Last Friday, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, took to social media platform X to announce that SA’s ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, was “persona non grata” and was no longer welcome in the country.
In the post, Rubio accused Rasool of being a “race-baiting politician who hates America and hates @POTUS” (the president of the US)”, and that the country had nothing to discuss with him. In an official statement, Rasool was given 72 hours to leave the US.
Rubio’s diatribe was informed by statements made by Rasool at a dialogue hosted by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection, an independent, Joburg-based think-tank. At the dialogue, reflecting on the rise of the right wing globally, Rasool is alleged to have said Trump and his supporters were effectively a supremacist movement projecting white victimhood.
I have paid close attention to how analysts have responded to Rasool’s expulsion. There are two schools of thought – one which believes the expulsion of Rasool is justified, and another that argues it is undiplomatic.
The most reasonable analysis was provided by Wits University-based public law expert Patrick Kadima, who contends that the actions taken by the US violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The convention aims to facilitate the development of friendly relations among governments and is a cornerstone of modern international relations and international law.
Kadima argues that the US did not follow the processes set out in the convention, opting instead for megaphone diplomacy that experts have rightly characterised as unhelpful and unconstructive. He contends that an alternative approach should have been for the US government to call Rasool into a meeting to explain his comments. I fully agree with Kadima’s argument.
In 2023, the former US ambassador to SA, Reuben Brigety, made claims that SA had provided arms to the Russian government to effectively aid in its war in Ukraine. Without any evidence, Brigety said the arms were loaded onto a Russian vessel that had docked in Simon’s Town, home to the South African Navy’s largest base.
His claims were later found to be untrue – but the damage had been done. The economy was hit hard, with the rand tanking to record lows. Yet, rather than expel Brigety, the government called and asked him to explain his comments. President Cyril Ramaphosa took it a step further and appointed a panel to investigate the veracity of the claims. This was done to reassure highly sensitive markets that SA was not arming Russia.
It’s clear from this episode and Rasool’s expulsion that the US government is using a double standard, though this is not unexpected. The Trump administration is deeply committed to punishing SA for its support of Palestine in its genocide case in the International Court of Justice against Israel – a close ally of the US.
Trump has used various instruments to mete out his punishment, including cutting aid to SA, peddling the false narrative of a “white genocide” in the country and using this to offer Afrikaners asylum.
The Trump administration is giving the cold shoulder to the South African government as Pretoria attempts to mend the strained relations. Rasool’s comments may admittedly have been controversial for a diplomat, but they did not warrant his expulsion – and certainly not one issued so callously.
It is clear Trump is prepared to use the US economic might to whip SA into line. While the US is an important trade partner, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied and humiliated by Trump.
SA is not a helpless, aid-dependent nation with nothing to offer. Not only are we a sovereign nation, but are a strategic economic partner to many countries, with mineral resources and other raw materials to offer the global market. At some point, the US must be reminded of this.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.