South Africa’s ambassador to the US says Washington has repeatedly rejected Pretoria’s trade offers without explaining what it wants instead. His complaint comes a day after President Cyril Ramaphosa told South Africans to brace for losing duty-free access under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
“It’s not helpful when we hear the answer is, ‘that’s not good enough,’” Roelf Meyer told Semafor. “It would have been more helpful if we could hear, ‘what is not good enough?’”
The US Congress extended AGOA to 2028 last month, but the White House reviews country eligibility every year. Removing South Africa from Jan. 1 would require notice to Congress and Pretoria 60 days ahead, so a decision is expected by early November. That scenario has become a distinct possibility after nearly two years of a worsening relationship between Washington and Africa’s largest economy.
Meyer, who took up the post this year after more than a year without a South African ambassador in Washington, describes relations with the Trump administration as a “stalemate.” “I’m not satisfied about where we find ourselves,” he said.
The deeper rift, he suggested, is ideological. Meyer said he read the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 early and saw a “deviation” from the Republican Party he knew in the 1980s. Asked why Pretoria’s rebuttals of white genocide claims aren’t landing, he said either Washington hasn’t heard him clearly, or there is “a fundamental ideological difference.”
Meyer helped lead the apartheid government’s side opposite Ramaphosa in the talks that ended white minority rule. He says those negotiations worked because both sides were prepared to talk. “That is my experience, the difference here,” he said. “It’s hard to find a basis for real dialogue.”
Yet he also signaled flexibility on the policy irritant most cited in Washington. Black EconomicEmpowerment rules in mining and telecoms “still leave room for further adjustments,” he said, adding that discussions are underway with companies looking to invest.
Yinka: President Cyril Ramaphosa warned South Africans to prepare for the possibility that the country could lose its AGOA trade benefits. How confident are you that South Africa will remain eligible?
Roelf Meyer: It is difficult to say because we have not had a clear response on AGOA and the eligibility question. There is a lot of speculation about the final result, and I don’t think it serves any purpose to add to that.
From the South African side, we believe we have given clear enough answers. We would like an opportunity to hear where the shortcomings are in the US assessment. It is not helpful when the answer is simply, “That’s not good enough.” We need to know what is not good enough so we can address it from a negotiating perspective.
I think the president is being realistic, so nobody is completely surprised if things go in the wrong direction. But he is also mindful that it would be better if we could stay in.
What are the main sticking points in the negotiations?
There are difficult issues on which South Africa cannot simply agree with everything the US is asking. We have local interests to consider, particularly in the poultry and pork industries.
These are longstanding, technical issues involving imports and exports. Local producers react when imports affect their production or export potential, and experts from our respective departments have been negotiating with them for an extended period.
But there are also political issues. The US government has raised a number of concerns about South Africa over the past 18 months, and those weigh on the discussions too.
How much of your time is spent on those political disputes, as opposed to trade and investment?
I think it is 50-50. The political relationship has been tense since the executive order on South Africa in February last year, which covered a number of issues and led to the five asks or demands.
My responsibility is both political and commercial. It is about how we keep trade going and expand it.
Do you think the tensions will ease, or have the problems become more entrenched?
It is difficult to say. Some of the geopolitical issues concerning the US were already present under the previous administration, and some concerns coming from Capitol Hill are bipartisan.
Part of the embassy’s job is to address misunderstandings and relay US concerns to our government. We may make assumptions in Pretoria that are wrong, too. It is my responsibility to give the president and government as clear a picture as possible.
Could changes to Black Economic Empowerment policies help attract more investment, particularly in mining and telecommunications?
The BEE framework has evolved from an initial focus on equity toward equity-equivalence measures. Many companies have adjusted to those measures and invested on that basis.
There is still room for further adjustments, particularly in mining and telecommunications. Those sectors have a different character under the current framework, and we discuss possible changes internally and with companies that want to invest.
You have been in Washington for about five months. How would you sum up the state of the relationship?
South Africa had no representation in Washington for some period before I arrived, so there is a lot of catching up to do across the executive and legislative branches. I think we have started to make progress.
But we are still in a stalemate with the executive. I am not satisfied with where we find ourselves. As long as this situation persists, further attention is required, and policy positions may need to change.
My task is to establish exactly what the issues are and report back to Pretoria, while convincing decision-makers here that Pretoria’s intent is to establish a solid relationship.
Does that mean engaging with conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation to understand the thinking behind the administration’s policies?
It is important to understand the roots of this thinking and the American context. Some decisions are coming from a framework different from the one I knew in the past.
I know the framework of the 1980s very well. It was relatively simple to understand: Republican and Democrat. Today, it is more splintered, with fundamental ideological issues at stake. My responsibility is to understand those issues and relay that understanding to Pretoria. I have to speak to a wide range of people, including those outside the administration, to understand what lies behind policy positions directed against South Africa.
You have rejected claims that white South Africans are victims of genocide, yet the US has moved ahead with a refugee policy centered on that narrative. Why do you think your arguments are not getting through?
There could be two explanations. One is that they have not heard me clearly. The other is that there is a fundamental ideological difference.
I became aware of Project 2025 long before I knew I would take this role. I looked at it and said to myself that this was not the material I knew from the Republican Party. I could see a deviation.
But I would not make a broader accusation, because I do not have proof of that. My presence here is not to represent a particular faction. I am here to represent South Africa.
You helped negotiate the end of apartheid. Is dealing with Washington now harder than those negotiations?
The starting point in those negotiations was that we were prepared to talk. That led gradually to serious talks, dialogue and negotiations. We were prepared to listen to each other.
That is the difference in my experience here. It is hard to find a basis for real dialogue. I am not saying one side is right and the other is wrong. But if we want to build a way forward between South Africa and the US, we need to develop that dialogue. I would like to see South Africa and the United States become good partners. For that to happen, we need proper dialogue.