Rasool, South Africa’s ambassador to the United States under Obama and then Biden, has been declared persona non grata by the new Trump administration. His expulsion exposes the strategic tensions surrounding Act 13 and the growing influence of the BRICS.

Amplified by South Africa’s strategic position within the BRICS, its rapprochement with China and Russia, as well as the adoption in 2024 of Law 13, which allows indigenous communities to own and manage land, Rasool’s expulsion is part of a rise in tensions between Washington and Pretoria. This extreme diplomatic gesture reflects the American desire to contain the growing influence of the BRICS in a multipolar world.

It also aims to punish Pretoria’s progressive orientations, perceived as an affront to Western hegemony by attempting to humiliate the country’s leading figures, knowing that Rasool is an influential member of the ANC who has held several leadership positions within the party. He served as Premier of the Western Cape from 2004 to 2008 before being elected as a Member of the National Assembly in 2009-2010.

The arrogance of the U.S. administration

In addition to the formal notice, Secretary Rubio released a powerful message on social media: “The South African ambassador to the United States is no longer welcome in our great country. Ibrahim Rasool is a racist politician who hates America and its President, Donald Trump. We have nothing to say to him, so he is considered persona non grata”. This incident symbolizes a major geopolitical fracture in a changing world order.

This American decision – which is not an isolated case – reflects an arrogant attitude that consists of imposing a unilateral vision without taking into account bilateral dynamics or fundamental values of dialogue. It accentuates a notable ideological divide that pits South Africa’s progressive values and quest for social justice against an exacerbated American nationalist rhetoric trapped in a conflictual logic. This divergence reveals not only Washington’s inability to adapt to a multipolar global context, but also its coercive approach, which only further isolates it on the international stage.

Overall, this incident sets an alarming precedent where American impulsiveness and unilateralism weaken diplomatic norms and undermine key multilateral institutions for global stability. Deeply rooted in American foreign policy, this inversion of the diplomatic triptych composed of soft power, hard power, and smart power risks encouraging other nations to symmetrically adopt similar strategies. This could further divide the global chessboard and jeopardize efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Therefore, taking place in a geopolitical context characterized by the rise of the BRICS Alliance and the adoption of the Expropriation Act, this expulsion symbolizes not only growing polarization but also a weakening of the United States’ moral influence in global affairs. This article examines the diplomatic impact of the asymmetrical pushback against Rasool through the prism of South Africa’s Expropriation Act and Pretoria’s strategic position within the BRICS Alliance.

A disturbing link between the expropriation law and the eviction of Ibrahim Rasool

South Africa’s Expropriation Act 13, despite its ambition to redress historical injustices, raises significant concerns about its political direction. It could potentially weaken foreign investment, threaten private property rights, and exacerbate social polarization in an already economically vulnerable country.

While the adoption of this Act was motivated by a concern to deconstruct the legacy of apartheid, it affected relations between Washington and Pretoria. The South African ambassador paid a heavy price with his expulsion following criticism by the American president against this Act, perceived by many as a radical measure affecting white South Africans. This legislation empowers a predominantly Black government to confiscate property for various reasons, with a view to redistributing it according to principles of social justice. This development greatly worries the American lobby, reinforcing fears of a dangerous precedent for foreign investment. Historical parallels with Zimbabwe highlight the risks of economic sanctions this situation could generate.

Moreover, moving away from traditional partnerships with the West, South Africa is accentuating its geostrategic pivot towards the BRICS by intensifying its collaborations with China and Russia. This is viewed unfavourably by the United States, which is taking advantage of the adoption of the aforementioned law to engage in diplomatic asymmetry. This situation highlights a context of geopolitical fragmentation where South African lands are becoming the scene of a strategic confrontation.

The Expropriation Act may have simply served as a strategic pretext for the ambassador’s expulsion, revealing deep ideological and geopolitical tensions between the two countries.

Rasool’s expulsion seen through the prism of South Africa’s strategic position within the BRICS Alliance

South Africa’s growing role within the BRICS Alliance, perceived as a threat to US geopolitical interests, may unacknowledgedly explain Washington’s extreme diplomatic decision. In reciprocity, Pretoria has suspended all mineral exports to the United States. With the position of U.S. ambassador to South Africa vacant, the diplomatic mission is headed by the chargé d’affaires. Last February, the absence of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio from the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg signalled a different strategic approach, with the chargé d’affaires’ participation simply as a ceremonial presence.

Rasool’s declaration of “persona non grata” and his subsequent expulsion by the United States raise questions about the geopolitical complexities in which South Africa – as a strategic member of the BRICS Alliance – occupies a central position. As the African gateway to the BRICS, South Africa acts as a conduit for connections between the African continent – rich in resources – and emerging powers. Through initiatives such as the New Development Bank and de-dollarization through the settlement of trade in national currencies, this alliance is reconfiguring economic balances and challenging American hegemony.

South Africa’s strengthening relations with Russia and China demonstrate a strategic orientation that diverges from Washington’s interests. In this context of constant global rivalry, the expulsion of the South African ambassador not only takes on a symbolic dimension, but also underscores Washington’s desire to reassert its influence over the BRICS and deter other similar alliances. This act therefore goes beyond a simple diplomatic dispute and is part of a broader movement of redefinition of global power relations.

Washington’s asymmetrical decision therefore reflects tensions linked to South Africa’s growing influence within the BRICS.

The expulsion of the South African ambassador by the United States can be said to reveal a strategic divide in a multipolar context where ideological tensions and rivalries linked to the BRICS are redefining global balances. Law 13 on expropriation was apparently nothing more than a pretext to mask the unavowed real intention.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/03/31/the-expulsion-of-the-south-african-ambassador-by-the-united-states-and-its-geopolitical-repercussions/