"The dignity of a nation is non-negotiable… If standing up to the US means economic setbacks or difficult choices or looking for alternatives, then so be it." Strong words from Navtej Sarna, a former Indian ambassador to the US, as he reflected on the deteriorating relations between his country and America under Trump.
In a similar vein, South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed exasperation at his country's increasingly punitive treatment by the US when he said: "We will not be bullied."
Their sentiments reflect the growing frustration of two major Global South nations grappling with an increasingly unpredictable and confrontational United States.
Writing in The Week, in an article titled "India-US relationship: Why it's time to call the bully's bluff", Sarna urged India to stand its ground against a Trump administration determined to bend New Delhi to its will.
This came after the Trump administration forced India, the third-largest consumer of crude oil globally, to stop importing oil from Russia. Subsequently, the US granted New Delhi permission to obtain oil from Russia following the disruption to the global oil supply resulting from its war on Iran. And now, in a move smacking of supreme hypocrisy, the US itself is buying oil from Russia despite its own sanctions against Moscow.
India and the US have always been seen as natural allies, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared a particularly warm relationship with Donald Trump. But the cordiality between them has been tested during Trump's second presidential term.
The imposition of punitive tariffs on Indian exports in 2025, subsequently eased, came as a rude awakening for New Delhi. So, too, did the sweeping changes to America's immigration policies, including a $100,000 fee on certain new H-1B visa petitions, which threatened to undermine opportunities for Indian professionals seeking employment in the US.
Restrictions and uncertainty surrounding US employment-based permanent residency sponsorships compounded anxiety among Indian technology professionals, many of whom have traditionally regarded America as a land of opportunity.
The cumulative effect has been to strain a relationship built over decades on strategic cooperation, trade, technology and shared geopolitical interests, leading commentators like Sarna to question whether India should continue absorbing Washington's blows without considering reciprocal measures.
South Africa's relationship with the US has followed a markedly different trajectory. During the apartheid era, America maintained relations with the white minority government, although Washington eventually imposed sanctions as domestic and international opposition to apartheid intensified.
The ruling African National Congress (ANC), meanwhile, forged ties with the Soviet Union and China. Those historical relationships have endured, even as democratic South Africa sought to cultivate constructive ties with Washington.
Relations between Pretoria and Washington improved considerably in the post-apartheid era, particularly through trade, investment and cooperation on health and development. But Trump's return to the White House has placed that relationship under unprecedented strain.
His administration has embraced allegations of persecution of white South Africans, including the discredited narrative of a so-called white genocide, championed by organisations such as AfriForum and Solidarity.
Washington's punitive trade measures and uncertainty around South Africa's access to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which provides eligible African countries with preferential access to the American market, have added to Pretoria's concerns.
South Africa's decision to institute genocide proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has further antagonised Washington, given Trump's unwavering support for the Israeli government.
Relations have also been complicated by public criticism of South Africa's domestic transformation policies by US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III, particularly his attacks on measures to address the enduring economic inequalities created by apartheid.
Despite their different histories and circumstances, India and South Africa share several characteristics that are anathema to the Trump administration.
Both are influential members of BRICS, the grouping Trump has repeatedly portrayed as a challenge to American economic and geopolitical dominance. Both advocate a multipolar international order in which power is more equitably distributed, rather than concentrated in Washington and a handful of Western capitals. And both seek a stronger voice for the Global South, including Africa, in international institutions such as the United Nations.
Their insistence on pursuing independent foreign policies is increasingly at odds with a US administration seemingly determined to measure friendship by unquestioning compliance with Washington's demands.
This raises a fundamental question. Can India and South Africa realistically afford to stand up to the world's largest economy without inflicting serious damage to their own economic interests?
India, with a population exceeding 1.4 billion, needs expanding export markets, investment and access to advanced technology to sustain its economic ambitions. South Africa, battling sluggish growth, high unemployment and persistent structural inequalities, is even more vulnerable to disruptions in trade and foreign investment.
Neither country can afford the luxury of reckless confrontation. But economic vulnerability should not be an excuse to surrender national sovereignty.
The answer, in my view, lies in combining diplomatic pragmatism with principled resistance. India must leverage its formidable technological capabilities, vast consumer market and growing geopolitical influence to negotiate with Washington from a position of greater strength. South Africa, for its part, should capitalise on its strategic mineral resources, industrial capabilities and position as a gateway to African markets.
Both countries should also deepen their economic partnerships with other nations, diversify export destinations and reduce excessive dependence on any single global power.
None of this means abandoning diplomacy or deliberately provoking Washington. On the contrary, New Delhi and Pretoria should continue engaging the Trump administration, seeking common ground wherever possible and recognising the considerable mutual benefits of stable relations.
But engagement must not be confused with appeasement.
Fawzia Moodley is a South African freelance media practitioner
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IOL