The Presidency says new US ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III will have to familiarise himself with South Africa’s laws and constitution before publicly voicing his concerns.
The Presidency also takes a dim view of Bozell’s “thinly veiled threats” made earlier this week when he said the US was running out of patience with South Africa.
Bozell told a Biznews gathering in Hermanus on Tuesday that the US was running out of patience with the South African government, which has not addressed five demands the superpower made to reset relations between the two countries.
He was called in by the department of international relations and cooperation (Dirco) to explain his “undiplomatic” conduct on Wednesday. He apparently withdrew the comments, in which he rubbished the court ruling on ‘Kill the Boer’, and apologised.
Reacting to Bozell’s comments, presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told the Sunday Times that Bozell’s reference to the US being impatient was concerning because it sounded like a thinly veiled threat.
“What happens if we do not find each other on these issues? What does impatience mean? Because it sounds like he’s talking to a colony or a subsidiary of the US government. We’re a sovereign country, and words like those are inflammatory.”
Magwenya said they did not expect such words to come from a diplomat with a duty and task to reset diplomatic relations.
He told the ambassador to use his time in the country to familiarise himself with its constitution and legislation in areas where the Trump administration has concerns. Through familiarisation he would have a better contextual understanding of South Africa’s position.
About the US’s five demands ― doing away with broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE), expropriation without compensation, condemning the Kill the Boer chant, prioritising farm murders and being non-aligned ― Magwenya said four of these were domestic policy issues that had no bearing on other countries.
We may privately and quietly express a view, but it is not something that’s going to inform the make or break of relations between the two countries
— Vincent Magwenya, presidential spokesperson
“All of these issues combined are issues of sovereignty, except for the issue of non-alignment, which is purely perception on their part. These are all domestic issues.”
“They are not issues that have a bearing on a relationship with another country except if that country chooses to appropriate for itself a right to dictate another country’s domestic policy, which in itself is problematic because it then violates the expected and established diplomatic protocols of mutual respect in the conduct of diplomatic and trade relations.”
“The issue of mutual respect says there are issues pertinent to your population, to your country, that you are going to approach in a manner consistent with your constitution as well as your laws and those issues in the conduct of diplomatic and trade relations are issues that any other partner must respect. They don’t have to necessarily agree.”
Magwenya said in the South African constitutional dispensation, there would be no ICE unit that harassed, arrested, even shot at people randomly because they looked foreign.
“Whether legal or illegal, in a South African constitutional framework, you will not be able to do that, but South Africa will not predicate its relationship with the United States because the United States is doing something that is counter to our constitutional principle.”
“We may privately and quietly express a view, but it is not something that’s going to inform the make or break of relations between the two countries.”
Magwenya denied that South Africa had not responded to the US in terms of its five demands.
He said these were addressed in the negotiations between the two countries. “We’ve explained ourselves many times, and we will continue to explain our position and reference our constitution as a guide. It’s not the first time we’ve raised these issues. Our preference is that these issues are better discussed in an appropriate setting, not as a public back and forth exchange.”
South Africa’s stance is that BEE policies and legislation are sanctioned by the constitution through the directive for redress of past imbalances.
For American companies and other multinationals, there are equity equivalents where companies are not necessarily compelled by law to dilute their equity holdings in their South African subsidiaries.
“For example, Microsoft operates in South Africa as an American company for many years and has never been compelled to dilute its equity, and it complies fully with all other elements of the BEE score card through the equity equivalent provisions that are in the act.”
Magwenya said Bozell’s argument about BBBEE was disingenuous because the Telecommunications Act was rigid on the equity provision as a condition for a licence, which affected Elon Musk.
“Up until Elon Musk had an interest to operate in South Africa through Starlink, there was no issue from the US about BBBEE. American companies, over 600 of them, who have been here for a very long time, even pre-1994, have never either individually or as a collective complained about BBBEE.
“This has been made an issue because one person who’s close to President Trump, who’s funded President Trump’s campaign, does not want to comply with a specific law that governs the telecommunications sector.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.