Illustrative Image: Parliament building (Photo: Daily Maverick) | Mcebisi Jonas (Photo: Gallo Images / Netwerk 24 / Deaan Vivier) | Broken glass (Image: Freepik) | South African flag (Image: Freepik) 
Last week, speaking at the Kgalema Motlanthe Foundation Winter Dialogue, the President’s curiously untravelled envoy to North America, Mcebisi Jonas, gave an important presentation.
Among his many points, about how the world is literally changing around us no matter what happens in Washington, was that we need to determine what is in our “national interest”.
As he put it: “For South Africa, an effective response to the global crisis requires us to be clear-eyed about our own national interest.”
He is, of course, entirely correct. And it could be argued that one of the problems we have had in attempting to negotiate with the Trump administration is that we have not been entirely clear about what this is (of course, the fact we have ended up with a 30% tariff from the US suggests there was never going to be room for negotiation).
Since perhaps the end of the Cold War and apartheid this did not really matter. As globalisation marched on, bringing most countries closer together, we could, for example, trade closely both with the US and China.
While there were many disputes and rivalries between countries and groups of countries, geopolitics and trade were kept apart.
It was during this period that trade volumes between China and the US became greater than any movement of goods between two nations in any of human history.
Phones could be “Designed in California” and “Made in China” despite the fact that Beijing and Washington had major differences of opinion.
Now, as the world becomes split into separate trading blocs aligned with their politics, we will have to make choices for the first time since 1994.
The debates we have seen are a demonstration of the old adage that “foreign policy begins at home”. In short, our domestic politics is likely to make it harder to be as “clear-eyed” as Jonas is suggesting we need to be.
The obviously perfect example is black economic empowerment.
One of the discussions about defining our ‘national interest’ must surely include what percentage of South Africans should agree for something to be defined as within our ‘national interest’.
Because US President Donald Trump (and his former best buddy Elon Musk) has been so critical of BEE, constituencies here have seized on this, to demand that it be scrapped.
Their argument is that BEE is holding back the economy, and is leading to us being punished by the Trump administration.
Those in favour of BEE point out that if we do not have some form of race-based redress, we will, first, deepen our racialised inequality and, second, cause many people to lose hope of ever participating formally in the economy.
And while there may be better models than BEE, it seems likely that Trump would attack any form of race-based redress.
This suggests that we as a nation cannot really agree whether BEE is in our “national interest” or not.
The same is true of our attitude to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
While the ANC and its constituency strongly believe that the actions of the Netanyahu government are unjustifiable, MPs from other parties have recently been to Israel on a “fact-finding mission”.
These include members of the current coalition, including the DA’s former foreign affairs spokesperson, Emma Powell, and the incoming member of Joburg’s mayoral committee, the PA’s Liam Jacobs.
Considering how this issue can divide people, and is about ethnic identities, it seems unlikely that you could ever get everyone to agree.
That said, one of the discussions about defining our “national interest” must surely include what percentage of South Africans should agree for something to be defined as within our “national interest”.
Would it be 50% plus one, or does it require much more than that?
Obviously, like virtually every other country, there are very few issues on which you could get complete consensus (although critics of Rassie Erasmus and Siya Kolisi in South Africa are likely to be here only temporarily before returning home to New Zealand).
That said, our “national interest” must be based on what a vast majority of people agree on.
There are some obvious examples.
Surely everyone would agree that we want the economy to grow, and that the government must help to ensure more people have sustainable incomes.
While South Africans are spending much more time together in physical spaces than ever before, their information environments are becoming more and more different.
It is likely that all South Africans also agree that everyone should have the right to vote (this is not the case in the US where some states are imposing restrictions around voting based on unfounded claims of “voter fraud”), and that they should have the right to speak in public (again, there are other countries where most people do not believe this).
Also, it is likely that we could all agree that government services should be of a high standard, and that government infrastructure should work.
And yet, our politicians spend much of their time arguing about this.
Some people believe we should abandon the rest of the world and trade with the US and what is left of the West, and some believe we should abandon the US and focus on China and BRICS countries.
This suggests that, in fact, while we may all agree on what we want, what really happens is that we argue about execution, about how to achieve this.
While this can just really be arguments about extraction, they’re also inherently political. BEE and race-based redress are the very definition of political, they’re about the roles of different people in our society.
The China vs US debate is also inherently political, it is essentially between South Africans with very different views of the world.
Unfortunately, while South Africans are spending much more time together in physical spaces than ever before, their information environments are becoming more and more different.
WhatsApp groups and other social media are dividing us along the information we receive.
At the same time, as Jonas points out, the divisions in the world are likely to deepen.
The introduction of politics into economic discussions about trade is going to only divide the world.
And, unfortunately, is likely to make it harder for us to define what lies in our “national interest”. DM