Al-Qalam 
By Ebrahim Rassol (Former Ambassador to the USA)
Just recently, I was invited to the TRT World Forum in Istanbul, Türkiye, focusing on the Global Reset, and the ideas inherent in the assumption of new realities emerging from an old order in eclipse.
My particular participation was to assess the way Donald Trump’s America was shaping transformation both in the USA and globally, and how would the world be able to manage Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy as the outflow of an ultra-nationalist, populist agenda at home.
Of course, South Africa’s centrality in Trump’s imagination created great interest, and the fact that I was expelled as SA’s ambassador by the Trump Administration for suggesting that he was driven by a supremacist instinct created further curiosity. But there was a consensus that SA was being bullied because it was counter-hegemonic in many ways. The image of being bullied was tied to President Ramaphosa’s disgraceful treatment in the White House and the proof of SA being punished was seen in the summary cutting of all development assistance, the de facto death of the African Growth and Opportunities Act, and the tariffs of 30% imposed on SA imports to the USA.
But there was sympathy for SA given the blatant and obvious lies about a ‘white genocide’, the ‘confiscation of white property’ in SA, and the general ‘oppression of whites’ at the hands of a black (ANC) Government. The irony and the symmetry of these allegations against SA, and SA’s charges against Israel, are not unnoticed.
Why is SA in the firing line of the USA and its President? Firstly, Trump’s supremacism isn’t simply a ‘Make America Great Again’ phenomenon. It’s a supremacism that is being exported through campaigning for the UK’s Nigel Farage, Germany’s AFD, France’s Le Pen, etc. It’s a supremacism that intersects with other supremacisms: Zionist supremacism in Israel, and the residual White Afrikaner supremacism in, and originating from, SA. The special contribution of SA’s residual supremacism is the ‘proof’ of white ‘vulnerability’ and ‘victimhood’ if black assertiveness is unchecked through access to power and the phenomenon of migration. To choreograph this, Trump has key South Africans in his inner circle, AfriForum and Solidarity on tap, and the DA playing a more nuanced role in this performative politics.
But SA is, secondly, in the firing line for more substantial reasons: it has had the courage and the competence to put together an evidence-based case of genocide against Israel in the International Court of Justice, a case which turned the tide of global public opinion against, and sympathy away, from Israel and its benefactors. Across the West, the campus turned on the Capitol and the public square against the Parliament, with enormous pressure on arms and other exports to Israel.
Furthermore, SA hosted the BRICS Summit where the dreaded ‘D’ word was used – ‘De-Dollarisation’ – in response to the weaponisation of the dollar and the US financial system. While this was not adopted, the demand remained that SA step away from China and BRICS lest it be collateral damage in Trump’s trade war with China.
Additionally, SA’s loss of 18 soldiers in the East DRC was interpreted as SA’s steadfastness in defending the integrity of Africa’s critical minerals and rare earth elements, of which 30% of all supplies are in Africa, and which the USA is in desperate need of. When a USA mediator moved in, he immediately concluded off-take agreements with the DRC to ensure peace and a curtailment of the black market smuggling of such resources from the DRC.
Minerals
Yet, while SA does occupy a special place in Donald Trump’s imagination, it would be a mistake to believe that the USA’s capriciousness is confined to SA. Donald Trump’s agenda tramples on friend and foe alike in securing US interests (such as ensuring that the USA does not cede total domination to China in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the supply lines and processing of critical minerals and rare earth elements) and resetting global priorities away from rules-based, rights-oriented, and shared governance inherent in the emerging multilateralism. Instead, he is shifting away from a US unilateralism complemented with soft power to unilateralism laced with threats, perniciousness, bullying, unpredictability, and malice.
Because SA is the 2025 President of the G20, and Trump has revived the ‘white genocide’ trope in motivating the USA boycott of the G20, the question from a roundtable of experts (security, geo-political, trade and investment, and global governance) was how SA would deal with the USA. I recalled the scenario exercise I did in my Exit Report to President Ramaphosa in April 2025, at his request.
In this report, I outlined 5 scenarios available to SA – and the world – in managing a capricious superpower.
Scenario 1 – MUTUALITY – is the ideal scenario where all things are equal, in which we need each other, we sell each other what we mutually need, and we often understand the need to exchange the tangible (access to US markets for exports) for the intangible (increased prosperity in Africa means decreased migration and greater global security). In this scenario, we are each other’s keepers.
Scenario 2 – SURRENDER – is the scenario demanded by Trump when for example, SA must drop its ICJ case, withdraw from BRICS, repeal BEE laws; while Brazil and France must withdraw charges against Trump allies, Bolsinaro and Marine le Pen; Venezuela must affect regime change IF they were to avoid the bombing of boats; and other countries too, must surrender to avoid tariffs and aid cuts.
Scenario 3 – RETALIATION is a scenario for those who have sufficient leverage to withstand USA demands to surrender. China, to some extent, could retaliate to Trump’s constant increasing of tariffs by initially retaliating with its own tariffs (with those on soybeans hurting US farmers) but then deciding to withhold rare earth elements (like gallium), which created constraints on US microchips and semiconductors. This forced Trump to break the logjam in his Korea meeting in China. But too many countries are too integrated into the US market, financial system, and security apparatus to even contemplate retaliation.
Scenario 4 – APPEASEMENT – lies between surrender and mutuality and sees the need to flatter the bully and play to his vanity: nominating Trump for a Nobel Prize; gifting him an Air Force One jet; letting his children build Trump Towers; investing billions in the USA; or using white golfers and billionaires to get access to Trump. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
Scenario 5 – CONTINGENCY – is the scenario between retaliation and mutuality and is cognisant that a country does not possess sufficient leverage, but cannot surrender. Thus, the contingency is all about insurance policies, leveraging what you can, while changing the atmosphere. So insurance is about diversifying markets and sources of trade and investment; leveraging is about choosing how to sell, for example, critical minerals; and we need urgently to change the global atmosphere through a durable and robust multilateralism around existing formations (BRICS) and to gather those mutually aggrieved by the USA for a coordinated contingency plan.
None of these scenarios are neat and easy, but unless we think systematically about our response to a pernicious superpower, we will not find the resolve and strength firstly, to sit out the worst of this current onslaught, secondly, help the recoil among US citizens as the pain of Trump’s policies take hold domestically to aid the ‘Mamdani backlash’; thirdly, fortify our nations to be resilient and increasingly self-reliant; and fourthly retain our own national dignity and sovereignty.
As a SA nation, we must confront the question I was confronted with: What do we do about a community in SA whose lies to Trump have cost the country so much? Can they be refugees in the USA and retain assets and citizenship in SA? Can they cost the country billions in trade and aid and be free of charges of treason? Can SA be punished for land reform and still not do land reform?
