South Africa and the United States occupy prominent positions on the world stage. South Africa is a regional powerhouse in Africa, and the United States is a global superpower. The diplomatic relationship between the two, however, has never been straightforward. Moments of cooperation have existed, but genuine strategic alignment and “fully friendly” relations have consistently eluded these two countries. Given the enduring complexity of this relationship, historical, political, and geopolitical factors make a true US-South Africa friendship unlikely in the foreseeable future.
Historical Context: Apartheid and the Cold War
South Africa’s apartheid era (1948 to 1994) set the tone for decades of uneasy engagement with the United States. The United States maintained contradictory policies towards South Africa, shaped by conflicting domestic pressures and international imperatives.
On the one hand, the US public and many lawmakers condemned apartheid’s institutionalized racial discrimination, supporting anti-apartheid activism and economic sanctions. Organizations such as the Free South Africa Movement mobilized public opinion, leading to divestment campaigns at educational institutions and pressure on corporations to withdraw from South Africa.
On the other hand, geopolitical calculations, especially during the Cold War, led successive US administrations to tolerate, and sometimes tacitly support, the apartheid regime. The Reagan administration’s policy of “constructive engagement,” designed to work with the apartheid regime through quiet diplomacy rather than confrontation, to convince it of the need for change, was viewed as a failure by its critics. For black South Africans, though, government repression intensified during the life of this policy.
South Africa in the 1980s was seen as a bulwark against Soviet influence in southern Africa, valued for its strategic location and mineral wealth. According to Thomas Borstelmann (Apartheid’s Reluctant Uncle: The United States and Southern Africa in the Early Cold War), US policymakers sometimes chose strategic interests over moral principle, resulting in mixed signals to Pretoria.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the American government’s response to apartheid remained divided. While Congress passed sanctions, such as the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1988–H.R. 4868, overriding President Ronald Reagan’s veto–enforcement was inconsistent and controversial. The act banned new American investments and imports of key South African products, but loopholes persisted. In the meantime, influential figures in business and government lobbied for continued engagement, citing economic and strategic concerns.
Racial politics at home also shaped American attitudes toward South Africa, and in many ways continue to do so to the present day. Some segments of the American population sympathized (and sympathize) with the white minority, while others champion the anti-apartheid cause. As scholar Audra J. Wolfe notes (Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science), these contradictions were reflected in US foreign policy, which often swung between moral condemnation and pragmatic support.
The end of apartheid in 1994 brought hope for a reset in bilateral relations, but old suspicions lingered. The United States continued to list former South African President Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) as “terrorists” well into Mandela’s tenure as South Africa’s first black president. This was a holdover from the Cold War era, when the ANC received support from the Soviet Union and engaged in armed struggle against the Afrikaner government. The United States removed Mandela and ANC leaders from the terrorism watchlist in 2008.
Post-Apartheid Relations: Unfulfilled Promise
Mandela’s presidency began a period of cautious optimism. The United States supported South Africa’s democratic transition, providing aid and technical assistance. High-level visits, such as President Bill Clinton’s in 1998, signaled a desire for a closer partnership. The two countries collaborated on issues such as HIV/AIDS, nuclear non-proliferation, and peacekeeping in Africa.
Even during this honeymoon, though, there were tensions. For example, South Africa strongly opposed the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
The United States is one of South Africa’s major trading partners, second only to China. Bilateral trade has grown steadily, facilitated by agreements such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which grants South African exports preferential access to American markets. According to the Office of the US Trade Representative, in 2024, US-South Africa trade in goods totaled over $26 billion. Economic relations, however, have not always been smooth. Disputes over intellectual property, agricultural exports, and preferential trade agreements repeatedly surfaced. In 2015, for instance, a trade spat over chicken exports threatened to derail AGO benefits.
South Africa’s foreign policy since 1994 has emphasized sovereignty, multilateralism, and a commitment to the “Global South.” The country has asserted its independence by refusing to automatically align with US interests on issues ranging from climate change to Middle East diplomacy.
Geopolitical Realignments: South Africa in BRICS and Beyond
South Africa’s accession to BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) in 2010 marked a significant shift in its global orientation. BRICS is explicitly positioned as a counterweight to Western dominance in international affairs. Through BRICS, South Africa has deepened its ties with China and Russia, both of whom are US rivals on the world stage.
BRICS summits routinely produce joint statements criticizing Western sanctions, advocating for multipolarity, and calling for reform of institutions such as the United Nations. South Africa has hosted several high-profile BRICS meetings, underscoring its commitment to the bloc.
South Africa’s relationships with China and Russia have grown considerably over the past two decades.
China: China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade rising from $34.83 billion in 2022 to $39.26 billion in 2023. Chinese investments include infrastructure, mining, manufacturing, and technology. South Africa has signed onto China’s Belt and Road Initiative, further deepening economic and diplomatic ties.
Russia: Russia’s engagement is more strategic and less economic. The two countries collaborate on energy (notably nuclear power) and defense. South Africa has purchased Russian military equipment and participated in joint military exercises, such as the 2023 naval drills with Russian and Chinese ships off the South African coast.
South Africa’s willingness to partner with these two countries, including on issues opposed by the United States, has raised concern in Washington.
South Africa is outspoken in its support for the Palestinian cause, often taking stances critical of Israel that diverge sharply from US policy. In May 2021, for instance, South Africa’s parliament passed a resolution encouraging the government to downgrade its embassy in Israel, citing Israeli policies as “apartheid.” South Africa’s UN officials routinely support Palestinian initiatives at the United Nations.
This reflects both solidarity with global anti-colonial struggles and domestic political currents. The ANC’s history of resistance informs its approach, as does pressure from South Africa’s influential civil society organizations.
South Africa is a key member of the Non-Aligned Movement, a grouping of countries historically opposed to bloc politics. Membership in the Non-Aligned Movement reinforces its reluctance to be seen as a US client or follower. South Africa routinely abstains from votes or issues statements that split from Washington’s line, including on US sanctions against Iran, Cuba, and Russia.
Recent Flashpoints and Divergence
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine quickly became a litmus test of global alignments. The United States expected South Africa to join Western condemnations of Moscow. Instead, South Africa adopted a neutral stance, calling for dialogue and refusing to support sanctions or military assistance to Ukraine. Then, in February 2025, South Africa voted for a UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Russia respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but the United States abstained.
South African officials, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, have criticized Western double standards and emphasized the need for peaceful resolution. This position has frustrated American officials and further exposed the limits of the bilateral relationship.
As already mentioned, in February 2023, South Africa hosted joint naval exercises with Russia and China off the Indian Ocean coast. The timing, coinciding with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Western efforts to isolate Moscow.
The United States expressed “concern” over the drills, but South Africa insisted on its right to choose defense partners. Analysts noted that the exercises highlighted South Africa’s growing comfort with alternative security arrangements.
In May 2023, the American ambassador to South Africa accused Pretoria of supplying arms to Russia, a claim that South Africa denied. While an official enquiry reportedly found no evidence of such a transfer, the episode exposed deep mistrust between the United States and South Africa.
Domestic Drivers: Politics, Identity, and Historical Memory
The ruling ANC remains wedded to its anti-imperialist, pan-African, and socialist roots. The party’s foreign policy is shaped by historical alliances with Russia, China, and Cuba, countries that supported the anti-apartheid struggle. These relationships continue to influence decision-making, often at odds with US preferences.
Within South African civil society, suspicion of Western, especially American, motives is widespread. Many view US policies in Africa as paternalistic, interventionist, or self-interested. The legacy of colonialism and apartheid has made sovereignty a sensitive issue, with public opinion often favoring independent positions.
Widespread criticism of US foreign policy has been fueled by such actions as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, unconditional support for Israel, and perceived neglect of Africa’s development priorities.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Despite the strong economic ties, South Africa’s persistent inequality and slow growth have led some to question the benefits of US partnership. American companies are prominent in sectors such as mining, finance, and technology, but critics argue that these investments have not always translated into shared prosperity.
Barriers to a Real Friendship
The United States seeks reliable African partners to advance its strategic interests, which includes its competition with China. South Africa, on the other hand, aspires to regional leadership, continental unity, and autonomy from great power politics.
South Africa advocates for reform of the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund to give developing countries a greater voice. The United States, while endorsing reform in principle, refuses to give up its privileged position.
While both countries espouse democratic values, their approaches and priorities differ. The United States has criticized South Africa for its stances on Zimbabwe, Sudan, and other African countries, while South Africa has rebuffed American pressure, insisting on African-led solutions.
South Africa, like most countries in the continent, is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and has championed ambitious global targets. The United States, particularly under the current administration, has resisted binding commitments or withdrawn from climate agreements, frustrating South African negotiators.
The US-South Africa relationship is perhaps best described as complex, durable, and periodically contentious. Historical legacies, divergent strategic priorities, and South Africa’s sovereign aspirations and growing ties to China and Russia all conspire against the emergence of truly friendly, predictable relations.
Instead, the future is likely to be marked by pragmatic cooperation in some areas, such as trade, public health, and peacekeeping, along with persistent disagreements over geopolitics, human rights, and global governance. While the United States might hope to woo South Africa away from its BRICS partners or position it as an ally in great power competition, the evidence suggests that South Africa will continue to chart an independent course, balancing multiple alliances and refusing to bend a knee to any single global power’s influence.
Image: South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 21 May 2025. (Reuters)
Charles A. Ray, a member of the Board of Trustees and Chair of the Africa Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, served as US Ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe.