The first public address by the newly accredited US ambassador to South Africa, Leo Brent Bozell III, has already produced an unusual diplomatic ripple.
Reports that his remarks prompted a formal démarche for undiplomatic conduct suggest that the issue was not merely technical protocol but the substance and tone of the message itself.
In many ways the speech inadvertently clarified the logic that underpins much of contemporary great-power diplomacy. In practice, the phrase “country first” rarely implies equal partnership among nations. More often it signals a form of hierarchical co-operation in which the stronger countries determine the rules and the weaker ones are expected to adjust accordingly.
The post-war economic order created at the Bretton Woods Conference embedded institutions that operated largely within the orbit of American power. For decades this structure shaped global finance, trade and development. But rising powers inevitably challenge these tenets, seeking to reshape institutions and norms in line with their own interests.
Advantageous balances of influence
As these shifts occur, the rhetoric of mutual development often loses its persuasive force once great powers conclude that stability, on their terms, is sufficient, making co-operation less about shared progress and more about maintaining advantageous balances of influence.
For “country first” and genuine mutual development to coexist, certain conditions must be present. International arrangements would need to recognise unequal responsibilities between countries at different stages of development. Co-operation would need to offer credible domestic benefits to all participants, whether economic, technological or strategic.
Mechanisms for the transfer of capital and technology would need to function effectively. And institutions capable of managing structural inequality would have to exist and be trusted.
Like many middle powers, South Africa must navigate competing interests rather than simply choose among them.
Without this, it’s a zero-sum game that says: align with us and your interests will be safeguarded. Resist, and consequences will follow. This echoes the famous dictum of Theodore Roosevelt: speak softly but carry a big stick. Seen through that lens, calls for non-alignment take on a different meaning and risk becoming a rhetorical inversion. The implication is that neutrality is acceptable as long as it doesn’t involve our enemies.
This departs sharply from the historical origins of the concept — the spirit of nonalignment emerged from the thinking associated with the Bandung Conference, incidentally attended by South African Congress Alliance representatives Maulvi Cachalia and Moses Kotane.
Recasting non-alignment
For newly independent nations, non-alignment was not passive neutrality but an active strategy. It was rooted in preserving national independence, fostering solidarity among developing countries, and navigating the geopolitical divide of the Cold War without becoming proxies in superpower rivalry. It was a moral, political and strategic framework designed to advance development while resisting external domination.
Recasting the idea primarily as a tool of geopolitical alignment represents a significant departure. But none of this should obscure the practical realities of South Africa’s position. The ambassador’s address will likely find receptive ears in some quarters, particularly among sectors of business and politics eager to maintain strong ties with Washington.
Yet the country’s economic relationships are more complex than a single alignment suggests. Today, China stands as South Africa’s largest overall trading partner, accounting for more than a fifth of its trade, followed by the US, Germany, India and Japan.
In that context, diplomatic rhetoric urging alignment sits uneasily alongside the realities of a multipolar economic landscape. Like many middle powers, South Africa must navigate competing interests rather than simply choose among them.
In the end there is little that is new here — many great powers have long spoken the language of partnership while advancing their own priorities. The style and vocabulary may change, but the underlying pattern remains familiar; it’s the same story, only told in slightly different accents.
• Cachalia, a businessperson and management consultant, is a former DA MP and shadow public enterprises minister who chaired De Beers Namibia.
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.