BENJI SHULMAN: SA’s answers are again embarrassing us overseas

Legendary anti-apartheid activist Helen Suzman was, for more than a decade, the only fully-fledged opponent of the apartheid regime inside the SA parliament. She served as a member of the Progressive Federal Party, a forerunner to today's DA. Suzman was renowned for her prodigious work ethic, razor-sharp mind and acerbic tongue; she was also a Jewish woman — traits that made her a hated figure among the National Party establishment.

One of Suzman’s most effective tools was her relentless use of parliamentary questions. She generated, on average, 200 questions a year on a range of issues, including housing, education, forced removals, pass law offences, education, forced removals, detentions, bannings, whippings, police brutality and executions.

Inside parliament, the government was forced to account for its actions and provide information on policies affecting particularly black South Africans. In the highly censored environment of apartheid SA, the media and anti-apartheid organisations found the information Suzman uncovered extremely useful.

The National Party was infuriated by this; one cabinet minister shouted at her in parliament, saying “You put these questions just to embarrass SA overseas.” Suzman, well known for her quick wit, replied, “It is not my questions that embarrass SA — it is your answers.”

Today, some 50 years later, SA once again finds itself in a position where its answers — both domestic and international — are embarrassing the country overseas, particularly in its relations with the US. Like its National Party predecessor, the ANC and its acolytes seem more concerned with who is asking the questions than with the actual subject at hand.

“AfriForum”, “opposition parties”, “disgruntled white males”, “local Zionists”, “Starlink”, “the Maga movement”, and American “pro-Israel lobby groups” are just some of the scapegoats identified in a somewhat conspiracy laden public discourse. 

However, the ANC’s hostility towards US criticism of SA policy is not new. Already in 2006, then-president Thabo Mbeki (along with the rest of the ANC leadership) refused to meet then-senator Barack Obama because of his comments on SA’s mishandling of the HIV/Aids crisis.

The scrutiny of SA policy towards the US has been building for over a decade, with intense bipartisan focus coming to a head — not under Donald Trump, but under the Joe Biden administration. 

More nuanced observers have noted that it is the ANC’s policy agenda, not external agitators, that has truly caused the deterioration of relations. US decision-makers can see the reality for themselves: they know their 600 companies operating in SA would like to invest and create jobs, but that they are required to pay above-market rates for assets due to BEE shareholding agreements.

They also know the SA government can now seize those assets at below-market value because of the expropriation without compensation laws.

They see that SA has no principled stance in international affairs when then-international relations and co-operation minister Naledi Pandor calls Hamas (to congratulate them, according to Hamas) after the October 7 attacks on Israel, while simultaneously agitating for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador.

This is the same government that equivocates over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and holds joint military exercises with Russia and Iran — training likely to be used against US soldiers. They notice a government that is lobbying to retain privileged trade ties under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) but also supports international action to pursue US servicepeople through its membership of The Hague group. 

Any lingering doubts about how SA is now viewed in Washington should have been dispelled when secretary of state Marco Rubio declared former ambassador Ebrahim Rasool persona non grata. The act itself was significant, but more telling was the speed with which it occurred and the supreme uninterest in the matter by the ANC’s supposed progressive allies in Congress.

This is the environment in which new presidential envoy Mcebisi Jonas must operate. In some respects, Jonas represents a notable improvement on his predecessor. He appears close to President Cyril Ramaphosa and has no known ties to Hamas or other terrorist groups. He also has a history of resisting state capture efforts by the Gupta family. Some commentators have raised concerns about Jonas’ past criticisms of Trump, but this is a side issue. More important is his position as chair of MTN. 

In 2012, MTN won a bid to operate cellular networks in Iran. However, its losing competitor, Turkcell, has alleged that the process was corrupt and has taken the matter to court. It has been claimed that MTN bribed Iranian and SA officials and encouraged the SA government to support Iran’s nuclear development programme at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to secure the licence.

Since then SA has moved progressively closer to Iran, helping include it in the expanded Brics+ grouping and promoting relations with Iran’s proxy, Hamas, at the expense of traditional Palestinian partners. Some have seen the origins of SA’s case at the International Court of Justice as stemming from these interactions. 

The Turkcell matter is still unresolved, pending a ruling on jurisdiction. Meanwhile, MTN now faces a new lawsuit under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, brought by 50 Americans. They allege that MTN and other technology companies knowingly supported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — a designated terrorist organisation in the US — which financed and armed terror campaigns in Iraq that resulted in US deaths. MTN has also faced criticism for allegedly being party to human rights abuses through shutting down and allowing government control of its cellular networks in repressive states. 

The timelines of these allegations largely predate Jonas’ tenure on MTN’s board and his role as chair, with some actions occurring under one of his predecessors — now president Ramaphosa. Nevertheless, should these lawsuits bring new damaging information into the public domain, it will make an already tense situation even worse. 

Jonas’ success will depend on whether he can bring real answers about how SA wishes to engage with the US. Only if SA is prepared to negotiate seriously with Washington can a way forward be found. 

• Shulman is director of the Middle East Africa Research Institute.