International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola has warned South Africans to prepare for the worst in the country’s deteriorating relationship with the United States, but says Pretoria will continue talking to Washington without surrendering control over its domestic laws or foreign policy.
During a discussion with former US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Jendayi Frazer in New York on Wednesday, Lamola set out where South Africa was prepared to accommodate Washington and where it would not.
The government would not obstruct the US refugee programme for South Africans, although it opposed the initiative. South Africa also remained willing to attend the G20 summit in the US if invited. But Lamola offered no retreat on land reform, black economic empowerment or South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
The discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations came days after Lamola said relations with Washington had reached a “critically low point”. The latest trigger was a US visa policy aimed at foreign nationals accused of advancing laws or policies that Washington regards as racially discriminatory.
The restrictions form part of a broader effort to impose costs on South Africa over policy disputes. Washington has used tariffs, aid cuts, refugee policy, visa restrictions and exclusion from the G20 summit to increase pressure on Pretoria. Lamola’s response is that the relationship can be negotiated, but South Africa’s constitutional and foreign-policy choices cannot be dictated from abroad.
“I think South Africa has to prepare itself for the worst-case scenario because the reality is that we are expected to surrender our sovereignty,” Lamola said in an earlier SABC interview.
He identified BEE, land reform, expropriation with nil compensation in limited circumstances and South Africa’s “progressive foreign policy with a human-rights outlook” as the areas on which Washington expected it to retreat.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the visa restrictions on 15 September. He said they would apply to people responsible for, or complicit in, policies enabling race-based discrimination, uncompensated land seizures or the incitement of violence against minority groups.
No names have been released and the policy is not a blanket ban on South Africans travelling to the US. Their ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III has said the names of those affected will not be made public.
Bozell described the visa policy as “only the first step in a series of escalatory measures” and declared that the time for endless dialogue had passed. Washington has not identified the further measures or said what South Africa would have to do to stop them.
International relations analyst Donovan E Williams believes the move marks a more aggressive attempt to force Pretoria to change course.
“In my opinion, the United States has essentially declared a diplomatic war against South Africa,” he told the Mail & Guardian. “It has created it on the basis of fabrications and pure lies. It is an attempt to control South Africa’s foreign policy.”
Williams described the pressure as an attempted “diplomatic coup d’état” and said South Africans, despite their dissatisfaction with their own government, should resist efforts to turn the country into “a vassal state of the US”. He was referring to pressure to change government policy, not alleging a plan to overthrow the government.
He called the visa restrictions the “weaponising of visas in real terms” and predicted that Washington would use other parts of the bilateral relationship to weaken South Africa’s independent foreign policy.
“There will be plenty more actions similar to this,” he said. “South Africans will have to be resilient.”
The measures follow Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order halting US assistance to South Africa and establishing refugee resettlement for Afrikaners. The order cited the Expropriation Act and Pretoria’s case against Israel.
The US later imposed a 30% tariff on many South African exports, subject to product-specific rules and exemptions. It stayed away from the G20 leaders’ summit hosted by South Africa and has said Pretoria will not be invited to the summit under the US presidency.
Lamola’s discussion with Frazer showed that Pretoria is not treating every point of disagreement in the same way.
On the refugee programme, he said the government did not support it but would not interfere with people who chose to leave. Washington says Afrikaners and other minorities face persecution. Pretoria rejects that claim as politically motivated and unsupported by the facts.
Lamola also addressed crime and protests against undocumented migration, rejecting claims that South Africa is xenophobic. His answer went to a central dispute between the governments. Washington portrays minorities as threatened by state policy, while Pretoria argues that violent crime affects all communities and that its redress measures respond to inequality created by apartheid.
The Expropriation Act permits nil compensation in specified circumstances where it would be just and equitable. It does not authorise wholesale land seizures, and the Constitution prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. The distinction does not end the political argument over the law, but it contradicts claims of indiscriminate confiscation.
There was less room for movement on Gaza. Lamola described the destruction there as a “painful genocide” unfolding in full view of the world.
“The world has a duty to stop it,” he said.
South Africa’s ICJ case was cited in Trump’s executive order, but Lamola gave no indication that Pretoria would withdraw or dilute it to improve relations with Washington.
On the G20, he expressed disappointment at the prospect of South Africa being absent and said the country remained ready to participate if invited. South Africa remains a member of the forum. Keeping it out of the US-hosted summit would be a decision by the host, not its removal from the grouping.
President Cyril Ramaphosa reinforced the government’s position this week, saying South Africa would engage Washington “without bowing our heads”. His appointment of veteran negotiator Roelf Meyer as ambassador to the US also shows that Pretoria is still seeking a negotiated way through the dispute.
The two governments have not publicly identified a common negotiating agenda. Washington has named the South African policies it opposes but has not set out the changes that would halt its escalation. Pretoria is seeking progress on trade while insisting that domestic redress laws and its foreign policy are not bargaining chips. Dialogue can continue on that basis without bringing the dispute any closer to resolution.
Bozell has separately denied reports that he proposed former president Thabo Mbeki as a mediator. He said he respected Mbeki and had met him several times, but had not asked him to intervene. Neither government has announced a mediation role for Mbeki.
The economic stakes are substantial. The US remains one of South Africa’s most important trading partners, and the tariff dispute has added pressure to exporters already confronting weak growth and global uncertainty. Pretoria is pursuing a trade agreement with Washington while seeking alternative markets, but replacing US demand would take time.
Williams’s description of a diplomatic war goes further than the government’s public language. Lamola is warning that more punitive action may follow, while keeping diplomatic channels open. Pretoria is prepared to negotiate how the relationship works. It is not prepared to let Washington decide South African policy.