The African National Congress (ANC)maybe remains in denial about the United States’ conditions for normalizing bilateral trade and diplomatic relations,rather opting instead to prioritize business with BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This stance stems from the ANC’s unwavering commitment to policies like Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), land reform, and other ideological priorities that conflict with the U.S.’s stipulated terms.
During a recent delegation to the U.S., comprising representatives from the Southern African Agri Initiative (Saai), Freedom Front Plus (VF Plus), and the National Employers’ Association of South Africa (Neasa), White House officials outlined conditions for improved bilateral ties. These included classifying farm attacks as a priority crime, publicly condemning the “Kill the Boer” slogan, ensuring no land expropriation without fair market compensation, and exempting U.S. entities from BEE requirements.
The delegation noted that these conditions have been repeatedly communicated to the South African government but have received little attention.The ANC, criticized by groups like AfriForum as unpatriotic for their international campaigns, remains resolute.
They view BEE and land reform as central to addressing historical inequalities, arguing that the U.S. conditions infringe on South Africa’s sovereignty and demand unrealistic concessions. Instead, the ANC is focusing on strengthening economic ties with BRICS countries, which they see as more aligned with South Africa’s developmental goals.The ongoing BRICS Summit in Brazil (concluding July 7, 2025) emphasizes the need for deeper intra-BRICS trade to ensure economic sustainability. South Africa’s agricultural sector, which generated approximately US$13.7 billion in exports in 2024, faces high tariffs in BRICS countries like China (e.g., 12% on macadamias, 14-20% on wine) and phytosanitary barriers.
Yet, BRICS is viewed as a more strategic partner, imposing fewer political conditions and offering a growing market for South African products, particularly in agriculture, which accounts for nearly half of global agricultural imports.Critics, such as Manie in the original text, question whether U.S. campaigns will influence South African policy, warning they may sow division instead.
The ANC’s preference for BRICS reflects a strategic choice to prioritize economic and political alignment over U.S. conditions, which are seen as restrictive. However, this approach risks limiting South Africa’s access to U.S. markets and investments, with potential long-term economic implications.
The ANC’s rejection of U.S. conditions, such as scrapping BEE and uncompensated land expropriation, underscores their focus on ideological principles and BRICS cooperation. While BRICS offers a promising alternative, challenges like intra-BRICS trade barriers and the need for a formal trade agreement persist. The ANC’s stance may strain ties with the U.S. but reflects a broader shift toward global South-South cooperation.
AfriForum’s campaign in the U.S. to advocate for Afrikaner interests has been criticized by the ANC as unpatriotic and damaging to South Africa’s image, as it would sow division. We doubts whether such visits will change South African policy, comparing it to complaining to a friend about marital problems, and jests that a golf game with Donald Trump might have done more for relations.
As we said and know a recent delegation, including Theo de Jager (Saai), Corné Mulder (VF Plus), and Gerhard Papenfus (Neasa), held a “constructive” meeting with White House officials. They discussed the U.S. conditions for normalizing bilateral relations, including classifying farm attacks as a priority crime, condemning “Kill the Boer,” no land expropriation without fair market compensation, and exempting U.S. entities from black economic empowerment requirements. The delegation pledged to convey these conditions to the South African government and public for transparency and stronger ties.
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by CRA and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
