South Africa is quickly running out of friends on Capitol Hill as it cozies up to US rivals.
Already angry over Pretoria’s decision to host naval drills with Russia and China last year, US lawmakers are now demanding that the Joe Biden administration launch a “comprehensive review” of bilateral ties following what they call South Africa’s “politically motivated” suit against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Legislation to that effect was introduced last week by the Republican chairman of the House foreign affairs panel on Africa, with support from a Jewish Democrat colleague.
“The relationship between the US and South Africa has been and continues to be very important. But there are times, recently, that South Africa has gone out of its way to try to poke its friend in the eye,” says Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the full house foreign affairs committee.
While Meeks hasn’t signed on to the bill, he agrees that Congress needs to send a message.
“You have to say something back in that regard, whether it’s this resolution or other mechanisms,” he tells The Africa Report.
The bill was introduced by Republican John James of Michigan, a China hawk serving his first term in Congress. Joining him is Jared Moskowitz, a Florida Democrat on the committee who was elected in 2022 to replace Ted Deutch, one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in Congress before his retirement.
“We are solidly aligned on our commitment to human rights, governance and standing by the mutual benefit of our alliances,” James told The Africa Report when asked about efforts to get Democrats on board.
“We want to be the partner of choice in the multipolar world,” James says. “We need to see that South Africa is interested in more than just our taxpayer dollars.”
Bipartisan frustration
The bill states that South Africa’s actions are inconsistent with its publicly stated policy of non-alignment. It denounces Pretoria’s “history of siding with malign actors, including Hamas, a US-designated foreign terrorist organisation and a proxy of the Iranian regime” and the pursuit of closer ties with China and the Russian federation.
If passed into law, the bill would require President Biden to publicly assess within 30 days of enactment whether South Africa has engaged in “activities that undermine the US’ national security or foreign policy interests.” It would also require a “comprehensive review” of the bilateral relationship within 120 days.
The South African government is taking the bill seriously while standing by its policy choices.
“It would be most unfortunate for South Africa-US relations if this bill ever sees the light of day,” Vincent Magwenya, a spokesman for President Cyril Ramaphosa, told Bloomberg. “A lot of the issues raised by the members of Congress are issues that have either been dealt with through our judicial processes or clarified in public communication.”
‘Politically motivated’
Magwenya added that the ICJ ruling last month that Israel must act to prevent Palestinians from being killed or injured confirms that “the argument that our case was wrongful or politically motivated can no longer be sustained”.
The congressional push comes as US relations with South Africa have continued to deteriorate under President Ramaphosa.
Last February, James was one of the first members of Congress to target South Africa with a less potent resolution that also called for a review of bilateral resolutions. That effort was co-signed by all the Republicans on the Africa panel, but no Democrats, and it never went anywhere.
Since then, Pretoria’s popularity in Washington has gotten worse.
In May, top foreign policy voices of both parties in the House and Senate wrote to secretary of state Antony Blinken, US trade representative Katherine Tai and national security adviser Jacob Sullivan urging them to consider another venue than Johannesburg for the annual summit of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
“We are concerned that hosting the 2023 AGOA Forum in South Africa would serve as an implicit endorsement of South Africa’s damaging support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and possible violation of US sanctions law,” said the lettersigned by Democrats Chris Coons and Gregory Meeks and Republicans Jim Risch and Michael McCaul.
Last month, 210 members of congress of both parties signed on to a letter to secretary Blinken denouncing South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ.
“While barely acknowledging the Hamas terrorists who massacred, mutilated, raped, and kidnapped innocent civilians on 7 October, South Africa makes grossly unfounded and defamatory charges against Israel on the world stage,” the members wrote.
“We denounce South Africa’s deeply hostile stance towards Israel and reject its charge of genocide. We urge you to continue to do the same, to offer Israel all appropriate support in opposing the South African application to the ICJ, and to encourage our allies to join us in speaking out against this unfounded attack on Israel, particularly at the United Nations and in other intergovernmental organisations.”
The letter was led by Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey and Democrat Kathy Manning of North Carolina. Smith was one of the original co-sponsors of James’ resolution last year and tells The Africa Report that he will “absolutely” endorse the new bill as well.
The Biden administration has also denounced certain actions by South Africa, such as reports that it allowed a US-sanctioned Russian cargo ship to dock and load up weapons and ammunition, but remains wary of antagonising a major regional actor on the continent that has long proved immune to outside pressure. Blinken called the South African case at the ICJ “meritless” and said at a press conference in Tel Aviv last month that it “distracts the world”.
Trade complexities
Further complicating matters, South Africa is the largest US trade partner on a continent where the Biden administration is keen to compete with China. Total two-way goods trade amounted to $21bn in 2021.
Unlike James’ 2023 resolution, the new bill doesn’t mention South Africa’s participation in AGOA. The exclusion appears to be an effort to avoid further complicating the delicate congressional negotiations over the reauthorisation of the duty-free access scheme before it expires next year.
Lawmakers of both parties say the ball is now in South Africa’s court. The goal of the bill is to “make sure we strengthen our alliances, [and that] we can trust each other,” James says.
“We’ve seen little to show that the South Africans are interested in a mutually beneficial future with the US. If it is their choice: We want to be their preferred option. But they cannot continue to act outside of our mutual benefit.”
For Meeks, South Africa is “tremendously important to us on the continent” but “you’ve got to share some of the same values”.
Asked whether he could endorse the bill, which would open the floodgates of democratic support, he did not rule it out.
“At this point, it may be a step too far for me,” he says. “I’d rather first have my conversation with the South Africans and then I can determine whether they want to continue the relationship.”(The Africa Report)
