S'THEMBISO MSOMI | Ramaphosa's Sona will have to include his stance on foreign policy and trade

When they were putting together their plans for 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa and his team would have known that international relations would be among the key topics for his administration. 

With the world’s most powerful nations expected to descend on our shores in November for the annual G20 Summit, South Africa’s position on various international trade issues as well as its sometimes-contentious stance on geopolitical subjects will come under much global scrutiny. 

But the team at the Union Buildings would not have imagined that such issues would come to the fore so early in the new year that they may have to change the delivery structure of this year’s State of the Nation Address (Sona. 

Traditionally, the president’s speech during the official opening of parliament devotes about 90% of its content to domestic issues — ranging from the state of the economy, government’s social welfare programmes to highlighting key anniversaries to be celebrated that year. 

Those who follow such speeches closely would tell you that once a president starts touching on international issues — which almost always includes pledging solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, calling for the liberation of Western Sahara from Moroccan colonialism and declaring South Africa’s fidelity to Cuba — he is about to conclude the address. 

This has been the tradition since the days of president Nelson Mandela and, as far as this writer can remember, the only exception was in February 2003, with the US was poised to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, when then-president Thabo Mbeki devoted much of his speech to calling for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Gulf region. 

Since succeeding president Jacob Zuma in February 2018, Ramaphosa has broadly followed the same script. 

But recent developments, from the killing of 14 South African soldiers on a peacekeeping mission in the DRC and the subsequent war of words with Rwandan president Paul Kagame, to threats by US president Donald Trump to cut funding to South Africa over the country’s policies aimed at redressing historical and racial imbalances, dictate that Ramaphosa put foreign policy and international trade at the centre of his address this evening. 

Despite several press conferences, media statements, a social media post by the president and an in-depth briefing of the defence portfolio committee by minister Angie Motshekga, there is still much confusion and disagreement as to the purpose of the South African National Defence Force’s mission in the DRC as well as the circumstances that led to 14 troops losing their lives. 

Ramaphosa will have to give a clear account of the deployment and respond firmly to Rwanda’s insinuation that South Africa’s involvement has nothing to do with maintaining peace but protecting the commercial interests of the president’s associates. 

Motshekga has already denied this allegation, pointing out that the mission is sanctioned by the Sadc and that it was ludicrous to think that all 15 of Sadc’s member countries would agree to send troops just to protect the interests of individuals.

However, given the country’s political climate where the levels of trust between the politicians and the public are at their lowest, the denial would be more emphatic coming from the president himself. 

The president will also have to outline the next course of action. Now that Goma has fallen into the hands of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels and, subsequently, a ceasefire announced, will our troops remain in the region? If yes, for what purpose and if not, what measures are to be taken to ensure that a withdrawal does not plunge the Great Lakes region into renewed fighting? 

The attack on South African soldiers has led to calls, understandably so, for the country to pull out of the DRC, with some citizens arguing that we have no business trying to help others resolve their conflicts while we have enormous problems of our own. 

But given both our economic and military status in the region, South Africa cannot escape being called upon to help in times of strife, especially when they affect the southern African region. It is therefore incumbent on the president to explain this responsibility to the citizens as well as the key principles that ought to guide South Africa’s involvement. 

Such a role would, from time to time, put the country in direct conflict with the likes of Kagame, a former rebel leader who seems convinced that helping a rebel group take over the minerals-rich eastern part of the DRC, and possibly even overthrowing the central government in Kinshasa will bring about lasting peace to the Great Lakes region. 

But Ramaphosa cannot successfully stand up to such bullies without the backing of his nation and the parties that make up his government of national unity. 

This is equally true of the developing war of words between Pretoria and Trump’s Washington over the US president’s threats to cut funding because the government was implementing policies that Trump believes treat “certain classes of people” very badly. 

Much of what Trump and his supporters have been saying about South Africa is obviously wrong and misinformed. But it also has its roots in the heated and often highly divisive debates over contentious legislation such as the recently signed-into-law Expropriation Act and the Bela Act. 

While there is very little common ground that can be found between the government’s transformation agenda and the objectives of right-leaning groups such as AfriForum and Solidarity, the tone of discussion among those parties making up the GNU can go a long way in helping outsiders distinguish between truth and fiction. 

Yet — perhaps with one eye on the upcoming local government elections — the ANC, the DA and other members of the GNU have been guilty of playing to the gallery and deepening divisions on matters where parties were not too far apart. 

The threat of Trump cutting funding, as well as fears that this may lead to the US government taking even more drastic measures such as removing South Africa from Agoa, has had an unexpected consequence of the main parties and players coming out publicly to defend the country’s constitutional provisions and the laws that have been enacted to bring them into life. 

This allows Ramaphosa to once again reposition himself at the centre of a government that does not just lead ANC constituencies — but all of the South African society — and one whose commitment to genuine regional peace and the rule of law should not be in question.

Whether he succeeds depends on the line of march he gives to his ministers and nation during his speech tonight.

For opinion and analysis consideration, email Opinions@timeslive.co.za