TERENCE CORRIGAN | US-SA relations in the balance - Business Day

Terence Corrigan

It took only 17 days for South Africa’s authorities to demarche the new US ambassador, Leo Brent Bozell III. There has been much excitable commentary about this, and whether the sanction was warranted. More than a few commentators have not contained their satisfaction at this. They may be missing the significance.

Two things can be true simultaneously. Ambassador Bozell’s remarks may well have been undiplomatic, and the response from the South African government may have been extreme – especially since he had already walked his comments back.

Moreover, the demarche obscured the generally upbeat and conciliatory tenor of his actual address, which focused on trade, investment and economic cooperation. These are the operative elements of a productive relationship for a country seeking to raise its growth rate to 5% and beyond (in 2025, South Africa managed an anaemic 1.1% and officially, this is regarded this an achievement). In view of the actions taken by the US since the beginning of last year – the executive order on South Africa, the expulsion of South African diplomats, the non-attendance at the 2025 G7 summit, and non-invitation of South Africa to this year’s – this was an extraordinarily positive posture, probably the best that South Africa could have hoped for.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that South Africa seized upon a lapse to send a message to the US: South Africa will stand its ground and will answer hostility with hostility. This is in line with a stream of assertions from the government and the African National Congress (in foreign policy matters, there is not much distinction, the party regarding the Department of International Relations and Cooperation as its closed mandate) on the non-negotiability of the country’s sovereignty.

This is something of a red herring. South Africa is an independent state and can take whatever positions its elected government – or rather, those in charge of its foreign affairs establishment – chooses. The more important issue in the contemporary world, for any country, is how it advances its interests, and how it deals with others to do this. Since countries’ interests are frequently not aligned, they need to bargain and compromise. All countries, and none more so than smaller, open economies, find their freedom of action constrained and so in a sense are never perfectly sovereign. (Certainly, South Africa has at times shown itself to be highly responsive to the concerns of its allies, such as refusing to allow the Dalai Lama to enter the country.)

It’s worth noting that the demarche was apparently not only about the chanting of “Kill the Boer” and the ambassador’s dismissal of court rulings (incidentally, survey evidence suggests that his operations are more closely aligned with public opinion than that of South Africa’s political class), but also about his comments on matters relating to Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment, expropriation legislation and South Africa’s foreign policy positioning. Observers may find his position (and that of his government) reasonable or unreasonable, but the demarche suggests that as far as the South African government is concerned, there is nothing to discuss.

This signals that the relationship is in an even more precarious state than is commonly imagined. It may be comforting to attribute the state of things to the mercurial temperament of President Trump. But tension – or rather, the potential for tension – has been inherent in the relationship for decades. The ANC has since its time in exile harboured a suspicion of the US as the centre of “imperialism” – understand this correctly, since it denotes a specific geopolitical conception, perpetrated by Western capitalist countries; something like the Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn’t count. (Indeed, in both ANC and official discourse, the Ukraine war is laid squarely at the door of the West, of NATO, and the US.)  

Nor is this dissipating. As Ivor Chipkin recently argued, under President Ramaphosa, the ANC has doubled down on this, increasingly using foreign policy to project its revolutionary credentials. Demarching the US ambassador was entirely consistent with this trajectory.

This is not encouraging for the relationship between the two countries. Ambassador Bozell commented that the US was running out of patience, a sentiment evidently shared by his counterparts in this country. Each has grievances against the other, and conditions – explicit or implicit – for “resetting” the relationship. This is as much on South Africa as it is on the US, with the demarche signalling a willingness to escalate.

The prevailing commentary around the matter seems to have missed that point. It hardly needs to be repeated that there are considerable economic stakes at play. Ambassador Bozell remarked that President Trump “kept going to trade, trade, trade, trade”. Senior figures in government and in the ANC have previously made it clear that South Africa will not step down from (or, it seems, even negotiate on) its political positions for its economic interests. The events of the past few days have made that abundantly clear.  

With no trade deal concluded (or in sight), and with all indications that neither side will accommodate the other, South Africa may need to brace itself for the possibility that the relationship cannot be rescued for the foreseeable future. This will likely come with severe consequences for the country’s economic fortunes – and South Africa’s authorities are signalling that these are consequences they are prepared to make the country accept.

Terence Corrigan is Project and Publications Manager at the SA Institute of Race Relations

https://www.businessday.co.za/opinion/2026-03-27-terence-corrigan-us-sa-relations-in-the-balance/