MICHAEL WALSH | Winter is coming: South African elites may face sanctions in first year of Trump administration

Some South African foreign policy experts have claimed that the results of the US elections will have “minimal” impact on US-SA relations.

The Trump administration, like the Biden administration, will probably want to avoid triggering the collapse of the unity government and/or the total implosion of the ANC. However, US elections could still have a major impact on US-SA relations.

The appointment of Joe Foltz to lead President Trump’s Africa Team serves as case in point. Over in Congress, Foltz reportedly played a key role in demanding a comprehensive review of US-SA relations during the Biden administration.

That is not the biggest news of the day though. In the run-up to the inauguration, there has been a conservative push to get a number of Congressional committees to take action that could lead to coercive measures for South African support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia during the Biden administration.

Among the retaliations being discussed is the much talked about expulsion of South Africa from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa).

The problem with that approach is that Agoa is too wide of a net. Expelling South Africa would result in material harm to many South Africans who have nothing to do with support for international terrorism, breaches of the peace, and armed aggression.

To avoid such collateral damage, a recent pivot has been made to an alternative approach that would result in targeted sanctions being enacted against South African elites who are directly responsible for corruption and human rights violations.

If acted upon, those sanctions would most likely be imposed under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (known as the Global Magnitsky Act). The act is an extremely powerful tool for US policymakers seeking to retaliate against those they perceive to be malicious actors in the international system.

Among other things, the Global Magnitsky Act provides the president of the US with the discretionary power “to make inadmissible to the United States, revoke any already-issued visa and block property under US jurisdiction of, and prohibit US persons from engaging in transactions with, any foreign individual or entity” that are determined to fall under the statutory provisions for corruption and human rights violations.

The Global Magnitsky Act provides the members of Congress with a useful statutory tool to immediately pursue coercive actions against any South African elites who they believe undermined the national security and foreign policy interest of the US and its allies throughout the Biden administration.

The Global Magnitsky Act also includes a mechanism that enables American legislators to play a bigger role in the sanctions decision-making process.

In section 1263(d), the act provides certain members of Congress with the discretionary power to require the executive branch to “determine whether specific alleged perpetrators meet the criteria for such sanctions”.

Those members include the chairperson and ranking member of four “appropriate” committees of jurisdiction, including the House committee on foreign affairs, House committee on financial services, Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs and Senate committee on foreign relations.

Thanks to the Global Magnitsky Act, members of Congress won’t need to wait for the new administration to complete its Africa team and Africa strategic plan to retaliate against South Africa for what is often framed as “Russia, China and Iran connections and hostility towards Israel”. All that is required is a joint request from the chairperson and ranking member of the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.

In this way, the Global Magnitsky Act provides the members of Congress with a useful statutory tool to immediately pursue coercive actions against any South African elites who they believe undermined the national security and foreign policy interest of the US and its allies throughout the Biden administration.

If this retaliatory approach is selected, then a Pandora’s box will be opened for the named individuals and entities whenever the joint requests are issued.

Under the Global Magnitsky Act, the executive branch is required to consider information that has been provided by certain sources when “deciding whether to impose sanctions”. Those sources include foreign governments and nonprofit organisations that monitor human rights.

The problem for potential named individuals and entities is that there are a large number of foreign governments and nonprofit organisations that will have an axe to grind. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that any joint request would trigger a firehose of information being disclosed to the executive branch and the international media.

Enter Israel, centre stage.

The Netanyahu administration poses the biggest threat to South African elites who have committed corruption and human rights violations.

Not only is Israel armed with a foreign service and intelligence service that is next-level when it comes to the collection of intelligence on elites, the Netanyahu administration has a strong motivation to put that intelligence to work given the highly publicised actions that have been taken by some South African elites that have harmed the national security and foreign policy interests of Israel.

With this context in mind, it seems absurd that there are South African foreign policy experts who believe — let alone testify — that the results of the US elections are likely to have a “minimal” impact on US-SA relations.

On Inauguration Day, all indications are that winter is coming in US-South Africa relations.

• Michael Walsh is a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute

For opinion and analysis consideration, e-mail Opinions@timeslive.co.za