As South African President Cyril Ramaphosa prepares to dispatch envoys to engage with the United States (US) and other world capitals, South Africa stands at a crossroads in global diplomacy. Its vision of multilateralism guided by principles of peace, solidarity and equality – shared by many nations – contrasts sharply from the nationalist exceptionalism shaping US President Donald Trump’s agenda.
While Ramaphosa navigates the complexities of a government of national unity (GNU), Trump enters his term emboldened by a full electoral mandate, championing unilateralism and military dominance. Meanwhile, the world watches and endeavours to respond to a flurry of Trump’s executive orders that are attacking the sovereignty and principles of many countries globally, and the foundation of multilateralism itself. Trump’s recent inflammatory statements — along with an executive order targeting South Africa’s governance and policy choices — are illustrative, and prompt this analysis.
As the Gaza crisis deepens and global instability escalates, South Africa’s alternative vision forged in its own transition from apartheid suggests that achieving peace domestically and globally – and confronting the US’s present aggressive agenda – requires both principle and pragmatism, justice and realpolitik.
Diverging Visions of Peace and Power
As their recent national addresses reinforced, the two leaders have starkly different approaches to governance and global leadership. Trump believes that peace is secured through overwhelming military strength and economic protectionism. He portrays the US as a nation under siege, reclaiming dominance through trade wars, border fortifications and selective alliances. His rejection of multilateral institutions reflects a broader strategy of disengagement from global frameworks deemed against American interests.
By contrast, Ramaphosa positions South Africa as a champion of diplomacy, negotiation and international law. Grounded in historical struggles against apartheid and injustice, South Africa publicly (though not without considerable domestic political criticism) prioritises institutional accountability, cooperative problem-solving and a liberal democratic agenda – while standing in solidarity with anti-colonial and anti-imperial struggles.
Ideological divisions extend to global conflict and governance. Trump believes in leveraging economic and military superiority to shape international outcomes, often disregarding international legal mechanisms and basic standards of the international order. His administration’s unwavering support for Israel, including the recognition of Jerusalem as its capital, epitomises this transactional approach.
Ramaphosa, by contrast, advocates for an inclusive global order where power is tempered by principles of justice and accountability. South Africa’s legal action at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel for genocide underscores this commitment to holding all actors accountable, regardless of geopolitical calculations.
Gaza, global justice and domestic peace
Nowhere is this contrast clearer than in Gaza.
Trump’s “iron clad” support for Israel at all costs, his dismissal of the Palestinian right to statehood and his proposed takeover of Gaza as a real-estate transaction – turning one of the world’s largest mass graveyards in history into a luxury resort – defy comprehension to most, exhibiting flagrant dismissiveness of the rules of international relations long championed by the US.
In contrast, Ramaphosa has positioned South Africa as a moral force, using legal and diplomatic efforts to uphold international law and human rights. The ICJ case against Israel reflects not just South Africa’s stance on Palestine, but also ideological alignment with a broader anti-colonial position shared by the African Union and the G77, amongst others, challenging selective and unfair application of international law.
South Africa’s stance demonstrates how moral authority, when backed by legal frameworks, can counter raw power politics in shaping international relations. Beyond Gaza, South Africa’s call for adherence to principles and rules in world order challenges Trump’s transactional approach – one that views international institutions as burdens, constraining US actions where they do not serve American interests.
More widely, South Africa has worked to build inclusive frameworks prioritising fairness over power politics, supporting multilateral responses to address humanity’s common challenges. Its positions on climate justice, debt relief and international trade reflect a commitment to restructuring global institutions to better serve global majorities. Illustrative of this, Ramaphosa’s recent State of the Nation Address underscored South Africa’s G20 presidency as “an opportunity to place the needs of Africa and the rest of the Global South more firmly on the international development agenda.”
At the same time, however, South Africa’s legitimacy and power to advance this agenda demands greater alignment of its actions and rhetoric – both in the Israel-Palestine conflict and in other foreign policy matters affecting Africa.
On the domestic front, South Africa’s GNU represents an effort at inclusive governance that reflects Ramaphosa’s need to address both governance challenges at home, and the reality that transitions towards democracy and peace globally are neither quick, easy, nor linear. The government’s approach (pre-dating Ramaphosa) in transitioning from apartheid to majority rule has broadly reflected an imperfect yet significant model of compromise rooted in negotiated settlements, legal frameworks and the forging of inclusive social compacts.
Conversely, Trump’s leadership thrives on unilateral decision-making, fostering divisions, weaponising social grievances and purging political opponents. His dismantling of democratic institutions and social safety nets – led by South African-born Elon Musk, with seemingly unlimited powers – will undoubtedly serve to reinforce systemic inequalities.
Trump’s executive order accusations of “unjust and immoral practices” in South Africa – from its ICJ case against Israel to land policies – extends his domestic strategy of racial polarisation to the international stage. His extraordinary offer to resettle white South Africans as refugees reveals how narratives of white victimhood, politically potent among his base, are now being weaponised globally to undermine democratic politics elsewhere.
Messages to Trump and World Capitals
South Africa is not uniquely targeted by Trump, but rather part of a broader ideological struggle shaping global politics – between the liberal order defenders and challengers, and those seeking to craft alternatives. As Trump will likely continue this path, other nations would do well to draw lessons, and collaboratively strategise the shaping of solidarity responses.
Moral and political leadership requires averting divisive, polarising politics at home and abroad as transformative paths are sought. Encouragingly, South African leaders across party lines and civil society are largely demonstrating considerable unity in response to Trump’s attacks. At the diplomatic level, South Africa must continue to resolutely condemn the misinformation, fostering counter-media campaigns and counter narratives designed to undermine its sovereignty and global standing. This can be done by leveraging multilateral platforms to file formal complaints and by enhancing fact checking measures. Notably, calling on X (Twitter) to establish a dedicated fact-checking protocol for South Africa-related content is one example.
Critically, responses must focus on the long game: Trump’s presidency will last four years — barring constitutional changes — but today’s global realignments will shape international relations for decades.
South Africa must seize this moment to engage strategically, strengthen alliances, and champion alternative paths. This means building Global South solidarity, shaping new and better institutions, and deepening cooperative, strategic efforts to address global crises – including with Northern actors. Key European capitals that have expressed alignment with South Africa’s values reflect a strong starting point.
Engaging world capitals, South Africa should lead by example with clear and coherent key messages and related actions that show:
- Multilateralism matters: Unilateralism and force do not foster stability in a multi-polar world. A rules-based international system cannot be contingent upon geopolitics or particular national interests. Inclusive, networked multilateralism is needed – that recognises and engages the sub-national, transnational and regional actors that are increasingly central in the shaping of global politics.
- Application of international law must be consistent: If sovereignty is sacrosanct in Ukraine, it must be upheld in Palestine. This will require addressing a more difficult set of questions for South Africa and others advocating for the upholding of international law, while pursuing foreign policies perceived to be rooted in double standards (i.e. maintaining coal sales to Israel while pursuing the ICJ case, building relations with Iran and overlooking Russia’s war crimes).
- G20 and BRICS opportunities should be harnessed: Forging partnerships and taking actions to reinforce an equitable and principled international system are paramount, and to work towards sustainable alternatives to receiving aid from the US.
- Gaza is a defining crisis: The atrocities unfolding against Palestinians are a test of the world’s commitment to justice. Complicity today will erode global credibility tomorrow.
South Africa’s engagement with Trump and other world leaders must go beyond damage control and avoid descending into a dialogue of the deaf.
Equally, while there is value in deepening communication channels with Trump’s administration, this should not come at the cost of abandoning key principles.
South Africa offers a vital alternative to power-based diplomacy. By championing law over force, multilateralism over unilateralism, humanity over narrow interests, and increased space for the Global South in shaping international politics, Ramaphosa’s envoys can demonstrate practical pathways to addressing global challenges.
Their success in articulating this vision could help catalyse renewed commitment to a more just international order at this pivotal moment.
This piece was first published by News24 and can be accessed here. It has been republished here with minor edits.
Professor Erin McCandless is Acting Director of the Qatar-South Africa Centre for Peace and Intercultural Understanding at the University of Johannesburg. The views expressed are those of the author and not the University of Johannesburg.
