Diplomacy: ‘The United States has taken an adversarial, aggressive stance against multilateralism in general. Even in the first term of President
Trump, he did the same with the G7 and other multilateral forums,’ international relations expert Donovan E Williams says. Photo: Supplied
The United States’ G20 presidency has begun with open hostility toward South Africa.
At the launch of Washington’s G20 agenda, Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Pretoria of turning its just-ended term into “an exercise in spite, division and radical agendas”, and of chasing “diversity, inclusion and aid dependency” instead of growth.
The statement drew a clear line between President Donald Trump’s vision of “innovation and entrepreneurship” and what Rubio called South Africa’s “politics of grievance,” signalling that Pretoria’s exclusion from the first Sherpa track meeting was anything but procedural.
The Trump administration is likely smarting after South Africa successfully hosted the first G20 leaders summit on the continent despite Trump’s boycott. Pretoria then objected to President Cyril Ramaphosa handing over the G20 presidency to a junior US representative.
South Africa will not beg to be included in G20 deliberations under US stewardship, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said. His remarks underscore Pretoria’s stance that its foreign policy decisions are guided by principle, not by favour, and that it will not be swayed by diplomatic pressure or ideological posturing from Washington.
Officials at the department of international relations and cooperation echoed that sentiment. Responding to South Africa’s exclusion from the G20 Sherpa track meeting, the department’s head of public diplomacy, Clayson Monyela, earlier this week said that the country “will not be intimidated into abandoning its values or its commitment to international law”.
The moment calls for endurance, international relations expert Donovan E Williams urged, of a relationship that has deteriorated since the Trump administration made unfounded allegations of a white genocide in South Africa.
The two countries are also on opposite sides of Israel’s war on Gaza, with Pretoria opening a genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Tel Aviv, a key historical ally of Washington.
“At times, diplomacy requires a level of stubbornness or resilience. And I think this is one of those times that South Africa, not just as a middle-income country but in particular as an African country and a leading country amongst the developing world, has to remain quite resilient on the international field,” Williams said.
“The United States has taken an adversarial, aggressive stance against multilateralism in general. Even in the first term of President Trump, he did the same with the G7 and other multilateral forums. South Africa will not be able to force the United States to cooperate but will have to ride out the storm. Resilience is the word of the day for the next year.”
That resilience will be tested not only by Washington’s foreign posture but also by its internal politics, which continue to shape how the United States engages with the developing world, analysts said.
The confrontation cannot be separated from America’s domestic politics, another international relations analyst, Lwazi Somya, said.
“Some things within international relations are not necessarily about South Africa but are a projection of US domestic policy on the international stage,” he told the Mail & Guardian. “From the get-go, the US rejected Africa’s presidency of the G20, premising it on a domestic policy issue of diversity, equity and inclusion, which South Africa had emphasised in its presidency theme of solidarity, equality and sustainability,” he said.
“When the Trump administration went against South Africa, it was already contesting the foundations of South Africa’s presidency. The backlash over Palestine … is also a reflection of the domestic situation within the United States, especially concerning the influence of the Israeli lobby,” Somya said.
“This projection of domestic politics requires patience for Pretoria, along with continued engagement with partners in the G7, Brics and other multilateral fora to ensure the sustainability of South Africa’s G20 programme.”
Developments this week underline Pretoria’s resolve. South Africa has closed its airspace to flights carrying Palestinians trying to escape Gaza. The decision follows the arrival of 153 passengers last month, now in the care of the humanitarian organisation Gift of the Givers.
International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola said that the flight was part of “a clear agenda to cleanse Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank”.
Gift of the Givers said Israel is behind the uncoordinated entry of Palestinian refugees into South Africa through OR Tambo International Airport, calling it an example of forced removals and ethnic cleansing. Its founder, Imtiaz Sooliman, said the organisation does not support further flights.
“We don’t want them to leave their country; we want them all to go back. I encourage the government not to allow any more planes to come here,” he said. While the families evacuated from Gaza are being cared for, the goal should be to enable their return, Sooliman said.
“They all have private accommodation, food, clothing, hygiene items, medical screening, legal briefings and counselling. Many left on flights to other countries to be reunited with their families. Those who couldn’t afford to go, we paid for the commercial airline flights,” he said. “A few have already requested asylum; the process commenced [on Monday].”
In recent weeks, Israel has tried to counter Pretoria’s position by courting figures perceived as sympathetic. The visit by AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo to Israel drew intense criticism and a formal complaint from the international relations department.
The visit was transactional, said Thembisa Fakude, a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues.
“This is the man who’s flip-flopped in his politics for a very long time, and these Israelis have clearly paid him to go, together with his entourage, and I don’t think Dalindyebo would ever accept it without being compensated for this visit.
“It’s a tale of two leaders: one is Mandla Mandela, who went on supporting the Palestinians, pushing the Israelis to support aid for the Palestinians, and then you have this one, who’s seen by many as counter-revolutionary, who will use whatever it takes for him to benefit financially. And this is exactly what is happening,” he said.
“Of course, this contradicts the South African government’s view on what’s happening in Palestine, and the larger majority of people in this country continue to condemn the atrocities taking place there.”
Israel’s outreach is part of a broader strategy, said former diplomat and international relations analyst Zeenat Adam.
“Israel’s courting of traditional leaders and politicians is a deliberate and desperate attempt to instrumentalise South African identity and manufacture legitimacy at a time when its genocidal actions in Gaza face international scrutiny,” she said.
“These photo ops are soft-power tactics aimed at blunting Pretoria’s moral and legal challenge at the ICJ, and mask the apartheid policies entrenched in Israel’s occupation of Palestine. South Africa’s foreign policy is grounded in constitutional commitments to human rights and international law, not symbolic gestures. These isolated visits will not shift its principled stance on Palestine.”
Civil-society organisations have echoed that view, with Africa4Palestine describing Dalindyebo’s visit as “nothing more than yet another pathetic and desperate attempt by the Israeli regime to whitewash its crimes and create a false sense of legitimacy among South Africans”.
It said recent polls show that an overwhelming majority of South Africans support political parties and public representatives who openly oppose Israel’s ongoing occupation and apartheid policies against the Palestinian people.
Pretoria’s approach has been reinforced by two studies released this week, one by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Pretoria and another by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, both questioning Israel’s portrayal of evacuations from Gaza as humanitarian.
The ISS report warns that Israel “appears to be quietly relocating Palestinians from Gaza to third countries under the cover of humanitarian evacuation,” cautioning that such movements “raise the spectre of organised depopulation”.
The findings highlight manipulation of humanitarian systems, said Ottilia Maunganidze, head of special projects at the ISS. “There is a risk that evacuation is being used to normalise removal. States offering refuge should do so transparently and in coordination with international agencies, not through ad hoc flights negotiated with private intermediaries,” Maunganidze said.
The CSIS report described South Africa’s refusal to authorise further Gaza flights as “a deliberate effort to defend international law and resist the manipulation of humanitarian policy for political ends”.
The think-tank noted that South Africa’s position underscores a growing divide between Western security policy and international humanitarian law, warning that political expediency has begun to overshadow legal obligations.
It argued that Pretoria’s stance, though controversial, is an attempt to restore credibility to a multilateral system increasingly shaped by selective enforcement.
Taken together, Washington’s hostility, Israel’s outreach and Pretoria’s legal stance at the ICJ capture a broader struggle over the meaning of international law. For Pretoria, the months ahead will test both its diplomacy and its conviction.