SA’s foreign policy questionable
If South Africa wants to be respected as independent, it must start acting independently.
Originally Published on Business Day (17 March 2026)
Ghaleb Cachalia proposes that South Africa should assert its nonalignment to protect its sovereignty in the wake of comments by the US ambassador, a non-passive neutrality that asserts the country’s global position (“Bozell remarks revive debate over power, partnership and nonalignment”, March 13).
Based on the US ambassador’s speeches, Washington wouldn’t actually have a problem with this. The US doesn’t want to turn South Africa into a colony or satellite. It would be fine with true neutrality. Even if assertive.
The problem is that South Africa is far from neutral. It prostrates itself before anti-US countries, sabotaging the interests of South Africans. Corrupt nuclear deals with Moscow do not help South Africa. Providing diplomatic cover for Iran’s nuclear weapons programme does not help South Africa.
And while we have become reliant on Chinese imports, that dependency has destroyed our local industries, whereas trade with the US has built industries and created jobs. China might be our largest trade partner, but it isn’t our most profitable. The US is.
Nonalignment does not mean reflexively opposing the West while excusing or embracing the West’s enemies. It means judging every relationship according to South Africa’s own interests. By that standard, our foreign policy has too often failed.
A genuinely nonaligned South Africa would avoid becoming politically useful to Moscow, Tehran or Beijing, just as it would refuse subservience to Washington. It would seek trade, investment and diplomacy wherever these benefit South Africans, while refusing to posture as the moral ally of authoritarian states.
If South Africa wants to be respected as independent, it must start acting independently.