SA’s repair of US relations starts with Israel

If President Cyril Ramaphosa is serious about resetting South Africa’s relationship with the United States, he needs to move quickly to demonstrate that the country is taking a less radical position on Palestine and reopen diplomatic relations with Israel.

His recent meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Pretoria showed that South Africa is intent on rebuilding its image as a more neutral player in international relations.

This change in posture has come about following months of fumbling the relationship with a defiant stance that was best illustrated by the ill-considered comments of our former ambassador to Washington, Ebrahim Rasool, and other senior African National Congress leaders who appeared willing to sacrifice the US-SA relationship on the altar of populist rhetoric.

But, if South Africa wants to restore its relations with Washington, it needs to go far deeper and address the substance at the root of the bilateral US-SA problem. A big part of that is stepping back from its pro-Hamas and pro-Iran stance in the Middle East.

Ramaphosa has already signalled that he wants to do this. He recently asked the Mayor of Johannesburg, Dada Morero, to reverse the council’s decision to rename Sandton Drive after Leila Khaled, the radical Palestinian hijacker.

And, in replacing the aggressively pro-Hamas and Iran international relations minister, Dr Naledi Pandor, with the more moderate Ronald Lamola, he earlier suggested a shift in direction.

The trouble with Ramaphosa’s approach, however, is that he remains in awe of the party’s populists and seems unable to bring himself to take a more direct approach.

The Johannesburg mayor is yet to respond to his suggested dropping of the renaming of Sandton Drive. Rather than asking, Ramaphosa should be acting like he is in charge, and issue an instruction.

Similarly, he appears to be waiting for Lamola to find a way to parse a shift in approach to Israel with the party’s populism when he should be asking him to send some strong signals.

The opportunity for a reset to a more neutral stance has presented itself with the International Court of Justice’s recent ruling to pause the genocide action against Israel. It has opened the door for a reframe. Which is not to say that South Africa should drop all criticism of the conduct of the war in Gaza. But its determination to label the war “genocide” is out of step with how most democracies – including many in Africa – view the conflict.

A review of this approach and a more even application of its claimed human rights policy to all conflicts where civilians are threatened – for example in Sudan and Ethiopia – would defuse a lot of the anger against South Africa while strengthening its claim to be a global human rights guardian.

If Ramaphosa wants to send a strong signal that the country is taking a more neutral position he could, as a first step, re-engage with Israel with a view to reinstating ambassadors in both Israel and South Africa.

And, South Africa needs to think seriously about who it will appoint as ambassador to Washington. Sending another ideologue or sectarian player will ensure South Africa’s continued isolation from the US.

• Dr Greg Mills and Ray Hartley are with www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org