Is it wise to send a diplomat with a history of poking the bear into the lion’s den?
The unearthing of controversial comments by Mcebisi Jonas, who has been appointed South Africa’s Special Envoy to the US, four years ago shows that political convictions do not evaporate with time, but ferment. And sometimes, they have the potential to come back and bite — particularly in diplomacy, where perception often trumps reality.
After the presidential announcement that Jonas would be at the forefront of repairing and laying the ground for a conducive diplomatic relation between the two countries, reports surfaced about comments he made during his address to the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation in 2020 when he referred to President Donald Trump as a “racist,” “homophobe” and a “narcissistic right-winger”.
These comments, which are not mere off-the-cuff slurs, were made at a respectable organisation founded on challenging racial divisions and complacency in a world sliding towards authoritarian populism. Will the comments prove fatal to his appointment? How long will it take the US before they utter words that cut short Ibrahim Rasool's tenure as ambassador to the US — persona non grata?
What do they teach us about political views? Can one's views become a liability in realpolitik? Does this dent his standing as the right man for the delicate assignment, as per the president?
The presidency has not responded to the criticism this has brought. This begs the question: Was President Cyril Ramaphosa aware of these comments when he made the appointment? If he was aware, why is it taking him this long to help us understand why Jonas's appointment will not be tainted by his historical description of Trump?
But if Ramaphosa was unaware of the comments when he made the appointment, this shows a failure in government vetting systems — a basic administrative oversight. If this information was at his disposal, it could be viewed as a symbolic stand, but what could the message be? Defiance? Or a determination to appoint whoever Pretoria wants, regardless of sentiment?
Even if the US welcomed him, it now doesn't follow they would open up and readily avail themselves for engagements necessary to heal relations between the two countries
Before even setting foot in Washington, there is controversy around his political views, which suggests that he may not make it past American scrutiny. Ramaphosa said Jonas will be deployed to advance South Africa's diplomatic, trade and bilateral matters. A critical part of this role is the negotiation and engagement with the US government to create strategic partnerships that will benefit the country.
When Rasool was shown the door by the Americans, they said we have nothing to discuss with him. Given Jonas's comments about Trump, would Americans have anything to say to him? The advantage — and it's a small one — Jonas has is that his critical comments were made long before he became an envoy, whereas Rasool was already a guest of the American president. Could an argument be made for a fresh start in relations? Would it mean Jonas no longer thought of Trump as a homophobe or narcissistic racist? It's a minefield. Even if the US welcomed him, it now doesn't follow they would open up and readily avail themselves for engagements necessary to heal relations between the two countries.
Jonas is one of the best the country has produced. He served the country with distinction in many areas. At the height of state capture, he held the line against corruption, turning down a ridiculous offer from the Gupta brothers. In corporate, he has acquitted himself well in his leadership of the MTN Group.
However, diplomacy is not just about credentials but lies in the potential to manage relations, perceptions and making nuanced engagements on behalf of a state. In the same way Rasool's comments about Trump leading a white supremacist movement in the US and the world rendered him persona non grata, Jonas's statements will militate against fragile and complicated relations with a country led by megalomaniac.
If this is a blunder, and it sure looks like one, the bright sparks at the Union Buildings must own up and correct. But if this is defiance, and we doubt this, there must be no room for prevarication: Ramaphosa must explain how this fits in with his statement about not being bullied and we move on from there.
All things being equal, Ramaphosa is as shocked about this as the rest of the population.
For opinion and analysis consideration, e-mail Opinions@timeslive.co.za
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.