Harold Macmillan, British prime minister from 1957 to 1963, was asked at the end of his long political career what he had dreaded most while in high office. “Events, dear boy,” he replied, “events.”
In politics the events just keep on coming, and for prime ministers and presidents they are usually crises, almost by definition. Less serious and more easily soluble problems can usually be dealt with by those lower down the political and bureaucratic chains of command.
An imminent event that is certainly a crisis is the scheduled implementation on August 1 of new US tariffs on South African exports. For the citrus industry, that crisis threatens to be existential. The economic and social costs will be severe.
Of course a tariff on seasonal fresh fruit makes no sense. Our citrus exports are no threat to US producers because our oranges meet demand when their industry is out of season. The local Citrus Growers’ Association (CGA) fears that, with the tariff rising from 10% to 30%, hundreds of thousands of cartons that are now ready in packhouses to be shipped will be unsold and will rot.
This is not a surprise, as the new punitive tariffs were first announced in April and then confirmed in early July. The CGA this week asked President Cyril Ramaphosa to urgently facilitate an extension of the 10% tariff beyond August 1 to allow for further negotiations.
The request indicates desperation, though it seems the government has not been sitting on its hands. Agriculture minister John Steenhuisen says his department is working “hand in hand” with the department of trade, industry & competition “to ensure that the full impact on the agricultural sector is well understood” in the US.
These departments are proposing tariff exemptions during off-season export windows, which is logical and talks to the interests of US consumers in terms of price and availability. Yet there is seldom anything logical about US President Donald Trump’s actions. He has the attention span of a lightning bolt and does more damage.
To use a sporting analogy, we seem to be playing at home, but not away
One cannot help wondering if our government’s efforts to soften the tariffs are being served at all by professional diplomacy. To use a sporting analogy, we seem to be playing at home, but not away.
We still have no ambassador in Washington after the expulsion of Ebrahim Rasool in March. Former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas’s role as a “special envoy” was stillborn, apparently because of visa issues. In any case, it was not clear what qualified him for the mission or what he would actually do.
The diplomatic service needs to represent its government’s interests in the host country with all relevant political and civil society players. That means it must identify who in that country has real influence and who is likely to have influence. It must develop relationships that can be counted on to deliver access and the ears of the powerful when necessary.
Such relationships take years to build, as does the knowledge that informs reporting back accurately to political principals at home and advising them wisely. Do we have the people in Washington capable of playing these roles? Who is leading them?
Another British prime minister, Lord Palmerston, believed that in foreign policy “we have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
The four-month delay (so far) in appointing an ambassador to Washington suggests our government really is not taking our interests seriously — and is not doing its duty.
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.