Why South Africa should distrust US talks

2026-03-26 - 07:20

Should South Africa trust negotiations with Washington? That’s the question we must grapple with as the war in the Middle East continues and the dark cloud still hangs over the future of the South Africa/US relationship. For SA, this is not a theoretical question. Pretoria’s foreign-policy tradition is built around sovereignty, multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes through dialogue, rather than war. South Africa has repeatedly framed international crises in those terms, including its recent insistence disputes must be handled in accordance with international law and not through unilateral force. That is precisely why the issue must be asked plainly: is Washington’s word is enough? Dialogue may remain necessary, but trust is another matter. From a South African perspective, the problem is no longer whether talks should take place. The real issue is that American diplomacy too often runs alongside coercion, regime-pressure tactics and the open use of force. Too often, negotiations do not end in a settlement; they end in blood. Iran is the clearest recent example. Even as talk of diplomacy and de-escalation persisted, a Reuters report confirmed US-Israeli strikes killed leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian figures. Subsequently, the news agency also reported that Iran’s governing structure was continuing under severe strain after the deaths of Khamenei, with the system adapting only after what amounted to a decapitation of the country’s upper leadership. For many in the global south, the lesson is stark: negotiations with Washington can unfold in parallel with actions that destroy a state’s top command. Venezuela offers another warning. The US forces seized president Nicolas Maduro on Venezuelan soil and took him to the US, where he appeared in court, complaining he had been “kidnapped.” ALSO READ: Middle East war: Here’s what happened overnight Whatever one’s view of Maduro, the political meaning of that episode was larger than the individual himself. It showed that when Washington decides a foreign government has become unacceptable, the language of legality and dialogue can quickly give way to intervention. South Africa’s own statement to the UN Security Council was explicit: allegations concerning governance failures, human rights issues, or criminal conduct by a head of state cannot justify violating the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. From Pretoria’s standpoint, this pattern is difficult to ignore. Iran saw its supreme leadership shattered. Venezuela saw its president seized. In both cases, the broader message was the same: negotiations with Washington may continue right up to the point where force becomes the preferred instrument. That is why many states no longer see US diplomacy as a neutral search for compromise. None of this means South Africa should refuse contact with the United States. That would be politically naive, as the US remains too important to ignore. But Pretoria should negotiate without illusion. No agreement with Washington should rest on verbal assurances, temporary understandings, or goodwill alone. Any serious arrangement should be written and, where possible, anchored in multilateral guarantees. That is the only rational approach. So the answer, from a South African position, is not that negotiations with Americans are unnecessary. It is that they are unsafe when treated as trustworthy in themselves. South Africa may still need to talk to Washington, but it should do so with the understanding that American diplomacy, too often, does not conclude with compromise; it concludes with escalation, intervention – and bloodshed. NOW READ: Iran, Israel trade strikes despite Trump talk of negotiations