The U.S. or China: South Africa May Soon Have to Choose
50:27 Share

The China in Africa podcast is supported in part by our subscribers and Patreon supporters. If you'd like to join a global community of readers for daily news and exclusive analysis about Chinese engagement in Asia, Africa, and throughout the developing world, go to chinaglobalsouth.com slash subscribe.

Hello and welcome to another edition of the China in Africa podcast, a proud member of the Seneca Podcast Network. I'm Eric Olander, and for those of you watching on YouTube, you can see that my background is different yet again this week. I'm joining you today...

from beautiful Jakarta, Indonesia, here in Southeast Asia. I'm attending a Transition Minerals Conference. There are a lot of fantastic discussions going on here in Indonesia, which I think have a lot of applicability for what is going on in Africa, and yet there isn't enough of this Asia-Africa exchange, so that's something that we're going to be trying to do in a few weeks. But also joining me as host

Those of you who are watching and at home can see, we are joined by Kobus van Staden, our managing editor from beautiful Cape Town, South Africa. Very good afternoon to you, Kobus.

Good afternoon.

Among all of the different people that Donald Trump does not want to have stay in the United States, white South Africans are one group that he is actively inviting. Since he made that announcement, which many people think was heavily influenced by his relationship with Elon Musk, it doesn't sound like people are banging on the doors and lining up at the U.S. embassy to apply for citizenship. Nonetheless, the rhetoric from Washington towards South Africa has amped up considerably in the past few days.

And there is just a, what we talked about, you know, a few weeks ago from that column in the Wall Street Journal that called for a maximum pressure campaign against South Africa. We're starting to see that play out and it's coming from all directions. Maybe you can update us a little bit on the reaction that we've been seeing in South Africa. It's been a big topic on TV news. It's been a big topic on the radio podcast in the media. Cyril Ramaphosa, your president has been talking about it.

Give us a sense of what people are saying this week about the increasingly toxic relationship between the US and South Africa. My reading of it, and I'm looking forward to hearing, you know, our guests' insights too, but my reading from it so far has been that it seemed to kind of spark some kind of patriotic impulse among South Africans. So there was a lot of kind of like making fun of this and pushing back against it on South African social media. Overall,

You know, I think this has been very embarrassing, I think, for AfriForum, which is one of the kind of Afrikaner groups that have been really at the center of this. And I think it's become very clear it has very strong relationships with some of the Republican institutions that are also backing Trump and Musk. So I think from the South African side, I think this is...

some of the tensions in, you know, obviously in South African society and in the political alliances within South Africa. But those are always pretty close to the surface anyway. And overall, I think it kind of concentrated a kind of a sense of South African-ness in a way that where one realizes that combating apartheid really lies at the heart of contemporary South African society.

life and thinking. So coming for South Africa on this terms, coming for South Africa on the terms of the way that they're trying to unmake the apartheid system through their own kind of sovereign decision making, that I think tended to entrench South African unity a lot more. But I might not be reading it correctly. So China is central to this debate that's going on between the US and South Africa, in part because the United States feels

that South Africa has become too closely aligned not only with China, but also Russia, Iran, and taken the side of Hamas against Israel. So these are all the kind of the background issues here. Now, Kovacs, something very interesting has been happening over on Wu Peng's Twitter feed or X feed. Wu Peng, for those of you who are not familiar, is one of China's most senior diplomats in Africa. He's the former

a top diplomat for the continent. He is now the ambassador to Pretoria. And whether by coincidence or strategy, not entirely sure, his tweets have been very, very interesting. So let me just see if I can pull these up so that our viewers can see what I'm going to talk about. And it's really very interesting to see kind of the tone of his tweets. So last week on the day that Trump made the first announcement, this is about a week ago, Ambassador Wu, he

He posts a picture of him shaking hands with your foreign minister, Ronald Lamola, and he's the head of DERCO. And so that was super interesting. And again, we don't know. It could have been just a normal meeting.

between an ambassador and the foreign minister, especially because South Africa is going to be hosting the G20 coming up soon. But then there's been a series of tweets all week on this theme of Chinese businesses. And he's been putting the dollar amount of their investment tied with the number of jobs that they're

So that was hero number one. And then a couple of days later, he talked about a Palabora mining company, 7,000 jobs, $738 million investment. The first one was Semicore Chrome, $826 million, 12,000 job opportunities. And then this one on the day of our recording, again, three back-to-back tweets, you know, talking about Hisense, the white goods maker, $119 million investment and 1,000 jobs.

Kobus, am I reading too much into this to think that there is a coincidence here that's timed with the various ongoings between the U.S. and China? Is this a message that Ambassador Wu is trying to kind of convey that whereas the tensions with the U.S. are destabilizing that relationship, this relationship between China and South Africa remains robust and strong and focused on jobs and investment?

Yeah, I think that's what's happening. I think this is public diplomacy, kind of Twitter diplomacy in action. Like, it's very funny to see. I think he is really pointedly kind of like pushing these points home, like through the job creation, the investment and so on. And then also, like another one that I saw, which kind of made me laugh was this very sweet picture of

The South African, like, junior, like, including little kids, kind of South African Kung Fu team that went to some championship, I think in China, maybe. Very, very multicultural, like, all these different South Africans just all kind of in their little track suits ready to go, you know, to the Kung Fu championship. And here's Wu Pang supporting them, you know. It was all very funny for me. Like, it's a real kind of, like, if I were teaching a media studies class at the moment, this is what I'd be teaching.

Well, there we go. Well, speaking of the media, Kobus, there was a fascinating article that came out this week in the Mail and Guardian, which is one of South Africa's leading newspapers and news websites, Why the U.S. is Turning Up the Heat on South Africa, written by Nkoteko Mabasa, who is a writer and a policy analyst and joining us on the line from Johannesburg, South

Ngateko, thank you so much for taking the time to join us. It's fascinating to have you on the show to talk about your column and everything that's going on. Thank you for having me, Eric. Interesting times we're in, especially in South Africa. We feel like the special kid in class has been singled out.

by the global superpower well you haven't been just so you know hold on don't think that you are special because the panamanians thought they were singled out then it was the colombians then it was the mexicans then it was the canadians then it was the greenlanders then it was the gazans i mean you are joining a long and growing list of people who have been singled out but

The title of your column was Why the U.S. is Turning Up the Heat on South Africa. Before we get into the Chinese part of all this, and I know you follow China-South Africa relations quite closely, and you've written for us on that topic. Talk to us a little bit about

What's the answer to that question? Why is the U.S. turning up the heat on South Africa right now? It's hard not to connect it to China. Some of it has to do with Israel and Palestine, what's going on with the ICJ case and Trump's relationship with Netanyahu and, you know, his claims to annex Gaza and...

And more broadly, to sort of limit South Africa's influence, such as it is, we're not

that big of a country, but we do have some influence. And it seems like Trump and his advisors don't like how South Africa is using that influence. But more broadly, I mean, connecting it with Panama, Panama just left the BRI. I think, you know, there might be that strategic plan to sort of get South Africa to

you know, move away from BRICS as well. So, you know, all these things are interconnected in the geopolitical game that's going on right now. Can you expand on the issue of the influence a little bit? Like what aspect of South Africa's international influence, you know, kind of exercising do you think is bugging the Trump administration particularly? Well, I think so it's in twofold. You know, if you want to do business here in Africa, you must...

countries go through South Africa. They know that if you connect with the South Africans, if you start your business here in South Africa with the amount of infrastructure that we have, then you will have access to the rest of the continent.

But more broadly on a global scale, South Africa has that moral stance and image from the apartheid struggle days and Nelson Mandela. And South Africa now standing up for the Palestinians.

Palestinians, sort of like amplified that. And even in the entertainment world with your Amapiano and such on young people. So right now in the international states, South Africa has some influence and some sway. And yeah, the global powers want to get into that. So there are calls in Washington, as we've been reporting for the past several weeks, that

for sanctions to be put on South Africa, even to cut off trade or to remove South Africa from the African Growth and Opportunity Act, that is known as a GOA, that is effectively the Free Trade Agreement. Some anxieties coming out of the U.S. auto industry about this and what may be

Mr. Trump and his cohorts are not taking into account, maybe they are, I'm not sure, is that cars account for about 22% of South Africa's exports to the U.S. That's almost $2 billion worth of exports. By the way, that is the second largest export only behind precious metals, which is at about $4 billion. So these are some pretty big numbers.

for American industry. But the implications that if the car trade between South Africa and the U.S. is cut would be devastating for the South African economy. Let me read you some statistics here. Half a million people are employed in the industry. 86,000 people have jobs in South Africa directly because of AGOA with another 125,000 people employed in related jobs as subcontractors.

That's a lot of jobs, particularly for a country where youth unemployment, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's well above 50%. And we have a GOA coming up for renewal in September. And so the Congress right now is going to be discussing this. And let me just read you a quote coming from Neil Diamond, who is the president of the South African Chamber of Commerce in the United States. And this is his quote.

I don't think that South Africa has got a chance of the renewal for AGOA. What are the implications, in your view, if AGOA is not renewed and that auto trade comes to a grinding halt and hundreds of thousands of South Africans are out of work on top of the thousands of South Africans who've already been impacted by the stopping of USAID's

anti-retroviral HIV programs under PEPFAR. I mean, the impact of this could be very severe. Yes, definitely. I mean, I was reading, I think it's the Sunday Times, and they were talking about how the Tire and Carpaths Union does not want this to happen. They have built up relationships with American business partners,

And they want, you know, their relationships to continue. But also we must be able to differentiate that a Goa is sort of like a trade agreement about, you know, bringing in South Africa's exports duty free to the U.S. It does not encompass the total U.S.-South Africa trade.

So it's a big part of it, but it's not a total. It's sort of like taking away certain privileges when it comes to trade. But trade is going to continue. It's going to hurt some businesses, especially in the automotive industry and also in agriculture, because those are the two biggest exports from South Africa to the U.S. And it's really undesirable. But

Also, it looks like that's the one weapon that the Trump administration wants to use to influence South Africa. And it seems like if they don't get their way, they might use it. So businesses will have to get themselves ready for that eventuality that if they are not able to export their products duty free, what will be the cost implications for that?

I mean, but still they will be able to export products to the U.S. It will just be more costly for them.

You know, just I think two little details on top of what you mentioned, Eric. One is that we should keep in mind that the impact of PEPFAR in South Africa particularly isn't landing on medications specifically. South Africa doesn't use PEPFAR funding for HIV medications. They use different funding. And PEPFAR makes up 17% of South Africa's total HIV care in budget. So what PEPFAR really hits personnel is

the kind of antilogistics. So a lot of centers that are funded by PEPFAR and that provide support to various communities like HIV positive communities in South Africa, those have been affected. And, you know, there's now back and forth about whether PEPFAR has been frozen or not frozen. And, you know, there's very confusing messaging coming out of the State Department and other agencies in

in the U S so we'll have to see how that goes on the automotive issue. Looks pretty frozen to me though, just so you know, I mean, there's nobody left at USA ID, so I don't think there's a lot of reason for optimism that this is going to revive anytime soon. There was messaging coming out of Rubio's office that there's, that there's a kind of a temporary freeze of the freeze that they kind of like that, that it's, it's flowing for some kind of cutoff period, but you know, it's a max confusion at the moment. The other issue about the cars is,

is just apparently South African authorities are already in talks with the Chinese. I've seen reporting on that. We should keep in mind that Great Wall is already producing in the Eastern Cape, and it's not like this is not a one-to-one substitution, but there are apparently already discussions happening.

But that's a weird comparison because South Africa was producing cars for the U.S. for export. South Africa is not going to export cars to China. That's not in the cards. No, but they will export cars to Botswana, Zimbabwe, everywhere. All of these places where they're expanding. But let's be clear, that's not going to make up for the U.S. I mean, that's not going to be $2 billion of cars. No, it's not the same thing, you know. Okay.

Nkoteko and Kobus, I want you both to take a moment now to listen to some remarks by somebody who I think both of you should know and all South Africans should become familiar with. His name is Joel Polak. He is the man that people are talking about in Washington, D.C., who is poised to become the next U.S. ambassador to Pretoria. Now, what is the point of this?

Let's be clear here. The Democrats in the Senate have said they're shutting down all future confirmations of Trump appointees. That includes Trump.

So there's a very good chance now that all of Trump's ambassadors will not get confirmed, at least right now in the short term, simply because that process is ground to a halt in the Senate. But let's assume that Joel Pollack does become ambassador. If you're not familiar with him, he's an emigre from South Africa.

among a small but very influential group of white South African emigres who are now in Trump's inner circle. So Elon Musk, of course, being the most famous, but also venture capitalist David Sachs as well. And now Joel Pollack. Joel Pollack, though, has been well known in conservative circles in the United States for a long time. He's the editor at large of

of the conservative news site Breitbart News. He was born in South Africa. Later, he went back to the University of Cape Town to get his master's and then spent four years working as a speechwriter for the former head of the opposition party, the Democratic Alliance in South Africa. And then since 2011, he's been the editor-at-large of the conservative site Breitbart. So last week, Polak was a guest on

on a YouTube talk show hosted by the SA Jewish Report, where he laid out his views on China. And this is going to be very important because I think, Nkoteko, you said right at the beginning, this is about China. And boy, if you listen to Polak, that's exactly what he says. What's happened is that since the admission of China into the global system of trade, China has exploited...

the free rules of the global economy, not just to enrich itself, but to impoverish its trading partners, to destroy domestic manufacturing, to flood the market with cheap goods that then make countries reliant on Chinese imports, to extend credit to African countries, for example, on favorable terms for China that the African countries can't pay back anymore. And then China seizes the ports or the assets or forces the developing world into joining China's One Belt, One Road initiative.

So China has been admitted to the world trade system in the hope that, if anything, it would liberalize China domestically in political terms. But instead, what has happened is China has basically used the free trade system to pose a geopolitical threat to its trading partners and especially to the United States.

So if you look at what Trump's doing, it's not just South Africa. He's looking at countries in which the United States has invested significant amounts of money and political capital and sometimes human capital and looking at whether they're dealing with China or not. Look at what happened in Panama. The United States built the Panama Canal at the cost of tens of thousands of American workers who died in the malarial swamps of Central America to build this canal and then gave the canal back to Panama.

And yet the canal was essentially being run for the benefit of China for the last few years. And Trump had a real problem with that. So he sent Marco Rubio to Panama to renegotiate our relationship with Panama, basically saying, unless you stop allowing China to take advantage of this canal at our expense, we are going to take it back from you. Actually, we have this provision in the treaty that allows us to do it. We'll come and just take it back. And you can't stop us. You can't stop us militarily and you can't stop us legally.

So Panama very quickly said, OK, we're leaving this China thing. We're leaving the One Belt, One Road initiative and we're going to operate in the Western Hemisphere and work with the Western world. So South Africa is not unique in that sense because the United States perceives China as a threat. And South Africa has really been

play footsie if you want to use a colloquial term with china moving the taiwanese embassy out of pretoria doing joint military exercises with china all kinds of things a couple fact checks there number one he did make reference to what's colloquially known as the debt trap narrative

Just to be clear, there is no evidence at this point that China has seized assets in Africa in lieu of debt payments. The other point that he mentioned was Taiwan's embassy. Taiwan does not have an embassy in South Africa. Taiwan has a representative office. And he was making reference to the fact that they are forcing the representative office to move from the political capital to the commercial capital. Much has been done as it's been done, say, in Nigeria, where it was moved from Abuja to Lagos.

Nkoteko, that is probably the most articulate explanation of why the United States is upset with South Africa, what the concern is about China.

And I'm curious, this may be the man who's in your headlines quite a bit, if he is in fact confirmed by the Senate and does become the ambassador. Again, this is just talk right now that he is the guy, so it's not confirmed. But I just thought it would be good for us to get to know him a little bit in some of his thinking. But I'm curious what you think of his remarks. I mean, he's very clear about his intentions and the policy of the Trump administration. I like that. I don't like what he said, but I like about how it's been done.

Up front, he is about it. In South Africa, just like any other African country, we would really prefer not to choose between the East and the West because really it's not our fight. But it has gotten to a point where not choosing sides is no longer a benefit or it's more costly.

And I think a lot of African countries, just like South Africa, will have to rethink their nine aligned neutral policies. What does it mean to have relationships, trade relationships with both China and the U.S.? Is it possible to trade both with China and the U.S.? When you are in business, you want to not limit yourself to one customer.

But it seems like countries are now in a position where they are no longer able to have that privilege and must choose a side. So it'll be interesting to see how governments navigate that space, that very limiting space that they find themselves. Kopus, I think what Nkoteko is saying is absolutely right, but I'm not entirely sure it's going to be all countries. I don't

don't believe that same type of tone and rhetoric will be used towards Vietnam, for example, because of its strategic importance. So countries that the United States has considerable leverage over, South Africa being one, Panama being another, that may happen. But when you heard Pollack's statements and his explanation for why the Trump administration and the American government is now upset, what's your reaction? Well,

I found his comments really, well, in lots of ways could have really filled with half-truths and, you know, kind of very, very kind of, you know, like, yeah, kind of misleading kind of ways of putting things. Because, for example, right, kind of like so sure, like, you know, you can say lots of bad things about how China used the global trading system.

But no one gained as much from the explosion of low-cost manufacturing in China than the United States. Look at... Apple would not have been the company that it is now without low-wage manufacturing in China, right? Yeah. Be careful with that line of thinking, though, because what...

Trump supporters will say, and even a lot of Democrats will tell you as well, is that the United States also suffered mightily from China joining the system with the gutting out of American manufacturing that then went to China. Sure, but that wasn't a Chinese plot. That was orchestrated by the U.S. government and by U.S. companies, right, for their own bottom line reasons.

Shareholder value was maximized thanks to cheap manufacturing in China. And we should keep in mind that both in the United States and in Europe, that also included externalizing environmental and labor abuses to China, right? So there was no way of making an iPhone.

with good labor rights and good environmental rights on the scale that they ended up making them and selling them. The only way that they could do that and profit from it was by making it in China and having China absorb those kind of body blows environmentally and labor-wise. So to now pretend that somehow magically China tricked the U.S. through using the trade system when the U.S. has been controlling the trade system, including the World Trade Organization,

clearly and openly for ever, is not realistic, right? So in that sense, like, and also the people who were really promoting the entry of China into the World Trade Organization on the grounds of the importance of free trade was again Western powers, right? So the idea that that country should be able to trade with whoever they want and that foreign companies should have the right, the right of access into developing markets, right?

is a U.S. idea. It was aggressively promoted by the U.S. for decades and decades, most prominently by Reagan, which is, you know, obviously the kind of godfather of the current Republican Party, right? So again, you know, this is just, you know, it ended up having unintended consequences for the U.S., but to pretend that the U.S. didn't want

this to begin with is again not realistic right it's the US was very clear with what they wanted they just ended up not getting what they wanted right now so this choice that in Catego was talking about is very much a topic of conversation in South Africa as Cobas as you mentioned it has spurred a

a lot of understandable emotional reactions from people to say, "Listen, if you're going to make us choose, then we're going to choose." And there's a part of South African society which is basically raising their middle finger to the Americans and telling them to go get stuffed, not thinking necessarily about the economic consequences. Let me play a little bit of sound and we're going to also go back to Joel Pollack as well who responds to this.

But let's start with an interview that took place this week on the South African satellite TV network Newsroom Africa, where they interviewed international relations expert Dr. Kingsley Makubela, who said Washington's loss in South Africa will be Beijing's gain. In what ways will this decision affect the U.S.? Because there's been more talk about how it will affect the relations, more specifically on the South African end.

The only thing that it does, it pushes South Africa to other power players around the world. Precisely what the Americans have been fearing, that South Africa should not align itself with countries like China, Russia and Iran. So this decision leaves South Africa with no other alternative but to align itself with new emerging powers even much stronger than before. So that's the damage that is going to be done to the U.S.

Now, Pollack was questioned about this very issue on that SA Jewish Report YouTube video that, again, ran this week. And he made it clear that if South Africa prefers to align with China...

then great, let them do it. Isn't there a risk that America loses South Africa because of these hardball tactics, that South Africa just goes straight into the arms of China and Iran, and now they're sort of on the fence? We play both sides. But in response to this kind of threat that South Africa actually leaves the Western camp altogether and comes out, as it were, as a full-blown member of the China-Iran camp,

Of course, there's that risk. And I think it's one the Trump administration has decided to take. In other words, if you want to join China, join China.

We will be against you in that sense. So you'll have us as an enemy, but also good luck with that I mean, what has the experience been of African countries working with China? Has it been positive? You know, they've built some infrastructure in some places but the price of Chinese investment is Chinese control and It's more brutal than British colonialism. Let's say the Chinese have no regard whatsoever for human rights and

And they don't care if they impoverish your country because they're in this for themselves, not for you. Whereas at least the British had this idea that they could go around helping civilizations with parliaments and literacy and whatever. But China is not going to invest in South Africa in the ways that even the now hated colonial powers did. I mean, China is basically going to strip Africa of its mineral wealth and and.

Own whatever it can and that's the end of it and some individuals might do very well in south africa doing business with china in the same way that individuals Can always find a way to do well but I think the trump administration is basically saying to south african to the south african government if you want to If you want to be part of china's sphere of influence, you want to make that choice. Good luck with that You you can do that, but then you're shut out of our sphere of influence with all the benefits that it has and you know

I'm not saying this is an American strategy, but, you know, if you look at what Elon Musk has been saying on a social media platform, even with Trump enforcing immigration very strictly at the moment, Elon Musk is saying, you know what? South Africans are great. We should we should make it easier for South Africans to leave South Africa. We should we should bring them in here. Yeah.

And I think that would be the approach that the United States might take. It might say, okay, well, you know, our approach will then be to extract the most highly skilled South Africans and leave the rest of the country to rot. I mean, if you want to do that, we're not going to abandon all South Africans, but if South Africa chooses to side with China, good luck to you. That's basically the approach they're taking. Gadeko, there is a very vigorous defense of British colonialism in South Africa, which

A very vigorous defense of gutting the country of the most talented people. And if you want to pick a side, go ahead. Pick a side. But the U.S. is going to be your enemy, is what the potential future ambassador of the United States to South Africa is saying. Again, I'm going to ask you, I don't really know what the question I'm going to ask you is, but just what do you think when you hear this?

I mean, there's a lot of mistruths in what he said, a lot of exaggerations as well. But the perspective I take is that, yes, South Africa will more likely have stronger ties with China and Russia and Iran, maybe. But it will most likely be for the short term during Trump's administration. I

I think afterwards, when someone comes along, they will be willing to mend those relations again. There's a lot of interest in working with the U.S. in South Africa. We have a lot of things in common and also the language as well. So, you know, we're not going to completely go over to China and only work with China. I think people are just seeing it as a

temporary inconvenience for the next four years until situations or circumstances change again in the U.S. and then we can re-engage the country again. But right now, it just seems like the double-down approach that they are taking is just going to push people away, but it won't be forever. Afterwards, I think relations might be better. So, Nkoteko, if

South Africa is forced to make this choice, which it sounds like that's the direction that the Trump administration wants to pursue. It's going to be a very difficult choice. We've talked about the impact on jobs.

But at the same time, South Africa does twice as much trade with China than it does with the United States. So if you were advising Cyril Ramaphosa, who is no doubt going to be facing enormous domestic political pressure, potential radicalizations on the extremes of

of the political spectrum, whether it's some of the white parties or the EFF or from the opposition Democratic Alliance, no matter what happens, it's going to be a difficult choice. But if there is a confrontation that says you need to leave the BRICS,

You need to leave the Belt and Road. You need to sever military ties with China. You need to do all of these things that many people would feel impinge on the sovereignty of South Africa. What would you advise the president on how to proceed with this tough choice? There is no middle road, it sounds like. OK, that is. And I think the president is trying to take a middle road, but it doesn't look like the Trump administration wants to afford the president a middle road. How do you advise the president on this?

Well, I'm glad I'm not in his seat, in his position, because it is very difficult. But, you know, in politics, they say there are no permanent friends, there are no permanent enemies. So I think he must look at it in that way, that he will have to choose.

I think that's what the Americans want. That's what the Trump administration wants. You will have to choose. But in choosing, just because you have chosen today doesn't mean you can't reevaluate your choice tomorrow. I think more than anything, the Ramaphosa administration is afraid of choosing. So just make the decision. I know, but I'm going to pressure you, Nketeko. What would you tell him? I know he's got to make a choice. I know choices can be changed later on. But tell him,

But tell me if he says to you, help me make this decision. What do you tell him? I really don't know. Because, you know, our relationship. That's a fair answer, by the way. That's a very fair answer. It's important. And our relationship with the Americans is important as well.

And it's really hard to tell what are the ramifications of the choice right now. And it's hard to tell, you know, if you choose this ally, how much will they be willing to beg you at the end of the day? I mean, we are a sovereign nation and at the end of the day, we must look after ourselves. Just because we choose the Chinese doesn't mean the Chinese will have to do everything for us.

And even if we choose the Americans, doesn't mean they will have to do everything for us. So it's really a difficult choice. No, it is a difficult choice. It's a choice that the situation will force itself on the Ramaphosa administration. But I think at the moment, South Africa is in a position where we will have to react to what's going on more than anything.

If Kobus, the president, is in fact confronted with this choice, what are the political factors that you think he's going to take into account?

in order to come up with some kind of response. And Nkoteko saying he doesn't know, again, totally legitimate answer. I mean, this is an unbelievable choice that the president may be confronted with. But if you were advising the president or you just want to give us a lay of the land of what the president's taking into account to make a decision, does he give in to the U.S. and exceed those demands? Or does he say, you know what, buzz off. We're going to go with the Chinese. What do you think happens, Kobus?

I don't think it's really either one of those two things. I think what it is, is to a certain extent you have to play the waiting game because you know that the Trump administration by its nature so far and the first term too has been a short attention span presidency. And this is going to be very intense here in American politics, right? Kind of like leading up to midterms soon.

So this is the white-hot center of kind of Trumpian triumphalism right now. They haven't been bound, like kind of bound down in all of the details of what it's going to take to implement all these things. So partly my feeling would be is that

Don't obey in advance. Kind of like make them push you to do the things. If they have the full energy and they push you on a particular point, then evaluate that particular point. But you can't just kind of like use talking points to anticipate their positions.

I think that's the one. The other thing is there's two realities in South Africa, right? One is that South Africa is unique among many countries for having a particular form of ethical foreign policy, right?

And so that binds it to particular issues. South Africa didn't take on the Israel case just because they had some kind of beef with Israel or because they wanted to just be prominent. They were taking it on because of an entire kind of architecture of legal and political kind of commitments that lie at the heart of what post-apartheid South Africa is, right? Kind of why South Africa is important in the world.

The ICJ stuff lies at the heart of that. So you can't just give it up, right? Then you stop being South Africa. So they have to find a way of pursuing that, pursuing their position in international communities like the G20, for example, right? Kind of where it's one of these rare countries that can actually be a bridge builder, right?

That still remains true. The other third thing that remains true is look where the actual, not only the economy lies at the moment, but look where the economy will lie in the future. And, you know, really important as Atlantic trade, European-American trade, has been in South Africa, it hasn't been very dynamic. Like, we haven't seen...

It's not like year-on-year increases, right? Kind of like the US isn't clamoring to find new product categories to import from South Africa, right? Kind of the ones that they are importing are relatively stable. They're relatively static. On the other hand, it's not only China, but it's the entire Indian Ocean room. There's a lot of dynamic developments in investment trade and all of these other things along that room. So one can't be forced into giving stuff up

you know, kind of from, you know, by someone who isn't offering anything more, right? So at the moment, at the moment, there is no offer. At the moment, there's threats. And of course, those are serious and those need to be taken into account. But at the same time, one still has to think about the future. One still has to think about like where South Africans are going to be 20, 30 years from now.

and what they're going to need. And a lot of the things that they're going to need are predominantly made in Asia, right? Kind of solar cells, electric vehicles, all of these different things. Like this is where those things come from now. Like if you're not buying like incredibly expensive cyber trucks, if you need a little kind of like affordable little EV, Tesla isn't your company.

You're not going to be helped from the US even if you have a fantastic grade A relationship with the US there's still a lot of stuff that the US can't provide So in that sense South Africa would have to make the calculation about where its own future lies I think

Okay. Let me just share my views and I want to get your take on it. I think that the president may want to take a page out of Naledi Pandor, who was the former head of DERCO, the former foreign minister who did a very tough worded column in the Washington Post and said, if you decide to go down this path, it's you that's going to suffer. You know, and she listed the critical minerals that American industry relies on. I would then hire an investor relations crisis communications firm.

Donald Trump, his soft underbelly,

is the stock market. His soft underbelly, his weakness is the stock market. He pulled back on the Canadian and the Mexican tariffs because pre-market selling on Sunday before the Monday open was diving. And he said, okay, I'm pulling back. And what he got out of the concessions of Mexico and Canada, what they were already doing. All of a sudden, if Wall Street has communicated that Ford, that GM, that even Tesla, Mercedes,

are going to have massive disruptions to critical mineral supply chains, the defense industry. You go down the line. What is going to be the impact on specific companies, specific stocks? Start sending chills into the marketplace about these disruptions and the cost of these disruptions.

Okay, that is his soft underbelly. You do not just pleading, and I'm not suggesting you two are saying this, but making the case generally not going to work. They're immune to that kind of pressure. What he's not immune to is that stock market going...

You know, find the stocks in the Dow 30 and in the S&P 500 that are most reliant on South Africa and start hitting them. This is, by the way, the tactic that the Canadians and the Europeans are doing. They're targeting companies in red states. They're targeting Tesla specifically. They're trying to find the soft tissue. They're not hitting them straight on. You're not seeing countries now file a barrage of.

of sanctions back in retaliation. Tactical, strategic, calculated responses that have maximum pain to his core constituencies and where he responds to. That feels like the best way to do it. You know what I mean? No one cares about South African grapes coming into the U.S. Okay, fine. Agriculture. We get plenty of agriculture from other places.

But those critical minerals that Naledi Pandor detailed in her column in the Washington Post, she was very pointed. And she said, great, let's do this. And you're going to pay a very high price. We had a mining in Daba this past week, and the Minister of Mineral Resources, Gwedom Antashi,

actually said the same thing that South Africa should reconsider sending in minerals to the US and you know the local reception was not well it was not

praised for that. Yeah, he was roundly criticized for that and he was stepping out of his lane. He shouldn't have said that, you know, yeah. But I don't know if South Africa understands how to play the game then. I think there's a general fear to push back from a lot of South Africans, either the politicians or the economists. I think that is a new game that the country has not played before. The pushing back, you know, the

They prefer more, let's sit down on the table and talk it out approach. I think you're correct that we should do that, but it doesn't seem there's a willing. That would be ideal, but I don't know if these are the talking. I understand where you're coming from. I totally get that. I just don't know if these are the talking times.

The Panamanians wanted to talk and there was no discussion. This is the deal. They put a gun to their head and they said, this is what you're going to do. By the way, the next key step in this relationship is not going to come out of the White House or Trump. It's going to come out of Congress on AGOA. So it's Congress that decides AGOA, if I'm correct. And so we'll see if the decision to renew this trade agreement. Is that correct, Kobus, that it comes out of Congress?

As far as I understand. I think it is. I think it comes out of Congress. So we're going to need one of our D.C. insiders to kind of confirm that. But Congress is definitely taking up the AGOA issue. So I think given the fact that September 25th is the renewal date, they're going to be talking about this over the summer.

And right now. So that will be the first indicator. And that may change things depending if AGOA is terminated. I think my question then is, let's say AGOA is terminated. You know, what else is there for them to use? Let's say AGOA is terminated and South Africa accepts it and say, OK, we're going to move on. You know, do they have more influence after that? Because the AGOA stick is gone.

I think what was detailed in that Wall Street Journal column was to sanction South African leaders to tie up their money. Remember, the United States has an enormous amount of leverage given its dominance of the financial system. The ability for South Africa to participate in SWIFT, to move money around the world, that's the currency messaging system. They can make life very, very difficult for South Africa. And again, you heard from Joel Pollack, you will be our enemy is what he said. Our enemy.

Okay? I mean, this is his words, not mine, by the way. But I think it's also, there are all of these forms of leverage and, you know, obviously, that's the nature of US power. But

At the same time, I agree with Nkateko, I think that, you know, this is in lots of ways an optics-obsessed administration, right? Kind of, so they, you know, they love the optics of being begged for things, and they love the optics of kind of like hammering down and like, you know, pulling things, yanking things, you know, those are two of their favorite things, right? So...

So they've already kind of interrupted PEPFAR, right? Even if PEPFAR comes back 100% as it was, that relationship is over, right? That kind of trust relationship that underlay that cooperation is over. Ogoa is much weaker on that respect, right? Trump already kicked Rwanda out of Ogoa for not accepting second-hand clothes years ago. Yeah, but it's...

It's not 200,000 jobs, though, Kobus. I mean, that is an enormous... I mean, that's not the same dynamics at all. It's true, of course. Of course. I'm not saying this is costless. But still, you know, kind of like once a goer disappears...

which, you know, kind of it may well disappear anyway, then it's not like Africa stops existing, right? Kind of, so there's a limited amount of, so yes, sure, they can totally, they can bomb South Africa if they want, right? Kind of like, there's all of these options open to them.

But it happens in the larger context of an atrophying relationship between the United States and Africa, right? And that ends up being the kind of longer kind of reality that's being set here. Which, of course, is no skin off the US's nose because they don't care. But at the same time, it really still is...

You know, like that old thing of like by, you know, by 2050, like one quarter of the world is like, will be from Africa. That's not going away. Right. That arc is still continuing. I know, but they don't care about that. They don't. But, but in the end, but, but that's the point. Africa also doesn't. Like, you know, kind of like Africa, Africa moves along. Right. Kind of. And, and so, so then they'll move along without the US. Right. Kind of, which is maybe not, not as nice a way to move along, but still they're moving along anyway. Yeah.

Yeah, but that's not going to persuade anybody in Washington that that's a loss. I mean, you know, I mean, you know, you and I were there under better times and people didn't give a crap. I mean, like today, it's probably even less today. So I'm not...

That's possible. Which is, of course, Washington logic anyway. That's how Washington always works. So we have the G20 gathering coming up and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is on his way. And I have a feeling that the Chinese are going to do their very best on optics. So, Kobus, you talked about U.S.-South Africa optics. The Chinese are very good and also going to play the optics up already. The Chinese have been teasing out that Wang Yi is going to go to Europe first and then he's going to go to South Africa. And I think you're going to see quite a bit of coverage. And I think you're...

It'll be interesting to see how much Ramaphosa plays up the visit with Wang Yi. And that will give us an indication, Hinkateko, which way they may be leading. Because if he keeps Wang Yi at distance, that may be an indication that they do want to maybe accede to some of the U.S. demands. But if there's a lot of hugging going on and there's a lot of photo ops and maybe isolating the Chinese from the rest of the pack, almost the way that Xi Jinping has done with Vladimir Putin at big gatherings in China,

Beijing, where Putin is at the front of the line, and all of that is meant to convey a message. So these diplomatic optics are going to be very interesting to watch in the weeks ahead. So, gentlemen, it's really a pleasure for me to have the chance to talk to two South Africans about this. It's an absolutely fascinating issue. Also, I want to make sure that our viewers and our listeners go to our website. Incateco did a great article for us, and I'm going to put it in the show notes online.

on the growing popularity of Chinese auto brands in South Africa. And we're thrilled to have you contributing to the China Global South Project. So thank you very much. And thank you for your time today. Kobus, let's leave the conversation there because we're bumping up against the time and I didn't expect us to go this long. And so we'll save our commentaries for next week.

Also, by the way, just a quick shout out for our China Global South podcast. For those of you who've been listening to this show, you know I've been on the road in Singapore and Indonesia. So we've neglected that show on Tuesdays that come out. But next week, we've got some great shows lined up for the China Global South podcast. So Kobus and I will be back with that episode. And of course, on this feed, on the China Africa feed, you get all of the shows that we produce.

And so Kobus and I will be back again next week with another edition of the show. So Nkoteko Mambasa is a writer and political analyst in Johannesburg. And Kobus, of course, is our managing editor. Gentlemen, thank you again for your time today. It was wonderful to have your insights. And we'll be back again next week with another edition of the China in Africa podcast. Bye for now.

The discussion continues online. Follow the China Global South project on Blue Sky and X at ChinaGS Project or on YouTube at China Global South and share your thoughts on today's show or head over to our website at ChinaGlobalSouth.com where you can subscribe to receive full access to more than 5,000 articles and podcasts. Once again, that's ChinaGlobalSouth.com.

♪