Managing US perceptions of South Africa is increasingly vital. Rational explanations alone may not be sufficient to shift entrenched views, requiring a more targeted engagement strategy.

Having returned from two weeks of discussions in Chicago, Washington DC and New York, I’ve gained troubling insights into US-South Africa relations. My meetings with American academics, policy experts and diplomatic officials – all preceding Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool’s expulsion – revealed growing tensions that have now erupted into an open diplomatic crisis. While merely the catalyst, Rasool’s controversial remarks about President Donald Trump reflect deeper fractures in a relationship increasingly characterised by misunderstanding and mutual frustration. This deterioration demands a strategic recalibration. The ball is in our court. South Africa’s policy of non-alignment – the deliberate choice to maintain sovereign independence in international affairs – faces its most significant test since the end of apartheid. This approach, grounded in national interests rather than rigid alliances, is often misunderstood. Critics at home see it as inconsistent or opportunistic while foreign partners misinterpret it as anti-Western. This approach requires clearer articulation and strategic signalling in a fractured global order.

A consistent theme emerged in US discussions: the Trump administration’s transactional approach to foreign relations perceives South Africa as standing at odds with some key policy priorities – particularly regarding the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel, ties with Iran and Hamas and economic partnerships with China and Russia. These positions are directly linked to economic risks with US policymakers raising concerns about trade implications. At a time of economic fragility, this presents a significant challenge. The economic dimensions of this tension cannot be overstated. America remains our third-largest trading partner, after China and the European Union, with preferential market access under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) supporting crucial export sectors and thousands of jobs. Yet, these arrangements increasingly appear vulnerable.

The Trump administration’s recent tariffs against longstanding allies, such as Canada and Mexico, suggest that AGOA benefits could be similarly targeted. American investments across South Africa’s economy – from manufacturing to financial services – are now facing increased uncertainty about their future. These vital economic linkages, which were previously insulated from political disagreements, now exist in a precarious balance where trade policy is increasingly being utilised to achieve political objectives. The appointment of a new ambassador to the US presents an opportunity for a reset. Selecting a seasoned career diplomat could signal a renewed commitment to engagement while upholding principled positions. An unconventional choice – perhaps someone who could navigate the complex racial narratives now dominating discussions of South Africa in Washington – might prove particularly effective in this environment where symbolic gestures carry outsized significance.

Our stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict presents perhaps the most significant diplomatic challenge. South Africa’s case at the ICJ reflects deeply held values but has unquestionably contributed to tensions with Washington. Maintaining this position while reopening limited diplomatic channels with Israel, for instance, might demonstrate a willingness to engage constructively without compromising our fundamental stance. US responses to the Expropriation Act and land reform are shaped more by political optics than substantive policy concerns. South Africa must acknowledge this reality and craft a strategic approach. Rather than using the debate through a constitutional lens, we should manage US discourse by framing land reform through themes that resonate with American priorities – economic stability, investor confidence and rule-based governance.

Managing American perceptions of South Africa is increasingly vital.  Rational explanations alone may not be sufficient to shift entrenched views, requiring a more targeted engagement strategy. Economic diplomacy provides a practical path forward. South Africa can engage directly with American businesses, investment bodies, and trade partners that have a shared interest in stability. US companies with investments in South Africa, along with South African firms operating in the American market, can serve as bridges between the two nations, reinforcing the benefits of continued cooperation. These economic stakeholders can also serve as advocates for pragmatic policies that move beyond political posturing. Rather than relying solely on traditional media and progressive civil society – unlikely to sway key decision-makers – South Africa should prioritise engagement with business leaders, policy influencers and economic think tanks that shape US foreign policy. On contentious issues such as land reform and Palestine, the emphasis should be on stability, investor confidence and alignment with legal principles, thereby positioning South Africa as a reliable economic partner rather than a geopolitical antagonist. Direct outreach to business-focused media, financial forums and bipartisan policy networks could prove more effective than conventional diplomatic responses alone.

While diversifying economic partnerships remains a long-term strategy for reducing dependence on Washington, the immediate challenge is mitigating the fallout. A dual-track approach is needed: actively lobbying to preserve AGOA benefits while simultaneously securing alternative trade agreements to soften potential losses. This requires targeted engagement with key US business stakeholders who benefit from trade with South Africa, reinforcing that continued economic cooperation serves the interests of both nations. In parallel, South Africa should expand trade opportunities with African, European, and Asian markets to prevent overexposure to any single partner. But these efforts take time. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s response to Rasool’s expulsion – dismissing it as a “hiccup” while reaffirming respect for bilateral relations – demonstrates a necessary diplomatic balance. By resisting rhetorical escalation while maintaining clear policy positions, South Africa can manage tensions without compromising its core interests. The road ahead requires neither submission nor confrontation but strategic patience and selective engagement. By upholding non-alignment while adapting its application to current realities, South Africa can preserve both its values and international partnerships. Diplomatic storms, however fierce, eventually pass – but only if managed with foresight.

Research by Gustavo de Carvalho

The views expressed in this publication/article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA)

This opinion article was first published in Business Day