South Africa’s US Problem Did Not Start With Trump

Apparently, asking Americans to care about what happens in South Africa is now treason.

Apparently, asking Americans to care about what happens in South Africa is now treason.

That would have come as a surprise to the African National Congress (ANC) of the 1970s and 1980s.

The White Cross Project in Washington has attracted predictable outrage from the ANC and its supporters. Its organisers have been accused of betraying South Africa by internationalising domestic disputes and encouraging a foreign government to put pressure on Pretoria.

But there is nothing inherently treasonous about this. South Africans are entitled to speak to foreigners about their own country.

The ANC itself provides ample precedent. During apartheid, it actively sought international support against the South African government. Oliver Tambo addressed foreign governments, international organisations and civil society, calling for sanctions, disinvestment and the isolation of Pretoria. In 1985, he told a British parliamentary committee that the ANC wanted “total severance of economic and other links” with the South African government.

The comparison is about method, not moral equivalence. Today’s South Africa is not apartheid South Africa. But the ANC cannot establish the principle that South Africans may internationalise their grievances when it is the victim of government, only to declare such lobbying illegitimate when it becomes the government.

Critics are free to argue that the White Cross organisers are wrong, exaggerating or lobbying the wrong people. That does not make international advocacy treason.

More importantly, the row over white crosses obscures a much bigger issue.

South Africa’s relationship with the United States was deteriorating long before Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Trump did not invent this dispute. He changed how Washington responded to it.

Joe Biden was president when South Africa conducted the Mosi II naval exercises with Russia and China in 2023, around the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Pretoria insisted that it was non-aligned. But neutrality is a description of behaviour, not a magic word that governments can repeat until everyone stops looking at what they are doing.

The same year brought the Lady R crisis. Biden’s ambassador, Reuben Brigety, publicly alleged that South Africa had supplied weapons to Russia after the sanctioned Russian vessel docked at Simon’s Town.

That allegation was not substantiated. The subsequent South African inquiry found no evidence that weapons were loaded onto the Lady R for export to Russia. The fact that South Africa investigated itself and found itself not guilty was not lost on many.

But the significance remains. An American ambassador serving under a Democratic president was publicly accusing Pretoria of assisting Russia in the middle of a European war.

Then came Israel.

After Hamas’s October 7 attack, Pretoria adopted a position sharply at odds with the Biden administration and ultimately brought its genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice. Washington did not hide its disagreement. The Biden State Department called South Africa’s move “not a productive step” and repeatedly described allegations that Israel was committing genocide as “unfounded”. It maintained Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas, while also demanding that Israel comply with international humanitarian law and minimise civilian harm.

Again, Donald Trump was not president. There were no white crosses in Washington. Yet Pretoria was already finding itself on the opposite side of major foreign-policy disputes from the United States.

By March 2024, a committee of the US House of Representatives was considering legislation requiring a full review of the bilateral relationship. This was serious enough that President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed it publicly while insisting that ties with Washington remained strong.

And this is what disappears whenever Pretoria reduces the present crisis to Trump, AfriForum or claims of “white genocide”.

Remove AfriForum from the story. Remove the White Cross Project. Remove every dispute over farm murders.

You are still left with Russia, the Lady R, Israel, concerns over AGOA, congressional scrutiny, close ties with Iran and Cuba, and an ANC foreign-policy worldview that frequently defines itself through anti-imperialism, Global South solidarity and opposition to a delusional idea of Western dominance.

None of this means South Africa should become an American vassal.

South Africa does not need to be a vassal of any power bloc. We should trade with and maintain relations with anyone who provides a path to prosperity for our people.

But genuine non-alignment means independence from everyone. It does not mean reflexively opposing the West while describing warm relationships with its adversaries as neutrality.

The ANC also needs to distinguish its own history from South Africa’s national interest. Russia, Cuba and other states may have supported the liberation movement. The ANC is entitled to remember that friendship.

The Republic of South Africa does not owe the ANC’s historical debts.

There was still substantial cooperation under Biden. Biden and Ramaphosa spoke in July 2024 and publicly committed themselves to deepening bilateral ties. The relationship had not collapsed.

But the tensions were already there.

Trump has intensified them. The Afrikaner question has added another source of conflict. The White Cross Project has given Washington another grievance to discuss.

It did not create Washington’s grievances with Pretoria.

Blaming activists may be more comfortable than examining years of foreign-policy choices. But if South Africa wants better relations with the United States, it first needs to acknowledge that America’s concerns did not begin with a few thousand white crosses on the National Mall.

Nicholas Woode-Smith is the Managing Editor of the Rational Standard and a senior associate of the Free Market Foundation. He writes in his personal capacity.