New challenges have emerged for South Africa’s bilateral relations with the US after the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution calling for a full review of the relationship, which must now pass the House itself.
In this context, and amid the little visible progress made by South Africa’s special envoy to the US, Mcebisi Jonas, it is particularly concerning that Pretoria still finds itself without a fully accredited ambassador in Washington.
Jonas’ appointment was intended to stabilise relations after the dramatic expulsion of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool before the appointment of a new ambassador. However, while Jonas is an experienced and credible figure, well versed in statecraft and economic diplomacy, even the most qualified envoy cannot act if they are not granted access — and by most accounts, Jonas has been unable to even enter the US.
Multiple sources have reported that Jonas was denied a diplomatic visa by Washington, effectively grounding the very individual meant to serve as Pretoria’s bridge-builder. US officials have been silent on the matter, while South Africa’s Presidency has neither confirmed nor denied the reports, but has insisted Jonas is working “behind the scenes”.
This is useful, but diplomacy does not occur behind closed doors alone; it requires presence, visibility, and access. This is especially true in a place like Washington, where decisions are often influenced through informal networking as much as they are through formal negotiation.
At the same time the US-South Africa trade relationship and notably our membership of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, Agoa, which enables exporters preferential access to the US market, is also under threat. The Trump administration has been clear about its intention to impose sweeping tariffs on countries across the board, and signalled that Agoa renewal is by no means guaranteed. Key sectors face potentially devastating consequences.
Averting further escalation
South Africa has proposed a framework agreement to avert further escalation, but implementation requires intensive, high-level engagement in Washington.
The issue is not that Jonas lacks competence, but rather that the current arrangement is structurally flawed. A special envoy denied entry to the country he is meant to engage cannot serve as the country’s effective diplomatic point person. This is not a reflection on Jonas, but on the untenability of his position.
Pretoria must thus urgently consider appointing a new, formally accredited ambassador to the United States — someone acceptable to Washington, with the diplomatic standing to be received at the appropriate levels, and with the political dexterity to navigate what has become an unusually hostile climate. There is precedent for special envoys playing useful behind-the-scenes roles, but these are typically complementary to, not substitutes for, formal diplomatic channels.
South Africa’s decision not to rush a new appointment may have been calculated. Given the acrimony surrounding Rasool’s expulsion, Pretoria has probably sought to avoid appearing to capitulate or endorse the basis for his removal. But that moment has passed.
The longer the post remains vacant, the more likely South Africa’s absence is interpreted not as defiance, but as disengagement. Ultimately, it sends the wrong signal to its allies, adversaries, and the South African public.
It also leaves South Africa dangerously exposed to narratives it cannot contest in real time. US right-wing media and several lawmakers have infamously amplified unfounded claims of a “white genocide” in South Africa, which then not only entered mainstream discourse but also shaped US policy, culminating in the recent arrival of Afrikaner “refugees” in the US.
Without a strong and present ambassador to push back forcefully, this kind of distortion risks calcifying into accepted wisdom among Washington decision-makers, with South Africa becoming an ideological talking point in a wider culture war it never intended to join.
Beyond managing crises, a new ambassador would also be important in shaping what remains salvageable in the bilateral relationship. The US remains a vital trade and investment partner. And Washington, despite its flaws, is still a power that can make, or break, international norms (at least for now).
Pretoria has made clear that it will not be bullied into submission, which is both consistent with the ANC’s post-liberation foreign policy and broadly defensible in a world where smaller states must assert their sovereignty.
But resistance should not and does not mean retreat — strategic diplomacy requires being both principled and present.
Re-engagement with Washington should not have to translate into abandoning South Africa’s position on multipolarity or Palestine or its relationship with BRICS+, but does mean ensuring these positions are articulated clearly and defended robustly in the arenas that matter.
Right now, that defence is not happening. It cannot happen without someone physically in the room.
Good faith
If the US administration had no ambassador in Pretoria for six months while threatening trade sanctions, few would interpret it as a gesture of good faith. The same logic applies in reverse.
The appointment of a new ambassador won’t resolve all points of tension. But it will signal seriousness, restore basic diplomatic protocol, and could help in reclaiming some narrative agency. It would also give South Africa the ability to engage Congress, the State Department, and US civil society on its own terms, rather than as a passive subject of increasingly hostile debate.
This is not about capitulation. It is about capacity. Pretoria cannot afford to appear adrift. Now is the time to fill that post in Washington to counter those speaking in our place. DM