Issued by Thando Malinga on behalf of the FW de Klerk Foundation on 02/10/2025

Introduction

The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly (“UNGA”) in New York has come at a pivotal moment for South Africa. Across the globe, challenges are mounting – from debt crises to climate disasters, from bloody conflicts on our continent to escalating great-power rivalry. At such a time, what our nation says on the world stage is important. What matters more, however, is what positions we support and whether those positions reflect our constitutional commitments or are merely of diplomatic convenience.

At UNGA 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa worked to articulate South Africa’s foreign policy. He reaffirmed allegiance to multilateralism, international law and the UN’s founding purposes. He tied our international posture to domestic imperatives: eradicating poverty, reducing unemployment and tackling structural inequality. But in the same breath, he issued a blunt warning: “Trade is now being used as a weapon against a number of countries in the world.”

Ramaphosa’s words, delivered in New York on 23 September, underscored the destabilising effect of geopolitical shocks and trade policy volatility. He condemned the decades-long US embargo on Cuba as unfair and damaging. The next day, at the Biennial Summit for a Sustainable, Resilient, Inclusive Global Economy, he stressed the urgency of closing the $4 trillion annual gap in financing for the Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”). He called for debt relief, the reallocation of unused IMF Special Drawing Rights, concessional finance and stronger action against illicit financial flows.

In principle, these are all laudable goals. But the question remains: does South Africa practice the same constitutional values it proclaims abroad at home? And for the youth of this country, does foreign policy secure a future of opportunity or sacrifice it on the altar of ideology?

A Constitutional Compass Abroad

Let us be clear, the South African Constitution is our greatest statement of identity, grounded in dignity, equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms (section 1). These values must be the compass guiding our global positions as well. To demand fairer international rules while neglecting fiscal responsibility and transparency at home is to weaken our moral standing.

Other democracies entrench their foreign policy values into law to ensure consistency. South Africa need not copy such models, but we should recognise that constitutional integrity requires alignment between what we say and what we do. Our youth deserve a foreign policy that mirrors the civic ideals they learn in classrooms and communities, not one that shifts with political convenience.

Where Did South Africa Stand at UNGA 2025?

South Africa’s stated positions in New York can be grouped into four themes. First, on finance and debt justice, Ramaphosa’s call for fair debt relief and reallocated SDRs speaks directly to the vulnerability of developing economies. Closing the SDG financing gap would, if realised, be transformative. Second, on multilateral reform, South Africa pressed for stronger coordination between the United Nations, African Union, G20 and development banks and for a more accountable, representative UN Security Council.

Third, on trade and coercion, Ramaphosa condemned tariffs and sanctions as weapons of coercion, seeking to defend weaker economies. Yet this stance demands that our own trade and energy policies embody fairness and sustainability. Finally, on peace and human rights, South Africa’s most striking intervention was its insistence on a “growing global consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” At the same time, Ramaphosa affirmed respect for international law and the ICJ. These positions are ambitious. But principles without practice will not satisfy the youth who demand that words in New York translate into tangible outcomes in Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town.

Alliances, Non-alignment and Hard Choices

South Africa currently holds the G20 presidency and our theme of “solidarity, equality, sustainability” should not be mere branding. The launch of a G20 taskforce on global wealth inequality, chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, suggests an effort to turn rhetoric into influence. The test will be whether this presidency delivers concrete proposals to close the wealth gap and reform global finance.

At the same time, South Africa faces an uncomfortable reality: alliances matter. Leaders invoke the legacy of the Non-Aligned Movement, but our record raises doubts.

On Russia’s war in Ukraine, the government insists it is “actively non-aligned.” Yet abstentions at the UN, joint naval exercises with Russia and China and mixed diplomatic messages suggest otherwise. The United States has warned openly that South Africa’s “tilt toward Russia” may endanger the billions in preferential trade we enjoy under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (“AGOA”). Senior US senators have already questioned whether South Africa deserves AGOA access.

This is not an idle threat. When US officials alleged that weapons were secretly supplied to Russia, the Rand collapsed nearly five percent in a week. South Africa trades more with the US and EU than with Russia by orders of magnitude. Russia represents less than 1% of our international trade. Yet in clinging to “comradely ties,” we risk undermining relationships that provide jobs, exports and investment.

True non-alignment does not mean silence in the face of violations of international law. It means consistently standing for principles, even when friends are in the wrong. Neutrality must not become a fig leaf for moral abdication.

When Trade Strikes Back

Ironically, as Ramaphosa condemned the weaponisation of trade, South Africa experienced it directly. Taiwan – a global leader in semiconductors – briefly restricted chip exports to South Africa earlier this month. Taipei justified the move by citing Pretoria’s downgrading of Taiwan’s diplomatic office under pressure from Beijing.

Though the curbs were suspended within days, the symbolism was stark. For the first time, Taiwan singled out a country for export controls, warning that South Africa’s actions threatened its national security. The message was unmistakable: align too closely with one power bloc and others will retaliate.

The stakes are high. Modern economies cannot function without semiconductors. Losing access would hit industries from automotive to telecommunications. As with AGOA, South Africa is reminded that diplomatic choices carry economic consequences.

The Youth and the Road Ahead

South Africa’s youth are not spectators. They march for climate justice, demand equal access to education and challenge structural inequality. They know that justice must be local and global. They also know when leaders are inconsistent.

For them, UNGA speeches matter only if they translate into jobs, opportunities and human dignity. That requires implementation. If we call for international debt relief, we must show fiscal discipline and transparency at home. If we defend human rights abroad, we must do so consistently – from Gaza to Ukraine – and respect international law even when inconvenient. If we warn against weaponised trade, we must diversify partnerships so no single country can choke our economy.

As G20 host, South Africa has a chance to lead: securing global commitments on debt, mobilising finance for Africa’s development and taking real steps to close inequality gaps. Anything less will be seen as another round of fine words with no follow-through.

Conclusion

Constitutional diplomacy must mean more than rhetoric. It must ensure that the ideals of fairness, dignity and freedom extend from our Bill of Rights to our trade deals, foreign alliances and international votes.

South Africa’s transition to democracy gave us a powerful moral voice. But that voice will lose credibility if our practice departs from our principles. The youth are watching. They will judge our leaders not by applause in New York, but by whether the Constitution’s values are honoured in daily policy.