By: Clyde N.S Ramalaine
1. Contextualising the Unfolding USA- South Africa Relations Since January 20, 2025
Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, diplomatic relations between South Africa and the United States have been precarious, marked by economic and geopolitical tensions. President Cyril Ramaphosa has navigated this landscape with caution, balancing South Africa’s non-aligned stance on global issues while maintaining critical trade and diplomatic engagements with the U.S. However, South Africa’s pursuit of a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has heightened tensions, given Washington’s unwavering support for Israel. This friction has been compounded by America’s scrutiny of South Africa’s trade eligibility under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), as well as past allegations of arms transactions with Russia.
Within this fragile context, the role of South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S. demanded strategic diplomacy. However, Ebrahim Rasool, the now-expelled ambassador, undermined this necessity with his incendiary remarks during a Maphungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA) lecture. His comments, which framed the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement as a “supremacist assault on incumbency,” were diplomatically reckless, further straining an already delicate relationship.
This article critically examines the academic commentary as a diplomatic blunder committed by Ebrahim Rasool and its implications for South African foreign relations. By analysing the political ramifications of his statements through the lens of political theory, I will explore how his remarks deviated from the expected role of a diplomat and undermined the hitherto more strategic diplomatic approach of President Cyril Ramaphosa. We locate the actions of the expelled ambassador in the political theoretical spaces of realism and constructivism.
Furthermore this article contends diplomacy is a delicate and strategic practice that demands restraint, neutrality, and adherence to established diplomatic norms—particularly when engaging with politically sensitive topics. Ambassadors are entrusted with the responsibility of fostering constructive dialogue, facilitating cooperation, and ensuring the stability of bilateral relations. Their role is not to engage in ideological discourse or partisan debates but to act as an official representatives of their home country while respecting the sovereignty of the host nation.
Additionally, I evaluate the broader implications and ramifications in consequences of his actions, cognisant of historical examples of expulsions, particularly in the context of existing tensions between South Africa and the U.S., and draw lessons from diplomatic protocol and historical precedents.
I ultimately conclude to ask if Rasool’s appointment for this second stint was justified. This article enquires if Rasool previously struggled to distinguish between political patronage and journalistic integrity in domestic politics, could the same lack of discernment have extended to his diplomatic conduct?
2. Unpacking Rasool’s Statement and Diplomatic Blunder
Ebrahim Rasool’s assertion that the MAGA movement was not only a reaction to supremacist instincts but also a response to demographic shifts in the U.S.—where the white voting electorate is projected to fall to 48%—was politically incendiary. While demographic trends in the U.S. are a matter of record, the way Rasool framed his analysis made it appear as though he was taking an ideological stance against a significant faction of the American political landscape. By explicitly linking the political motivations of the MAGA movement to racial anxieties, Rasool effectively cast a broad segment of American voters in a negative and reductionist light, a move that risked deepening tensions between South Africa and a key global power. Given the entrenched political polarisation in the U.S., such a characterisation was bound to be met with hostility, particularly from the Trump administration and its allies.
Such remarks, particularly from a diplomat, violated the fundamental principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of the host nation. Diplomatic norms dictate that ambassadors refrain from publicly making statements that could be construed as taking sides in domestic political disputes, as this can be interpreted as an intrusion into sovereign matters. Rasool’s comments, therefore, not only breached these diplomatic conventions but also positioned South Africa in a precarious situation by inadvertently entangling its foreign policy with the volatile dynamics of American partisan politics.
Ambassadors are expected to engage in political analysis to inform their home countries’ foreign policy, but publicly making statements that can be perceived as adversarial or inflammatory undermines the core tenets of diplomacy. While it is crucial for diplomats to possess a nuanced understanding of the political landscape of their host country, this understanding should be reflected in internal briefings rather than in public discourse. Rasool’s comments were not only unnecessary but also counterproductive, reinforcing perceptions that South Africa is antagonistic to the U.S. government. At a time when South Africa required careful diplomatic engagement to navigate sensitive issues such as trade negotiations and geopolitical alignments, his remarks introduced an avoidable layer of tension, complicating President Ramaphosa’s diplomatic efforts.
3. Political Theory and the Rasool Blunder
From a political theory perspective, Rasool’s actions can be examined through the frameworks of realism and constructivism in international relations. Realism, which prioritises national interest and power dynamics, suggests that a diplomat must act pragmatically to secure their country’s strategic interests. Ebrahim Rasool’s public characterisation of the MAGA movement as a reaction to supremacist instincts and demographic shifts can be critically analysed through the lenses of realism and constructivism in international relations theory.
Realism emphasises the pursuit of national interest and the importance of power dynamics in an anarchic international system. According to this perspective, states and their representatives should act pragmatically to safeguard their strategic interests. Hans Morgenthau, a seminal figure in classical realism, argued that political actions are governed by objective laws rooted in human nature and that the main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
Rasool’s comments, by potentially alienating a significant political faction within the United States, risked undermining South Africa’s economic and political standing with a key international partner, thereby failing to uphold the realist imperative of prioritising national interest.
Constructivism, on the other hand, focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping international relations. Alexander Wendt, a prominent constructivist scholar, posited that “anarchy is what states make of it,” suggesting that the international system is socially constructed through the interactions and shared understandings of states.
From this viewpoint, Rasool’s framing of the MAGA movement in racially charged terms could be seen as counterproductive, as it undermines the construction of a cooperative diplomatic narrative. By reinforcing ideological divisions, such remarks may hinder the development of mutual understanding and beneficial relationships between South Africa and the United States.
Rasool’s comments failed this test, as they risked jeopardising South Africa’s economic and political standing with the U.S. Furthermore, constructivist theory, which emphasises the role of ideas, norms, and identity in international politics, suggests that diplomacy requires careful narrative-building to foster beneficial relationships. By framing the MAGA movement in racially charged terms, Rasool undermined South Africa’s ability to construct a cooperative diplomatic narrative, instead reinforcing ideological divisions and tensions.
Through the realist lens, Rasool’s statements appear imprudent as they jeopardise South Africa’s strategic interests by potentially straining relations with the United States. From a constructivist perspective, his comments could be viewed as detrimental to the social constructs and shared norms that facilitate positive diplomatic engagement, thereby reinforcing divisions rather than fostering cooperation.
4. Implications and Ramifications – Worsening Diplomatic Relations
Diplomatic miscalculations carry long-term consequences, often reshaping the nature of international engagements and influencing economic, political, and strategic interests. Rasool’s remarks were not merely an isolated diplomatic faux pas—they risked exacerbating already fragile relations between South Africa and the United States. Given the high-stakes geopolitical environment, such statements contributed to increased diplomatic hostility, economic vulnerability, and geopolitical alienation at a time when South Africa required careful strategic engagement rather than antagonism.
4.1. Strengthening Hostility in the Trump Administration
Donald Trump’s administration, as I have alluded to in previous analyses, has long been characterised by a transactional, dealmaking, punitive diplomacy and aggressive USA interest approach to foreign policy—one that favours alliances based on perceived loyalty and economic benefits rather than traditional diplomatic norms. This approach is evident in his previous dealings with NATO, China, and even traditional allies such as Germany and Canada, where cooperation was often conditioned on direct economic or political gain.
By making ideologically charged remarks about a key component of Trump’s political base—the MAGA movement—Rasool positioned himself and, by extension, South Africa, as an adversary rather than a strategic partner. Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, swiftly declared him persona non grata, which was not merely an impulsive decision but a calculated response in cumulative action designed to send a clear message that public criticism of domestic U.S. politics by foreign diplomats would not be tolerated.
This expulsion occurred in a broader context of increasing strain in U.S.-South Africa relations, where multiple factors contributed to heightened tensions, including:
- The pending review of South Africa’s African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade benefits, which placed the country’s economic eligibility under scrutiny.
- Allegations of arms transactions with Russia further damaged perceptions in Washington that South Africa was straying from its traditional diplomatic neutrality.
- South Africa’s legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which positioned it against one of the U.S.’s closest allies, added further strain to diplomatic engagements.
Historical Precedents of Diplomatic Expulsions Leading to Hostility
History has repeatedly demonstrated that when ambassadors engage in controversial political commentary, their expulsion often leads to diplomatic rifts and long-term consequences. Some notable precedents include:
- The Soviet Expulsions of 1986: During the Reagan administration, Soviet diplomats were expelled from Washington following allegations of espionage and political interference. This move significantly heightened Cold War tensions and led to retaliatory expulsions of American diplomats from Moscow. The result was a sharp decline in U.S.-Soviet cooperation, even in areas where diplomatic engagement was crucial.
- The U.K.-Argentina Diplomatic Breakdown (2012): Argentina’s ambassador to the U.K. made public statements questioning British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, leading to a diplomatic standoff. This resulted in a freeze in trade agreements and further hostility in bilateral relations, demonstrating how inflammatory remarks from diplomats can trigger long-term economic and political fallout.
Rasool’s expulsion falls within this historical pattern, reinforcing the reality that diplomatic statements have far-reaching consequences beyond immediate political debates.
4.2. Undermining Economic and Trade Interests
One of the most immediate concerns following Rasool’s comments was their potential impact on South Africa’s economic and trade relations with the United States. The U.S. remains one of South Africa’s largest trade partners, with billions of dollars in bilateral trade and investment hinging on stable relations.
international law, many within the U.S. political establishment—particularly conservative lawmakers and pro-Israel advocacy groups—interpret this stance as anti-Western and adversarial. Rasool’s comments reinforced these perceptions, strengthening the narrative that South Africa is actively working against U.S. interests on the global stage.
4.3.2 Historical Example: U.S. Retaliation Against Critical Nations
Countries that have taken legal or diplomatic stances against key U.S. allies have often faced consequences, including:
- France’s Opposition to the Iraq War (2003): After France publicly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American lawmakers and businesses boycotted French products, and diplomatic relations suffered for years.
- Palestinian Authority Funding Cuts (2018): The Trump administration cut financial aid to Palestinian institutions after Palestinian leaders openly criticised U.S. policy on Jerusalem and Israeli settlements.
South Africa risks similar diplomatic and economic pushback for its legal action against Israel, particularly if it is seen as aligning with broader anti-American sentiments. Rasool’s remarks only intensified this perception, further reducing South Africa’s diplomatic leverage.
- The Long-Term Risks of Diplomatic Recklessness
Ebrahim Rasool’s remarks were not harmless political academic commentary—they were a diplomatic misstep with real-world economic and political consequences. His comments exacerbated tensions with the U.S., undermined critical trade negotiations, and reinforced perceptions that South Africa is misaligned with American geopolitical interests.
If South Africa fails to manage its diplomatic engagements with greater strategic foresight, it risks further diplomatic isolation, economic retaliation, and reduced influence in global affairs. Rasool’s case serves as a cautionary example of how even a single statement can carry profound ramifications in international relations
5.1. Strengthening Hostility in the Trump Administration
Trump’s administration has historically been transactional in its foreign policy approach, rewarding allies and punishing perceived adversaries. Rasool’s remarks provided Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, with justification to declare him persona non grata, escalating diplomatic tensions at a time when South Africa could least afford it. With AGOA reviews pending and South Africa’s stance on Israel already contentious in Washington, Rasool’s words further alienated key decision-makers within the U.S. government.
5.2. Undermining Economic and Trade Interests
The U.S. is one of South Africa’s largest trading partners, and ongoing negotiations regarding AGOA eligibility are crucial to South Africa’s economic stability. By publicly antagonising a significant segment of American politics, Rasool risked inviting economic retaliation. While President Ramaphosa and his administration have worked to maintain constructive economic engagements, Rasool’s remarks made it more difficult for South Africa to present itself as a reliable and neutral partner. Historical precedents suggest that past diplomatic missteps have had economic repercussions for countries that failed to navigate ideological tensions carefully. South Africa risks a similar fate if such lapses continue.
4.3. The Israel Factor: A Strategic Oversight
Given South Africa’s legal action against Israel at the ICJ, Rasool should have exercised far greater circumspection. The U.S. has strongly opposed South Africa’s position in the case, and any further indication of ideological opposition to the U.S. government only solidified Washington’s reluctance to engage South Africa diplomatically. Rasool’s remarks, in effect, bolstered conservative voices within the U.S. that argue South Africa is aligned against American geopolitical interests.
6. Diplomatic Norms and the Role of an Ambassador
Diplomacy is a delicate and strategic practice that demands restraint, neutrality, and adherence to established diplomatic norms—particularly when engaging with politically sensitive topics. Ambassadors are entrusted with the responsibility of fostering constructive dialogue, facilitating cooperation, and ensuring the stability of bilateral relations. Their role is not to engage in ideological discourse or partisan debates but to act as an official representative of their home country while respecting the sovereignty of the host nation.
6.1 Violation of the Principle of Non-Interference
One of the core tenets of diplomacy is the principle of non-interference, which is enshrined in international law, including the United Nations Charter (Article 2(7)), which explicitly prohibits states from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. Rasool’s public critique of U.S. domestic politics—by characterising the MAGA movement as a supremacist reaction to demographic shifts—constituted a breach of this principle. Such remarks, especially coming from an ambassador, could be perceived as an attempt to influence or take sides in the domestic political discourse of a host nation.
This principle has been emphasised in multiple diplomatic cases, such as:
- The Venezuelan Crisis (2019): The U.S. and several Western nations recognised Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela, while others, including Russia and China, continued to support Nicolás Maduro. Foreign ambassadors who made public statements supporting one side or criticising the legitimacy of the other were expelled, as their actions were deemed violations of sovereignty and non-interference.
- The Russian Ambassador’s Expulsion from the U.K. (2018): Following the Skripal poisoning incident, the Russian ambassador to the U.K. was accused of making inflammatory public statements regarding British domestic policies and the international response to the attack. The U.K. government saw these comments as an escalation of hostilities and expelled several Russian diplomats.
By failing to exercise caution, Rasool similarly crossed a line that diplomats are expected to avoid. His statements directly undermined South Africa’s official position of non-alignment and risked damaging relations with a critical trade and political partner.
6.2 Failure of Strategic Diplomacy
Strategic diplomacy requires measured engagement, ensuring that national interests are protected without needlessly antagonising influential foreign actors. Rasool’s comments did the opposite:
- Alienating a Political Faction – The MAGA movement represents a substantial segment of the American electorate and the Republican Party, which currently controls the White House under Donald Trump. By making remarks that framed MAGA in an explicitly racialised manner, Rasool not only alienated Trump’s administration but also reduced South Africa’s ability to negotiate with key U.S. policymakers.
- Weakening South Africa’s Leverage – At a time when South Africa was already under pressure regarding its AGOA trade eligibility, its position on Israel at the ICJ, and past allegations of arms dealings with Russia, it was imperative to maintain diplomatic avenues rather than provoke unnecessary hostility.
- Setting a Dangerous Precedent – When ambassadors make politically charged remarks, they invite retaliation. History has shown that diplomats who fail to uphold the principles of discretion and restraint often face diplomatic consequences.
6.3 Historical Parallel: The Iranian Ambassador to Argentina (1994)
A stark example of diplomatic recklessness occurred in Argentina in 1994, when Iranian ambassador Hadi Soleimanpour made comments that appeared to justify political violence against the Jewish community in Argentina. This came shortly after the AMIA bombing, an attack that killed 85 people. His remarks led to massive diplomatic fallout, a breakdown in relations, and eventual arrest warrants issued against Iranian officials.
Similarly, Rasool’s actions, while not as extreme, reflected a failure to understand the strategic cost of incendiary public remarks. By publicly critiquing a movement tied to the governing administration of his host nation, he risked repercussions that could weaken South Africa’s diplomatic standing and economic interests.
Diplomacy demands restraint, especially when engaging with politically sensitive topics. Rasool’s role was to foster constructive dialogue and strengthen South Africa’s relationship with the U.S., not to engage in ideological commentary. His comments violated:
- The Principle of Non-Interference: Publicly critiquing U.S. domestic politics in a way that could be perceived as partisan was beyond the scope of his diplomatic responsibilities.
- Strategic Diplomacy: By alienating a significant political faction within the U.S., he made future negotiations and diplomatic engagements more challenging for South Africa.
7. Rasool: A Contrast in Leadership Versus Ramaphosa’s Measured Approach
President Cyril Ramaphosa, in stark contrast to Ebrahim Rasool, has approached U.S.-South African relations with a calculated and strategic diplomatic approach. Recognising the high stakes involved in maintaining a stable relationship with Washington, Ramaphosa has prioritised engagement over confrontation. His strategy has been shaped by South Africa’s economic vulnerabilities, its reliance on AGOA, and the broader geopolitical landscape that demands a delicate balancing act.
7.1. Ramaphosa’s Strategic Diplomatic Engagement
Since Trump’s re-election, Ramaphosa has demonstrated a pragmatic leadership style, ensuring that South Africa does not unnecessarily provoke diplomatic hostilities. His approach has included:
- Congratulating Trump and Expressing a Willingness to Work Together: Unlike Rasool, who directly antagonised a significant political faction in the U.S., Ramaphosa acknowledged Trump’s victory and conveyed South Africa’s willingness to cooperate. This move was not simply diplomatic courtesy but a recognition that maintaining open lines of communication with the White House is crucial for South Africa’s interests.
- Balancing Sovereignty with Diplomacy: While affirming South Africa’s right to an independent foreign policy, Ramaphosa has carefully avoided inflammatory rhetoric. He has defended the country’s policy choices—such as its stance on the ICJ case against Israel—without unnecessarily escalating tensions with Washington.
- Framing Engagement as Mutually Beneficial: Ramaphosa has sought to position South Africa as a pragmatic, constructive partner rather than an ideological adversary. He has emphasised the economic and strategic value of U.S.-South African relations, ensuring that dialogue remains possible even amid disagreements.
7.2. Rasool’s Deviation from Ramaphosa’s Approach
Rasool’s public remarks stood in direct opposition to Ramaphosa’s calculated diplomacy. Instead of aligning with the President’s efforts to de-escalate tensions, Rasool took it upon himself to inject personal ideological perspectives into an already sensitive diplomatic equation. His decision to frame the MAGA movement in racial and supremacist terms was not in line with the administration’s broader diplomatic tone, nor was it strategic in advancing South Africa’s interests.
Rasool’s miscalculation can be attributed to a failure to grasp the nuances of statecraft, where personal beliefs and activism must sometimes be subordinated to national interest. Unlike Ramaphosa, who has prioritised stability and long-term diplomatic relationships, Rasool appeared more concerned with making an ideological statement than preserving South Africa’s global standing. This lack of alignment with official policy ultimately exposed South Africa to unnecessary diplomatic risks, contradicting the principles of cohesion and consistency that are essential in foreign relations.
By disregarding Ramaphosa’s approach, Rasool not only undermined his own position as a diplomat but also jeopardised the broader strategic efforts of the South African government. His actions reflect a failure to appreciate the complexities of high-stakes diplomacy, where restraint, strategic engagement, and alignment with national policy should always take precedence over personal viewpoints.
8. The Cost of Reckless Diplomacy
Ebrahim Rasool’s remarks were not merely controversial—they were a diplomatic misstep that risked tangible consequences for South Africa. His comments:
- Deepened diplomatic tensions at a time when strategic engagement was crucial.
- Provided ammunition for U.S. conservatives advocating economic and political retaliation.
- Distracted from South Africa’s core diplomatic objectives, particularly regarding trade and its stance on global conflicts.
While ambassadors must analyse and understand the political climates of their host nations, public commentary on sensitive internal issues is best left to private diplomatic channels. Rasool’s failure to exercise restraint and align with South Africa’s broader diplomatic approach suggests either a disregard for diplomatic protocol or a fundamental miscalculation of the consequences of his words. Given his prior diplomatic experience, he should have known better. At a time when South Africa required careful diplomacy to navigate complex global dynamics, Rasool’s remarks weakened its position and reinforced negative perceptions, making his misstep both avoidable and inexcusable.
Diplomatic history has demonstrated that when ambassadors engage in partisan or inflammatory rhetoric, they jeopardise their nation’s interests and often face expulsion or diplomatic isolation. Rasool’s failure to adhere to the principles of non-interference and strategic diplomacy serves as a cautionary tale for diplomatic engagement. His comments not only undermined South Africa’s official foreign policy strategy but also exacerbated tensions at a critical geopolitical moment.
By failing to exercise restraint, Rasool did not just express a personal opinion—he compromised the very diplomatic mission he was entrusted to uphold.
The fundamental question that arises is why Ramaphosa chose to appoint Rasool for a second term in the first place. Was this decision driven by internal party pressures, Rasool’s historical ties to the ANC, or the influence of particular lobby groups based on ideology, religious affiliation, or economic interests? Did Ramaphosa severely miscalculate Rasool’s ability to distinguish between ideological activism and the diplomatic restraint required of his role?
Furthermore, Rasool’s past controversies, including accusations of involvement in the “brown envelope” corruption scandal—where journalists were allegedly paid to produce favourable coverage of his administration—raise deeper concerns about his ethical judgment and ability to navigate the moral and professional boundaries expected of a diplomat. If he struggled to distinguish between political patronage and journalistic integrity in domestic politics, could the same lack of discernment have extended to his diplomatic conduct?
Regardless of the underlying motivations for his reappointment, Rasool’s actions have only reinforced concerns that his return to diplomacy was a strategic misstep—one that could have been avoided had Ramaphosa heeded the warnings of those who questioned Rasool’s suitability for such a sensitive position. Ramaphosa thus can hardly say he notes the expulsion of Rasool without critically engaging the actions of his diplomat, for which the latter owes South Africa and Ramaphosa’s coalition government undeniable answers.
