Taking a stand: In its submission to the UN Security Council, South Africa characterised the US action as a unilateral military strike and the removal
of President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse as an abduction in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Photo: Mark Garten/United Nations
South Africa enters 2026 with its relationship with the United States under strain, not because of a single diplomatic rupture, but rather a widening divergence in how the two countries approach power, process and legitimacy in an increasingly volatile international environment.
Relations between Pretoria and Washington were frosty by the end of 2025, following a year marked by escalating diplomatic and economic friction.
Tension deepened after a series of moves by President Donald Trump’s administration that included higher tariffs on South African exports, uneven engagement around its G20 presidency and sharp disagreements over foreign policy positions taken by Pretoria in multilateral forums.
South Africa has also bristled at false assertions by the Trump administration of a white genocide against Afrikaners in particular, leading to their being offered refuge in the US.
While none of the developments amounted to a formal breakdown, together they signalled a relationship marked by diminished trust and a narrowing tolerance for dissent within the US policy environment.
This backdrop is essential to understanding South Africa’s response to events in Venezuela, not not as an isolated diplomatic reaction, but as an expression of a broader foreign policy orientation that has become increasingly visible as global power dynamics shift.
After the US confirmed a large-scale unilateral military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, South Africa responded in legal rather than diplomatic terms.
The department of international relations and cooperation described the strikes as a manifest violation of the United Nations Charter, an infringement of Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and confirmed that Pretoria would formally approach the UN Security Council to request an urgent session.
The charter requires that all member states refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”, department spokesperson Chrispin Phiri noted in a statement, adding that it does not “authorise external military intervention in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign nation”.
“History has repeatedly demonstrated that military invasions against sovereign states yield only instability and deepening crisis. Unlawful, unilateral force of this nature undermines the stability of the international order and the principle of equality among nations,” Phiri said.
The response located the incident squarely within the framework of international law and collective security, rather than treating it as a bilateral dispute or a matter of geopolitical alignment. That choice of framing reflects a long-standing feature of South Africa’s foreign policy.
Since the democratic transition from apartheid rule, Pretoria has consistently positioned international law, multilateral institutions and negotiated processes as essential correctives to power asymmetry in the global system.
This orientation is rooted in South Africa’s own historical experience, where international legal pressure, multilateral mobilisation and normative isolation played a decisive role in dismantling apartheid.
In the Venezuelan case, the emphasis was not on escalation or diplomatic confrontation, but on reaffirming the rules governing the use of force and the institutional mechanisms designed to regulate it. By foregrounding legality alongside strategic interest, South Africa sought to shift the terms of debate away from justification and towards precedent.
International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola articulated this position in media engagements, arguing that international law and collective action have underpinned global stability since World War II.
“If we abandon international law, then might will always be right, and smaller countries will have no place,” he said. The framing was less about Venezuela as such than about the erosion of constraints on state power in a system already under severe strain.
South Africa subsequently addressed the UN Security Council, acknowledging the limits imposed by veto power while insisting that public deliberation remains a core function of the institution.
Officials were explicit that enforcement outcomes remain institutionally constrained, but emphasised the importance of transparency, record and institutional memory, particularly where the actions of powerful states are concerned.
In its formal submission, South Africa characterised the US action as a unilateral military strike and the removal of Maduro and his spouse as an abduction in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Pretoria argued that allegations relating to governance failures, human rights abuses or criminal conduct could not justify the use of force or extraterritorial arrest.
It warned that normalising such actions risks accelerating the erosion of legal restraints on power, citing precedents including Iraq, Libya and repeated foreign interventions across Africa that have produced prolonged instability, weakened state institutions and deepened cycles of conflict.
The position was reinforced at the highest political level when President Cyril Ramaphosa publicly condemned the US’s actions, calling for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife.
Speaking at the annual Joe Slovo commemoration in Soweto on Tuesday, Ramaphosa framed South Africa’s response as consistent with its constitutional values, its liberation-era internationalism and its historic support for sovereignty, self-determination and the primacy of the UN Charter.
His intervention signalled that the response was not confined to departmental diplomacy, but reflected a settled political orientation within his ANC, the largest party in South Africa’s government of national unity.
Ramaphosa said the party’s support for Venezuela reflected South Africa’s broader commitment to self-determination, alongside solidarity with the people of Palestine, Western Sahara and Cuba.
“The party remains committed to a multipolar, rules-based international order grounded in equality, sovereignty and solidarity between nations,” he said.
This approach has unfolded alongside other high-profile multilateral engagements, most notably South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
Taken together, these interventions point to a coherent strategy of privileging law, institutional process and public accountability as the primary tools available to states operating outside the centres of coercive power.
Rather than episodic activism, they reflect an attempt to reinforce the relevance of international legal mechanisms at a moment when their authority is increasingly contested.
For Washington, however, the context looks different. Under Trump, US foreign policy has again tilted towards unilateral action, economic leverage and transactional partnership.
Institutional constraint has played a diminished role, while loyalty, alignment and strategic responsiveness have become more prominent markers of partnership. In this environment, behaviour in multilateral forums carries heightened political significance, shaping bilateral relationships alongside trade and security cooperation.
This divergence does not suggest an imminent rupture. Cooperation between South Africa and the United States continues across several domains, and both governments retain an interest in maintaining functional relations. Ambassadorial appointments have proceeded, diplomatic channels remain open, and neither side has indicated an intention to downgrade formal ties.
What has changed is the space for diplomatic ambiguity within multilateral forums. Public positioning now carries greater weight, and the margin for quiet disagreement has narrowed. For South Africa, this has meant a clearer articulation of principle in public institutions. For the United States, it has meant a recalibration of how partners are assessed in moments of contestation.
Viewed in this light, Venezuela functions less as an isolated episode than as an early indication of how future disagreements may unfold. Similar tensions are likely to arise in other theatres, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, where international law collides with unilateral action and institutional authority is tested against raw power.
As South Africa moves deeper into 2026, its response to Venezuela offers insight into how it intends to navigate an international system marked by asymmetry and institutional strain.
The defining question is not whether this approach is adversarial, but whether sustained commitment to legal principle and multilateral process can preserve space for diplomacy in a global order where power is increasingly exercised outside the rules designed to contain it.