Toyi-toyi South Africa

By Andrew Field

The Republic of South Africa, once hailed as a beacon of hope and reconciliation in the early 1990s, finds itself today at a critical political juncture. The nation’s recent diplomatic tensions with the United States (US), coupled with its ongoing domestic challenges, have brought to the fore a complex web of issues that threaten to undermine stability and progress not only in South Africa, but in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional territories too. 

As is well known, South Africa filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza during Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hamas.  Given the rather ineffective nature of the judgement, raising the matter would now seem to have been counter-productive.  The evidence that the South Africans were ‘duped’ by Iran into initiating the court action, and that pockets stuffed with cash were in the process, does not help. 

Their misguided action, however, stood with African National Council (ANC) government’s long-standing support for Palestinian rights, drawing parallels to its own history of apartheid. However, and quite clearly, this has significantly strained bilateral relations with the US, a staunch ally of Israel.  The new Trump administration noticeably views this move as a direct challenge to its foreign policy interests, placing South Africa at odds with a Western superpower.

The repercussions of this rift came faster than expected, once the US Republicans had gained their foothold back in governance. In February 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order cutting U.S. financial aid to South Africa. The order cited two primary justifications: South Africa’s foreign policies, specifically its appearance at the ICJ; and the alleged “unjust racial discrimination” against Afrikaners, a white minority group of Dutch and French descent.

Just to make matters worse, Trump offered refugee status and a fast track to U.S. citizenship for Afrikaners, framing them as casualties of government-sponsored discrimination. The Trump offer backfired on the Afrikaners to a degree; it was like rubbing salt into the wound to the petty racist regime and many weak-minded black, hate activists.

Since 1994 South Africa’s economic decline has been influenced by anti-white race legislation, notably through policies like Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and now land expropriation proposals. These measures, intended to address historical inequalities, have instead fostered uncertainty, deterring investment and skilled labour retention.

White South Africans, who historically held key roles in business and agriculture, faced marginalization, prompting emigration of talent and capital flight. Coupled with corruption and mismanagement, particularly under leaders like Jacob Zuma, this has weakened critical sectors like mining and farming.

The South African “apparatchiki” have been gearing themselves towards a Zimbabwean-styled land grab, to mete out ‘revenge’ and to spite the white (especially Afrikaner) minority; which is now clearly the casualty of reverse oppression.  The South African legislature has promulgated nearly 150 racial biased enactments to suppress white minorities to reverse past injustices.  The nation has become a cesspool of blatant and often outspoken ‘reverse’ racism. 

Internally, South Africa grapples with a myriad of challenges, many of which stem from its multifaceted racial history and the ongoing efforts to address historical inequities. South Africa’s new Expropriation Act may further smother the domestic context. This enactment is intended to address historical racial disparities in property ownership, allowing the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation.

Contrary to US claims, the law does not specifically target Afrikaners, and no significant land or property seizures have occurred yet. But that they will!  It will definitely fuel narratives of bitterness and persecution among some groups, perhaps even strengthen opposition to the government, despite the Expropriation Act targeting historical inequities rather than specific communities.  

Heightened domestic tensions over race and perceived victim-hood by a restless black majority is going to be the undoing of South Africa.  Though largely symbolic, Trumps offer feeds the narratives of victimization, deepening existing divides and fuelling the fire that will exacerbate racial tensions within South Africa. Approximately 67,000 South Africans, mostly Afrikaners, have expressed interest in the US refugee offer, though many prefer to stay in their home country. And it is their home; their kin actually arrived in the region well before the majority black tribes who came from west and central Africa.

A key point in US policy evolves around farm murders. South Africa’s government often downplays the severity of farm attacks, particularly against white Afrikaner farmers, attributing them to general crime, despite alarming statistics. According to Afri Forum’s 2023 report, 49 farm murders occurred in 296 attacks, with over 95% of victims being white Afrikaners.

The murder rate for farmers, estimated at 97-150 per 100,000, far exceeds the national average of 42 per 100,000, as per South African police data (21,325 murders in 2019/20). Critics argue these attacks, often marked by racial vitriol, suggest targeted oppression.  Yet Julius Malema, an anti-white, anti-West, racist activist and bigot, continues to sing chants at rallies calling for the death of white farmers.  Little wonder US perceptions may be skewed.

Then in March 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared South Africa’s ambassador, Ebrahim Rasool, “persona non grata” and expelled him from the U.S. This unprecedented move marked a significant diplomatic escalation and underscored the deteriorating relationship between the two nations.  Rubio accused Rasool of being an outspoken, diplomacy lacking, “race-baiting politician” who hates both his host, America, and President Trump. Rasool had also been an outspoken critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza, likening them to apartheid, which likely contributed to the U.S. decision.  Diplomats should surely be diplomatic! Pathetically, South African anti-western activists staged a welcome home protest for Rasool, as if there were some revolutionary victory achieved.

Perhaps asininely, there was a recent initiative proposed by the ANC led City of Johannesburg to rename the affluent Sandton Drive in Johannesburg, in honour of Leila Khaled, a Palestinian, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Marxist terrorist.  Why does that have significance?  Well, US Consulate sits prominently at No. 1 Sandton Drive.  Khaled participated in two high profile airliner hijackings including an America TWA flight from Rome to Tel Aviv, which ended with the hijackers blowing up the nose section of the aircraft; and an El Al flight from Amsterdam to New York, ending in Khaled’s arrest.  She was gaoled, but later released in a hostage exchange. To the outside observer, the South Africans are not playing this spat too well by toyi-toying in the face of a superpower.

The impact on South Africa is far-reaching and likely to have some economic, political, and social consequences for South Africa. The cessation of US aid will not necessarily disrupt development projects and humanitarian efforts in sectors such as healthcare and education, no matter how much the ‘victim’ squeals that it shall. South Africa may be facing economic difficulties and may need to seek alternative funding sources, but the reality is that the nation can go it alone if better managed and was perhaps less politically corrupted.  The anti-Trump/US European Union (EU) has already filled the void with a massive US$ 5 billion aid packed announced after Trump’s executive order!

There has been stagnant growth, high unemployment (over 34% and climbing), and a moderate GDP per capita decline in US dollar terms.  The truth of it, in real terms, is that GDP is actually rising, feebly so, but at a significantly lesser rate than its true potential for such a resource-rich nation. A trade embargo or tariff manipulations by the Americans (South Africa’s top trading partner) could spell economic difficulty.

South Africa’s post-apartheid political realignment towards BRICS (a forum comprising 10 countries) and Eastern nations is rooted in historical, ideological, and economic factors. The ANC, influenced by Soviet support during the liberation struggle, naturally gravitated towards Russia and China after coming to power in 1994. Frustrations with Western-led financial institutions like the IMF, perceived as favouring wealthy nations, further motivated this pivot. South Africa’s formal entry into BRICS in 2010 signalled a clear desire for a multipolar world order and greater autonomy. This eastward lean mirrors broader African trends. Ultimately, this realignment reflects South Africa’s quest for a new identity and partnerships in the post-apartheid era.

The regional mplications may be far reaching and many.  South Africa is the economic powerhouse of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a 16-member regional bloc. It accounts for roughly 61% of SADC’s GDP, dwarfing contributions from other members like Botswana (2%) or Zambia (2.5%), as per the African Regional Integration Index (ARII). Its advanced infrastructure, including ports and rail networks, serves as a trade lifeline for landlocked neighbours like Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi, which rely heavily on South African corridors for imports and exports. Politically, South Africa’s stability and diplomatic clout amplify its influence, often shaping SADC’s collective stance on regional security and integration.

Dependency varies by nation. Zimbabwe, for instance, sources over 70% of its imports from South Africa, while Lesotho and Eswatini are inextricably locked into the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), where South Africa’s revenue contributions fund much of their budgets. South Africa’s energy giant, Eskom, also powers parts of the region via the Southern Africa Power Pool, though its own crises limit reliability.

A faltering South African economy risks rippling across SADC, disrupting trade flows and regional projects like the SADC Free Trade Area. Politically, a weakened South Africa might cede influence to emerging players like China, already a key BRICS partner, potentially fracturing SADC’s unity as smaller nations seek alternative patrons. The spat’s full impact hinges on its escalation, but SADC’s reliance on South Africa ensures any shock will reverberate widely.

South Africa’s diplomatic landscape has become increasingly precarious following its decision to challenge Israel at the ICJ. While this move reinforces South Africa’s reputation as a champion of human rights and international law, potentially enhancing its moral authority among nations critical of Israel, it has also led to significant diplomatic fallout. The US response, by cutting aid, offering refugee status to Afrikaners, and then the expulsion of Ambassador Rasool, while disproportionate, has not necessarily left South Africa more isolated from Western powers, but rather simply placed it on the defensive.

South Africa’s principled stance, while bolstering ties with the “Global South,” has now cast the nation more as a player in larger geopolitical conflicts. South Africa now faces the challenging task of reconciling its principled positions with the practical realities of global diplomacy. The situation highlights the need for an intricate balance between principled foreign policy and pragmatic national interests. The EU may well have softened the need, but there remains an urgent need for South Africans to reassess their priorities here to avoid a seemingly difficult trajectory.

Article by Andrew Field

Visit his website – https://justandrewinzimbabwe.wordpress.com

Image Attribution: Picture by Nick Roux 2007 (WT-shared) NJR ZA at wts wikivoyage, CC BY-SA 1.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0, via Wikimedia Commons