Hands Off South Africa: US Sanctions Bill is Neo-Colonial Arrogance Masquerading as Foreign Policy

The recent introduction of the "US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025"[1] is not just another policy manoeuvre in Washington’s imperial playbook. It is a full-frontal attack on South African sovereignty, a slap in the face to the African liberation legacy, and a dangerous reminder that Western imperialism never sleeps—it only shapeshifts. The following are quotations from the Bill on how the Bill seeks to sanction South Africa:

"The actions of the African National Congress ('ANC'), which since 1994 has held a governing majority and controlled South Africa’s executive branch, are inconsistent with its publicly stated policy of nonalignment in international affairs.",

 "In contrast to its stated stance of nonalignment, the South African Government has a history of siding with malign actors, including Hamas, a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization and a proxy of the Iranian regime, and continues to pursue closer ties with the People’s Republic of China ('PRC') and the Russian Federation.", 

"South Africa’s participation in a political training school opened in Tanzania funded by the Chinese Communist Party where it trains political members of the ruling liberation movements in six Southern African countries. The school instils CCP ideology into the next generation of African leaders and attempts to export the CCP’s system of party-run authoritarian governance to the African continent.”

This bill, which seeks to impose sanctions on senior African National Congress (ANC) officials over alleged ties to Iran, China, and Russia, is nothing short of a neocolonial threat dressed in diplomatic garb. Let it be known: this is not about “democracy,” “human rights,” or “national security.” This is about control. This is about empire. And most dangerously, it is about punishing Africans for choosing their friends and charting their course in a multipolar world.

South Africa’s Crime? Refusing to Be a Puppet

The United States, through this bill, accuses South Africa of undermining its national security interests. But who gave the US the moral or legal right to dictate the foreign policy of a sovereign African state? The same US that armed apartheid South Africa, vetoed UN resolutions against the regime, and labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist until 2008?

South Africa's alleged sin is its principled stance on Palestine, its refusal to parrot Western talking points on the Ukraine war, and its increasing diplomatic, economic, and strategic alignment with emerging powers like China, Russia, and Iran. South Africa's support for oppressed peoples—from the people of Gaza to the people of Western Sahara—is consistent with its Pan-African, anti-apartheid, anti-colonial legacy. The ANC has always stood against imperialism, racism, and occupation. That is not terrorism. That is moral clarity.

The Real Terrorists Wore Western Suits

Let us be clear: it was not Iran, China, or Russia that built the slave ships. It was not Hamas that colonized the Congo or carved up Africa at the Berlin Conference. The nations most responsible for mass death, displacement, and destruction across the world—from Hiroshima to Haiti, from Libya to Iraq—are the same ones now trying to sanction South Africa for daring to breathe freely.

The US government brands Hamas a terrorist organisation. Still, it remains the largest arms supplier to the apartheid regime of Israel, whose genocidal war in Gaza has already killed over 45,000 Palestinians, the majority of them women and children. And they dare to sanction South Africa—the country that dared to take Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide? This is hypocrisy at its most violent form and vile. It is a message to the Global South: if you dare stand up to the empire, you will be punished.

 The ANC’s Legacy is Pan-African and Anti-Imperialist

The African National Congress is not perfect. Like any movement, it has its internal contradictions and challenges. But one thing is clear: its history is rooted in resistance to colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism. From its armed struggle days through uMkhonto we Sizwe to its diplomatic solidarity with oppressed peoples, the ANC's compass has always pointed toward freedom, justice, and internationalism.

This bill is an insult to that legacy. It seeks to isolate and punish Africa's most important liberation movement because it refuses to be a junior partner in America's imperial order. But let it be known—Africa is no longer a playground of empires.

 Multipolarity is Not a Threat—It is Liberation

The Trump Administration fears multipolarity because it spells the end of unipolar dominance. But for Africa, multipolarity is an opportunity. An opportunity to diversify partnerships, to build infrastructure without political blackmail, to trade fairly, and to reclaim sovereignty from Bretton Woods institutions and warmongering alliances.

South Africa’s deepening ties with the BRICS bloc must be read not as a "betrayal of the West," as U.S. lawmakers suggest, but as a reassertion of strategic sovereignty in the long arc of decolonization. South Africa’s ties with BRICS nations are not betrayals of the West—they are rejections of dependency. They are expressions of a deeper commitment to African dignity and development. They are declarations that Africa will no longer be a pawn in someone else's cold war. BRICS offers African states alternative frameworks for finance, infrastructure, and development outside the chokehold of Western institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and NATO-centric alliances.

Sanctions are Economic Apartheid

The threat of U.S. sanctions must be called what it is: economic sabotage. Sanctions are not neutral tools of diplomacy—they are acts of war. These are modern-day blockades designed not to influence elites but to punish entire populations into submission. From Zimbabwe to Cuba, from Venezuela to Iran, the historical record is clear: sanctions cause mass suffering, hyperinflation, food and medicine shortages, and social collapse—not for ruling elites, but for ordinary people. And now, the U.S. seeks to bring this same scorched-earth strategy to South Africa. For what crime? For standing with the Global South, for refusing to isolate fellow BRICS members, for daring to be non-aligned? This is imperial punishment disguised as moral foreign policy.

Enough Lectures from Empire

The United States has no moral ground to lecture South Africa—or any African country—on who it associates with. This is the same US that continues to support colonial settler states like Israel, that props up dictatorships when it suits their interests, and that has left a trail of blood, coups, and destabilization across the African continent—from Patrice Lumumba to Muammar Gaddafi. This bill is not about values. It’s about control. It’s about reminding South Africa of its "place." It is a 21st-century Diktat, an attempt to recolonize African diplomacy through coercion. 

Ebrahim Rasool, former South African ambassador to the U.S., upon his expulsion, stated he would wear the sanction as a "badge of dignity." This reflects a sentiment of resistance against perceived U.S. overreach. ​AP News  Pedro Mzileni, writing for SowetanLIVE, argues that the US uses economic threats to maintain dominance (​SowetanLIVE). "The US fears Russia’s military power and economic independence. The expansion of BRICS is posing an international threat to the unipolar system... The US is easily able to make threats about disinvesting to strike economic fear over the foreign-owned South African economy." ​SowetanLIVE.William Gumede, in the Sunday Times, cautions against politicizing BRICS, emphasizing that South Africa's membership should not preclude it from critiquing its allies' actions (​TimesLIVE). Alan Hirsch, Emeritus Professor at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, notes that U.S. threats, while serious, may be more about political posturing than imminent economic action (BusinessTech). Carlos Lopes, Honorary Professor at UCT and former UN Assistant Secretary-General, critiques the U.S. approach: "The US economy remains important, but Trump’s approach seeks to assert dominance through unilateral actions rather than fostering mutually beneficial relationships." ​(BusinessTech).

Pan-Africanism Must Respond With One Voice

Now is not merely the time for abstract declarations of Pan-African unity—it is the time for concrete political action rooted in realism. If South Africa is punished today, tomorrow it will be Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Zimbabwe, or any African country that dares pursue an independent foreign policy. The pattern is already visible: Zimbabwe has faced two decades of suffocating sanctions for land reform that challenged settler-colonial structures. Ethiopia was threatened with sanctions during its internal conflict, despite the complex domestic and regional dynamics. Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso now face economic blockades and diplomatic isolation after popular rejections of French neocolonial control. This call is not about defending a single state—it is about defending African sovereignty. But Pan-Africanism today cannot mean slogans. It must mean institutional action. 

Where is the African Union’s clear stance on this U.S. sanctions bill?
 Where is the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which already has a standing anti-sanctions campaign for Zimbabwe? Where is the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which has spent more time enforcing Western-backed regimes than defending popular sovereignty in the Sahel? The continent is divided, and Washington knows this. It counts on comprador elites and fractured blocs to undermine the possibility of continental coordination. Some states still see alignment with NATO as safer or more profitable. Others are wary of BRICS. Some leaders, faced with domestic crises, avoid international confrontation.

Yet even within this fragmented landscape, new alliances are forming: The withdrawal of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso from ECOWAS signals the rise of anti-imperialist military governments who reject foreign interference. The non-aligned positions of Uganda, Algeria, and South Africa on the Ukraine conflict show resistance to U.S.-EU pressure. The BRICS+ summit in Johannesburg (2023) showed Africa’s desire to shape multipolarity, not be crushed by it. The struggle for African self-determination did not end with the raising of flags in the 1960s. It continues in African Union (AU) summits, trade negotiations, security cooperation, climate policy, and in the daily rejection of aid, debt, and diktats from Washington and Brussels. Africa must respond not with silence, but with strategy.

Final Word: Africa Will Not Bow

The U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act (H.R.7256) exemplifies a broader pattern of coercive diplomacy that undermines African sovereignty under the guise of promoting democratic values. This legislation mandates the U.S. President to assess whether South Africa has engaged in activities that undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, with potential consequences including sanctions and the reevaluation of trade agreements like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).​ The bill's rationale is steeped in a unilateral interpretation of international relations, where alignment with U.S. interests is deemed the benchmark for acceptable foreign policy. It criticizes South Africa's engagements with nations such as Russia, China, and Iran, labelling these relationships as threats to U.S. national security. This perspective disregards South Africa's sovereign right to pursue a foreign policy that reflects its national interests and historical experiences. The legislation's approach risks setting a precedent where African nations are penalized for exercising autonomy in their international relations. By threatening economic repercussions for diplomatic choices, it echoes historical patterns of external control over African political agencies. Such measures could deter African countries from engaging in partnerships that are crucial for their development, thereby perpetuating dependency and undermining the continent's collective efforts toward self-determination.

In response to this legislative development, African regional bodies such as the African Union (AU), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) must articulate a unified stance that upholds the principles of sovereignty and non-alignment. This stance includes defending member states' rights to establish diverse international partnerships without external coercion. The U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act represents more than a bilateral issue; it is indicative of a broader challenge to African autonomy in the global arena. Addressing this requires a concerted effort to reaffirm the continent's commitment to sovereign decision-making and to resist policies that seek to reimpose hierarchical international relations reminiscent of colonial dynamics.

Mafa Kwanisai Mafa is a dedicated Pan-Africanist organiser and unwavering advocate for social justice. Rooted in revolutionary ideals, he champions the cause of African liberation and unity across the continent and in the diaspora. An internationalist at heart, Mafa actively engages in global solidarity work, standing shoulder to shoulder with oppressed peoples in Cuba, Palestine, Iran, Venezuela, and beyond. 

Endnote