could do was count the consequences, at least until the end of Trump’s term.
The recent extension of Agoa to December 2026 surprised many anti-South African detractors as the US kept South Africa on the list. The benefit of this is that negotiators have some breathing space to propose a trade deal that would ultimately escape the arbitrary approach evident in the Liberation Day tariffs, and also enable a more sophisticated mapping of trade patterns and balances across the two nations for the benefit of businesses and consumers on both sides.
• Sithole (@coruscakhaya) is an accountant, academic and activist.
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.