South Africa Resists US Pressure; Maintains Stand on Land Reform, BEE, Israel Case

PRETORIA HOLDS FIRM ON CORE POLICIES AS US ESCALATES PRESSURE

International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola has drawn clear lines: South Africa will not retreat on land reform, black economic empowerment, or its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, even as the United States intensifies pressure through tariffs, visa restrictions, and diplomatic exclusion.

Lamola delivered that position during a discussion with former US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Jendayi Frazer at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Wednesday. He outlined what Pretoria would accommodate and where it would not, as the two governments navigate what the minister has previously described as a “critically low point” in their relationship.

Washington has deployed multiple tools to force policy change. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions on September 15 targeting individuals responsible for, or complicit in, policies that Washington regards as racially discriminatory, involving uncompensated land seizures, or inciting violence against minority groups. No names have been released. US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III indicated that affected individuals will not be publicly identified, and characterized the visa policy as “only the first step in a series of escalatory measures,” declaring that the period of dialogue had ended. Washington has not detailed what further measures might follow, or what concessions would halt them.

Those restrictions are part of a broader campaign that includes tariffs on South African exports, aid cuts, refugee policy changes, and exclusion from the G20 summit the US will host. The campaign follows Trump’s February 2025 executive order halting US assistance to South Africa and establishing a refugee resettlement program for Afrikaners, citing the Expropriation Act and South Africa’s case against Israel. Washington later imposed a 30 percent tariff on many South African exports, subject to product-specific rules and exemptions, and stayed away from the G20 leaders’ summit hosted by South Africa.

Lamola identified the areas where Washington expects retreat: black economic empowerment, land reform, expropriation with nil compensation in limited circumstances, and South Africa’s “progressive foreign policy with a human-rights outlook.” He rejected the premise that any of these are negotiable. “I think South Africa has to prepare itself for the worst-case scenario because the reality is that we are expected to surrender our sovereignty,” he said in an earlier SABC interview.

The government’s position on specific disputes reveals where it sees room for engagement and where it does not. On the US refugee program for Afrikaners, Lamola said Pretoria opposes the initiative but will not obstruct people who choose to leave. Washington claims that Afrikaners and other minorities face persecution; Pretoria rejects that characterization as politically motivated and factually unsupported. On US claims of xenophobia in South Africa, Lamola argued that violent crime affects all communities and that redress measures respond to inequality created by apartheid.

The legal reality is more precise than Washington’s framing suggests. The Expropriation Act permits nil compensation only in specified circumstances where it would be just and equitable, and the Constitution prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. Lamola did not elaborate on how this distinction might influence negotiations, but it directly contradicts claims of indiscriminate confiscation.

On Gaza, Lamola described the destruction as a “painful genocide” unfolding before the world and stated that “the world has a duty to stop it.” South Africa’s ICJ case was cited in Trump’s executive order, but Lamola gave no indication that Pretoria would withdraw or dilute the claim to improve relations with Washington.

Meanwhile, the G20 question remains unresolved. Lamola expressed disappointment at the prospect of South Africa’s absence and said the country remained ready to participate if invited. South Africa remains a member of the forum; keeping it out of the US-hosted summit would be a decision by the host, not removal from the grouping itself.

President Cyril Ramaphosa reinforced the government’s negotiating posture this week, saying South Africa would engage Washington “without bowing our heads.” His appointment of veteran negotiator Roelf Meyer as ambassador to the US signals that Pretoria continues to seek a negotiated resolution despite the escalating pressure.

International relations analyst Donovan E Williams characterized the US approach more starkly. “In my opinion, the United States has essentially declared a diplomatic war against South Africa,” he told the Mail and Guardian. “It has created it on the basis of fabrications and pure lies. It is an attempt to control South Africa’s foreign policy.” Williams described the pressure as an attempted “diplomatic coup d’état” and predicted that Washington would deploy additional measures to weaken South Africa’s independent foreign policy.

The two governments have not publicly identified a common negotiating agenda. Washington has named the South African policies it opposes but has not set out what changes would halt escalation. Pretoria is seeking progress on trade while insisting that domestic redress laws and foreign policy are not bargaining chips. The economic stakes are real: the US remains one of South Africa’s most important trading partners, and the tariff dispute has added pressure to exporters already confronting weak growth and global uncertainty.

Lamola’s public warnings suggest more punitive action may follow. Pretoria is keeping diplomatic channels open and is prepared to negotiate how the relationship functions. Whether Washington is prepared to negotiate at all remains the open question.