As South Africa’s foreign policy becomes increasingly dysfunctional and ideological, patriotic South Africans are realising that they need to take international affairs into their own hands – or risk being shut off from the rest of the world.

Diplomacy is typically one of the core functions of government. Theories of international relations are premised on the interaction between states, with governments representing their countries’ interests on the global stage.

The good news is that South African diplomacy is changing. Foreign affairs is no longer the exclusive preserve of the state. Non-state civil society actors are stepping into the breach.

Get your house in order

This week, it was reported that South Africa House, the country’s High Commission in London, has been shut down for an undisclosed period to undergo urgent maintenance and repairs.

This historic building, designed by renowned architect Sir Herbert Baker, occupies a prime piece of real estate on Trafalgar Square. I visited the building when I voted abroad in the 2009 general election.

Today, this once magnificent structure is in such an advanced state of disrepair that staff can no longer work there. Its façade is damaged, its heating system broken, and parts of the building reek of urine.

I happen to be writing this column from another heritage building designed by Sir Herbert Baker: Northwards House in Parktown, Johannesburg, which is the home of the Free Market Foundation (FMF). Northwards is lovingly maintained on a tight budget by its curator, Dr Neil Viljoen, and his small staff contingent (a single gardener maintains the expansive and exquisite garden).

Northwards House in Parktown, Johannesburg

Northwards House is quite a contrast with South Africa House, which has now become a costly mess.

According to Ryan Smith, Democratic Alliance (DA) spokesperson on international affairs, this major refurbishment is likely to cost the taxpayer (i.e., you) a cool R70 million. Who will get that tender, I wonder?

What is happening in South Africa House is reminiscent of the advanced decay overtaking many public institutions, but it is also a metaphor for the sorry state of South Africa’s foreign policy establishment.

South Africa has one of the most widespread diplomatic footprints in the world with missions in over 110 countries. Foreign ambassador postings are treated as cushy jobs for cadres, many of whom have fled chequered political careers back home.

All this costs the fiscus up to R3.5 billion per year. South Africans would be forgiven for wondering whether their interests are being adequately represented abroad by this considerable investment.

Radical agenda

One of the supposed selling points of the Government of National Unity (GNU) was that it would have a moderating effect on the more radical elements of the African National Congress (ANC). It was believed that the GNU would force the ANC to be more consultative and conciliatory with its erstwhile opponents who now sit with them in cabinet.

During the GNU negotiations in June 2024 the ANC was adamant that it would maintain its control over the Department of International Relations and Co-operation (DIRCO). The foreign affairs portfolio was firmly off limits to the DA and the other GNU partners.

We now know why.

Since the formation of the GNU, South Africa’s foreign policy has gone the other way – it has gotten more extreme.

In February 2025, the US issued an executive order against South Africa, not because Donald Trump has a bee in his bonnet about South Africa, but because of an overall breakdown in the bilateral relationship caused primarily by the “egregious actions” of the South African government.

Recall that concern over South Africa’s conduct was also prevalent during the Biden administration, which was alarmed by South Africa’s closeness to Russia, exemplified by the Lady R incident in December 2022.

In recent times, South Africa has:

1. Accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians in the International Court of Justice (ICJ);
2. Refused to condemn the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians at the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran (the regime’s own estimate is by itself an intolerable 3 000); and
3. Defended the Chavista regime in Venezuela, which has immiserated millions of Venezuelans.

Rarely has a dictatorship existed that South Africa’s government did not like.

These are not the actions of a non-aligned country, which South Africa claims to be, but are reflective of the explicit ideological motives and political interests of the ANC. The result is that South Africa and the United States are on a collision course.

DIRCO supposedly represents the so-called “national interest”. But who defines the national interest – the people or the state itself?

When the state has been captured by a sectional ideological interest that is anti-Western and sides with violent and repressive regimes, then you have to ask whose interests is it really representing?

Beyond the state

One of South Africa’s redeeming features is its strong civil society sector, which represents a range of causes and interests. Many of these civic organisations have not been content to sit idly by while the ANC-led government wilfully harms South Africa’s relationship with its valued international partners.

An early example of this was the so-called “Three Amigos” – Gerhard Papenfus, CEO of the National Employer’s Association of South Africa (NEASA), Dr Theo de Jager, Executive Director of agricultural group, the Southern African Agri Initiative (SAAI), and Dr Corné Mulder, now leader of the Freedom Front Plus – who engaged in an “unsanctioned” visit to the US in June 2025.

In Washington DC they met with senior White House officials and other representatives, who conveyed to the Amigos the US’s four “non-negotiable” preconditions for South Africa, which they shared publicly upon their return home.

These were: condemning the Kill the Boer chant, treating farm attacks as a priority crime, protecting private property rights, and exempting US firms from Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) requirements.

This was an important line of communication during a time when formal diplomatic channels had broken down. The Three Amigos shaped the national conversation and profoundly influenced the US-South Africa relationship.

More recently, business group Sakeliga has advocated for a revised approach to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which I wrote about in a recent column.

In May, Sakeliga made a formal proposal to the US Trade Representative (USTR) for AGOA to be revised to enable sub-national differentiation. This comes amid bipartisan concern among US legislators that AGOA is too blunt an instrument and no longer serves US interests in Africa.

Currently, countries either qualify for AGOA or they don’t, but there is little scope for differentiation within a country. Sakeliga’s proposed amendment would allow local or provincial authorities and private businesses that are favourably disposed to the US to benefit from preferential access to US markets, even if the national government were excluded.

These are but two examples of civil society not waiting for central government to correct its course, but taking the initiative in the interests of all South Africans.

Unfortunately, these actions are often distorted by an unfriendly traditional media which preposterously accused the Solidarity Movement of “treason” for its entirely justified and legitimate advocacy in Washington DC.

Don’t wait for permission

As state institutions become subject to the forces of cadre deployment and ideological capture, they also become weaker.

This represents both a threat and an opportunity for freedom-loving South Africans. A weakened state can lash out in desperation, but its incapacity also creates a vacuum for well-intentioned actors to fill.

We should support those civil society groups who choose permissionless action over passive submission. Our future depends on it.

Ansara is CEO of the Free Market Foundation.