South Africa’s new ambassador the United States (US), Roelf Meyer, says that there are two priority areas for resetting the relationship between the two countries, and concedes that South Africa has allowed its standing in the US to decline.

Meyer described the challenges in the relationship as being political and economic in character, each of which required dedicated attention.

Referring to the political tensions, he remarked: “There's the executive order issued by President Trump in February last year, which still stands, and we have to find a way to get around that or at least try and get it revoked, which is not going to be easy because it's President Trump and it's the White House that sits behind that.”

“On the other side,” he continued, “is of course our trade relations and encouraging investment from the US side to South Africa. It's not as if there's nothing going. There are more than 500 companies from the United States operating in South Africa with great success, and to our benefit, because it creates jobs.”

In common with the bulk of media commentary, Meyer appeared to ascribe the strained relationship to the Trump administration, and did not mention the tensions that had become public under his predecessor, Joe Biden. It was recently revealed that the South African government was running an espionage operation against the US, dating back to at least the Biden era.

He did, however, suggest that there had been “gaps” in South Africa’s representation in the US. His appointment as ambassador stemmed from a conversation he had had with President Cyril Ramphosa in which he had offered to undertake a three-month “scoping” study to identify weaknesses in South Africa’s diplomatic presence in that country.

Meyer said that he had been asked to report to Washington DC to present his credentials before he felt he was ready to take up his position. He had actually returned to South Africa after doing so to prepare for the commencement of his duties.

Reflecting on his experiences since his appointment, he said that he had been engaging with figures in politics, business, and civil society and had seen considerable goodwill towards South Africa. This came from all sides of the US political spectrum.

He added that he had developed a good relationship with US ambassador to South Africa, Leo Brent Bozell III, and that they communicated regularly. “That helps because at least there's a point of communication. I can talk to him and he can talk to me and [it's] important to have a decent relationship… because we can be honest with each other. We can talk straight with each other. I can say what the South African government wants and he can say of course what his government wants. There's a form of dialogue that is evolving.”

This, he said was how he would “break the back” of the diplomatic impasse.

Meyer hoped for more American investment, and a greater contribution from American companies toward job creation. This sentiment matches what Bozell (and his predecessors) have said about their aspirations for US involvement in South Africa.

Nevertheless, Meyer did not refer to any mandate to negotiate to bargain with the US government, nor does he seem to have one. A series of conditions for a reset of relations – including exempting US companies from racial empowerment requirements, condemning the “Kill the Boer” chant, and prioritising farm murders – has received no acknowledgement from the South African government. Indeed, on some of these issues, it has doubled down on its positions. Bozell was demarched within three weeks of his arrival for criticising a court decision legitimating the “Kill the Boer” chant.

While the South African government purports to be interested in an enhanced trade and investment relationship with the US, there is little to suggest that it is willing to act proactively to make it happen. Meyer claimed in respect of racial empowerment requirements, such as black economic empowerment, that “if you speak to American companies operating in South Africa, they are not necessarily experiencing it as a detriment or an inhibitor”.

That statement is probably quite false, with it being openly acknowledged that the policy is an obstacle to trade and investment. Empowerment policy broadly allows market capture by large corporations given that those who struck the most expansive empowerment deals can use these to freeze out competition, exactly as is occurring around a potential Starlink investment into South Africa. The evidence for the debilitating effect that empowerment policy has on fixed investment is best found in the very low rate of fixed investment to GDP in South Africa.

Nor has South Africa given any sense of a willingness to moderate its diplomatic positioning globally. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation functions as a de facto closed mandate for the African National Congress, which has long expressed a visceral dislike for the US and the West in general. Under Ramaphosa, South Africa has taken especially visible positions at odds with US and Western interests. This has been the case, for example, in relation to the case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, South Africa’s warm relationship with Iran, and in its approach to the Russia-Ukraine war.

Meyer seems therefore poised to adopt a strategy of attempting to “explain” South Africa’s stances. In parallel, this newspaper has previously suggested that South Africa’s government appears to be content to wait out the Trump administration, with an eye initially on the US midterms, which may limit his latitude for action. However, this ignores that the breakdown in relations between the two countries is by no means solely attributable to the current president.

Meyer is therefore unlikely to be successful in restoring relations or to strike a deal with Washington that could significantly lift South Africa’s investment rate. He has no mandate sufficient to do so and no support from Pretoria to attain one.