The appointment of Roelf Meyer as ambassador to the US has triggered a co-ordinated wave of objections from multiple quarters. However, these criticisms are clearly driven more by political expediency than by intellectual depth.
EFF MP Carl Niehaus’s polemic against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision trades in emotional recall, selective history and conspiratorial insinuation but offers little in the way of sober analysis of South Africa’s current geopolitical reality. At a moment requiring strategic clarity, such rhetoric obscures more than it illuminates.
What is striking is not merely the weakness of Niehaus’s argument but the unlikely chorus it has joined. The MK Party, the EFF, the SACP, AfriForum, Solidarity and the FF+ have converged in opposition to this appointment.
The central flaw running through these critiques is a shared refusal to distinguish between the moral terrain of the past and the strategic imperatives of the present. The South Africa of 2026 faces a complex and shifting global order, including heightened tensions with the US.
In such an environment diplomacy cannot be reduced to ideological theatrics or historical score-settling. It requires credibility, experience and the capacity to engage across deep political divides. In this context, Meyer’s appointment reveals itself not as capitulation but as a diplomatic masterstroke.
Critics supposedly on the left, particularly the EFF, the MK Party and the SACP, frame negotiation as surrender and compromise as ideological betrayal. Yet attempts to recast South African history as one of capitulation and surrender collapse under historical scrutiny. Contrary to claims by critics, the democratic breakthrough, anchored in South Africa’s constitution, did not entrench white privilege but laid a firm foundation for a democratic society.
It enabled the expansion of rights, the transformation of state institutions, enabled redistribution and created the institutional architecture through which the pursuit of redress and transformation could be pursued. To dismiss this as a “sell-out” is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually flawed. Without that settlement there would be no democratic state within which their own political programmes could operate freely.
On the other hand, organisations such as AfriForum, Solidarity and the FF+ approach the issue from an equally flawed angle. Reducing Meyer to his past while erasing his three decades of constitutional work reveals the selective historical narrative his critics need to sustain their narrow agenda.
The MK Party adds another layer of empty rhetoric, invoking the memory of Solomon Mahlangu as a moral benchmark against which contemporary decisions must be judged. While emotionally resonant, this argument is analytically thin. The struggle against apartheid was never about permanent exclusion. It was about building a democratic society capable of reconciling its past while advancing its future.
Weaponising Mahlangu’s memory to attack South Africa’s path to democracy is deeply opportunistic. If the MK Party’s outrage were genuine, it would also honour the memory of Sifiso Zulu and demand that anyone who refuses to explain his disappearance be declared a traitor and sell-out, giving the Zulu family the closure they deserve.
More fundamentally, all of these critiques fail to engage the actual demands of diplomacy in the present moment. The timing of this appointment is equally significant. The US is among South Africa’s largest trading partners and a key source of investment, technology and market access. But the relationship is marked by opportunity and tension. Managing this requires diplomatic maturity, not posturing and sloganeering. As the ANC notes, South Africa must maintain a balanced diplomatic posture — one that advances economic interests while safeguarding sovereignty and mutual respect.
Meyer’s appointment is not about revisiting old battles but about navigating present challenges. Ambassadors are not deployed to rehearse domestic party lines. They are tasked with advancing national interests. Rejecting such experience on partisan grounds weakens, rather than protects, national interests.
The goal of the liberation struggle was not perpetual confrontation and permanent exclusion but the creation of a society in which former adversaries could co-exist, co-operate and build a shared future. Meyer’s appointment reflects a leadership that understands the difference between cheap political rhetoric and sober diplomatic acumen.
By contrast, the alternatives implied by his critics — posturing and confrontation — may generate headlines, but they do not produce outcomes. The test of leadership is not how loudly one proclaims sovereignty but how effectively one secures it in practice. Sovereignty is not asserted through slogans but secured through influence, access and results. This requires nuance, patience and strategic foresight. These qualities are notably absent from the critiques advanced by his detractors.
It is also necessary to interrogate the credibility of some of the loudest voices in this debate. For example, Niehaus’s outrage is difficult to take seriously when measured against his conspicuous silence during decisions taken by former president Jacob Zuma — a figure he has consistently defended. There was no comparable indignation when Zuma appointed Tony Leon as ambassador to Argentina, nor when he approved the parole of Eugene de Kock or when he secretly visited Chris Hani’s killers in jail.
The EFF, too, lacks the moral legitimacy to label anyone a sell-out. Why this selective indignation now then? The answer lies in politics. The outrage is less about the integrity of South Africa’s foreign policy and more about advancing a narrow factional narrative that seeks to delegitimise Ramaphosa at any cost. Such inconsistency must be called out because it distorts public discourse and obscures the real issues at stake.
Taken together, all of these tend to lend credence to the argument that many of the so-called progressive parties are, in practice, right-wing formations dressed in revolutionary clothing, specialising only in regurgitating revolutionary slogans without offering any practical alternatives.
Under Ramaphosa’s leadership, South Africa has reasserted itself as a credible and influential actor in international affairs. He appreciates that economic growth, investment, job creation and industrial development all depend on stable and constructive global relationships. In this context, the appointment of Meyer is not an isolated decision but part of a broader strategy to secure South Africa’s interests in a challenging external environment.
Critics such as the EFF, SACP, and MK Party and their unlikely counterparts of the far right operate within a binary worldview — one that divides actors into heroes and villains, patriots and sell-outs. But like the process of nation-building, the practice of diplomacy resists such simplifications. It requires engagement across differences and the management of contradictions.
Meyer’s appointment must therefore be understood in its proper context. It is not an endorsement of apartheid-era politics. It is a recognition that South Africa’s voice in Washington must be credible, persuasive and capable of operating effectively within a difficult and evolving political environment. What others characterise as a “miscalculation” is, in fact, a calculated move rooted in diplomatic pragmatism.
None of this suggests that the president’s decisions are beyond criticism, that Meyer is flawless, or that our democracy and its transformation journey are complete. Inequality, land dispossession and economic exclusion remain urgent challenges. But these cannot be addressed through rhetoric or ahistorical critique. They require a capable state, a growing economy and a stable international environment — all of which depend in part on effective diplomacy.
- Monama is a former ANC national communications manager
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.