New Bill risks further breakdown in bilateral relations amid SA fatigue and US tariff war

Earlier this month, US Congressman Ronny Jackson introduced a bill that would not only demand a full review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa. It would require the US government to identify South African government officials and ANC leaders who are eligible for the imposition of economic sanctions.

Within 120 days of enactment, the new bill stipulates that US President Donald Trump, in consultation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, "shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a classified report that includes a list of senior South African government officials and ANC leaders that the President determines have engaged in corruption or human rights abuses that would be sufficient, based on credible evidence, to meet the criteria for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the authorities provided by the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act," among other things.

According to Joseph Szlavik-Soto, a lobbyist and political strategist, the new bill builds upon the Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa Executive Order that he says "formally recognised South Africa’s hostile foreign policy trajectory and laid the groundwork for punitive measures." It also follows on the heels of the expulsion of the South African Ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, whose reappointment by the Ramaphosa administration had, in Szlavik-Soto’s eyes, "confirmed what many already suspect: South Africa is no longer a reliable partner" for the US.

Other sources suggest that the introduction of the bill may indicate a couple of different things.

First, it could indicate that Members of Congress are growing increasingly impatient with the failure of the US Government to impose economic sanctions on South African government officials and ANC leaders who they believe are undermining US national security and foreign policy interests.

Second, it could indicate that Members of Congress sense that the executive branch could benefit from legislative action to realise their desired outcomes for US-South Africa relations, including urgently countering what they perceive to be aggressive positions towards the US and its allies.

For example, Joshua Meservey, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, shares his opinion that the introduction of the bill could indicate "that Congress and allies of President Trump are looking for ways to give teeth to the President’s public pronouncements of displeasure at ANC officials and the South African government."

Whatever the motivation, Szlavik-Soto underscores that the new bill and other recent events should "send a clear message: Washington’s patience has run out." That message is crystal clear in the press release announcing the bill that was published by the Office of Congressman Ronny Jackson.

That press release quotes Congressman Jackson as saying, "South Africa has brazenly abandoned its relationship with the United States to align with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist organisations, a betrayal that demands serious consequences … The era of governments undermining American interests without repercussions ends now."

Although Congressman Jackson is a member of the Republican Party, Szlavik-Soto observes that "both Democratic and Republican administrations have attempted to constructively engage South Africa" for the past decade. Now, Szlavik-Soto claims there is "South African fatigue in Washington - and it’s bipartisan. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about trust, and that trust is gone."

In the absence of trust, there is a risk that other coercive measures are currently under consideration by US policymakers that could have a far more severe impact on the South African economy than Magnitsky sanctions.

"I think that it is absolutely possible that there are other tools on the table beyond targeted sanctions," shares Meservey. "We have seen the US government use other tools like sectoral sanctions and cutting banks off from Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)" in other cases.

While Meservey emphasises that he does not know all of the measures that are "actively being discussed," he assesses that it is "plausible" that "truly draconian measures" could be put "on the table" should bilateral relations continue to deteriorate.

Sources specify that one of the most devastating draconian measures for the South African economy would be the designation of South Africa as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

Zineb Riboua, Research Fellow at Hudson Institute, believes that South Africans should be concerned about the designation of South Africa as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

First, Riboua admits that there may be grounds for a designation. "From a US perspective, South Africa is raising concern for three key reasons: "Hostility toward Israel … Alignment with Iran and its proxies … Weak enforcement of terror financing," analyses Riboua. "Together, these actions could justify heightened scrutiny - and potentially, designation."

Second, Riboua notes that it is likely that the designation would severely damage the South African economy.

"A Proliferation Financing (PF) designation would heighten scrutiny of South African banks, especially if they’re linked to individuals or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) suspected of indirect support," notes Riboua. "Given South Africa’s fragile economy, still recovering from greylisting and facing high unemployment and capital flight risks, any disruption to banking and trade flows would be deeply damaging."

Given these realities, one might wonder how the government of South Africa would respond to the various coercive measures that may be under consideration by the US government.

An official in the South Africa government, with knowledge of US-South Africa relations, who declined to be named, warns that the imposition of targeted sanctions or designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism will further damage bilateral relations.

On the one hand, the official says that the designation of the government of South Africa as a State Sponsor of Terrorism would be seen as an unjust provocation and an act of aggression on the part of the US government. In response, the government of South Africa would likely heighten its levels of vigilance and more closely monitor the actions of the US government to minimise the potential harm that it could cause to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of South Africa.

On the other hand, the official says that the imposition of targeted sanctions against ANC officials would be regarded as a similarly unjust provocation on the part of the US government. Effectively, it would be seen as a weaponisation of American power to subvert and subjugate South African democracy. In response, the government of South Africa would likely heighten the mobilisation of South Africans to be vigilant when dealing with Americans and instil the message in the domestic population that the US government is seeking to recolonise South Africa.

The official confirms that the government of South Africa does not have the power to prevent the US government from imposing either of these coercive measures. However, the official asserts that the government of South Africa has the power to at least counter them.

At the end of the day, the official reminds that South Africa is a sovereign state with legal instruments to protect its sovereignty and a duty to protect and promote its reputation. And so, any false accusations that are levelled against South Africa would compel a governmental response that would seek to rebut those actions and expose their intentions.

Responding to those comments, an official in the US Congress gives notice that it would be a mistake for the government of South Africa to frame the coercive measures under consideration as acts of aggression.

"Sanctions are not aggression," maintains the Congressional official. "They're a legitimate exercise of sovereignty."

"South Africa's leadership is quick to hide behind 'sovereignty' and 'nonalignment' when it suits them, but bristles when others assert the same rights," adds the Congressional official. "Their stance isn't principled - it's desperate and indefensible."

Michael Walsh is a freelance foreign correspondent and foreign policy commentator based in Washington, D.C.

BUSINESS REPORT