Race Diplomacy

The deterioration of U.S.-South Africa relations

Diplomatic relations between countries are shaped by numerous factors, including historical context, political ideologies, and economic priorities. In the case of South Africa and the United States, race has increasingly become central to the diplomatic discourse, contributing to the deterioration of their relationship. The recent expulsion of South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool from the U.S. in March 2025 serves as the latest example of how racial rhetoric, misinformation, and an ahistorical interpretation of South Africa's policies have exacerbated tensions between the two nations.

The expulsion of Ambassador Rasool

On March 14, 2025, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool "persona non grata," expelling him from the United States. The decision followed Rasool’s comments during a webinar hosted by a South African think tank, where he discussed demographic shifts in the U.S. and suggested that the Trump administration’s policies reflected a "supremacist instinct." Rubio responded by calling Rasool a "race-baiting politician" and accused him of harbouring hatred for the U.S. and President Trump. The expulsion marked another significant blow to diplomatic ties between the two countries, whose relationship was already fraught with tension.

While Rasool’s comments were ill-advised, they must be viewed within the context of growing racialised rhetoric that has been fuelling disputes between Washington and Pretoria. As South Africa's representative in Washington, Rasool's remarks were unbecoming of a diplomat, yet they also reflected a broader pattern which race has increasingly become a central element of U.S.-South Africa diplomacy.

Opposing domestic and foreign policy positions

The root of the tension may not necessarily be racialised rhetoric. Instead, it may speak to the opposing domestic and foreign policy positions held by the U.S. and South Africa. On the domestic front, South Africa’s policies aimed at addressing its history of racial inequality, such as Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and the Land Expropriation Act, have drawn significant criticism. The Trump administration has been particularly vocal in condemning these policies, framing them as racially discriminatory.

The U.S. has used South Africa’s policies on racial land and economic transformation to reinforce a narrative that these actions are motivated by racial hostility towards white minorities in particular. Trump, Elon Musk, Rubio and other senior officials have labelled South Africa’s land expropriation policies as examples of racial injustice. Critics, particularly conservative and far-right groups, have stoked fears of a “white genocide,” despite evidence debunking these claims. This narrative, fuelled by misinformation from local interest groups like AfriForum and Solidarity, has led to a distorted view of South Africa’s policies, shifting the conversation from efforts to redress historical wrongs to one focused on racial division.

On the other hand, the Trump administration’s own domestic policies, including its rejection of affirmative action, its hardline stance on immigration, and its embrace of right-wing populism, have drawn strong criticism within the U.S. These policies, reflected in the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, reject efforts from programmes under the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) umbrella to address inequality and exclusionary institutional practices. The contrast between South Africa’s race-based redress policies and the U.S. rejection of such measures has created a diplomatic gulf, compounded by the racialised framing of each country’s policies.

Racialised diplomacy: The role of rhetoric in straining relations

When racial rhetoric is used to politicise diplomatic exchanges, it often distorts the true nature of the relations as it imposes a narrative or ideological lens that may prejudice one group over another. In the case of the U.S.-South Africa relationship, racialised diplomacy has played a significant role in creating misunderstandings and deepening divides. U.S. officials’ framing of South Africa’s land reform and economic empowerment policies as racially discriminatory ignores the historical context in which these policies were created. South Africa’s policies are designed to address the systemic inequalities resulting from apartheid and colonialism, yet they have been framed in the U.S. as evidence of a racially motivated agenda.

Similarly, when Rasool critiqued U.S. policies or figures, his remarks were framed as inflammatory or “anti-American.” His comments about a “supremacist instinct” behind U.S. policies were perceived by some as racially charged accusations against the U.S. government. Such rhetoric, while reflecting legitimate concerns about the state of US politics especially under a Trumpian order, was easily weaponised – without Rasool being extended an opportunity to proffer an apology to explain his comments. This courtesy was extended by South Africa to former US ambassador Reuben Brigety whose unsubstantiated comments about the country supplying arms to Russia resulted in a demarche – not expulsion.

Nonetheless, competing racial narratives have contributed to a volatile diplomatic environment. U.S. policymakers have relied on disinformation and misrepresentations of South Africa’s policies to effect diplomatic decisions. These have further distorted the narrative surrounding South Africa’s land reform efforts which are designed to address the legacy of land dispossession under apartheid. It is unfortunate that the US has mischaracterised as racially motivated, despite there being no land confiscations occurring and there being legal and constitutional safeguards in place to ensure that expropriation is done in the public interest.

Conclusion

The expulsion of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of racialised diplomacy. While the conflict between the U.S. and South Africa is rooted in broader ideological and policy disagreements, it is the way in which race has been weaponised in the diplomatic discourse that has deepened the rift. Both countries must find a way to move beyond race as the primary focal point of their diplomatic exchanges. Only then can they hope to address the more pressing global challenges that require cooperation, trust, and collaboration between nations.