I have developed some discomfort over the use of protest action such as boycotts as a way to get one’s point across.
This does not deny the utility of protest action, nor the right of people to use these methods to get their point across.
The problem, for me, is how protest actions such as boycotts are methods that lend themselves to the relatively powerless, who are unable to use other methods to get their views across.
Protest action, whether boycotts, strikes or other actions were fully justified during the struggle against apartheid.
At that time, South Africans were fighting against a powerful state machinery that was unleashed to crush them physically, spiritually and intellectually.
All other forms of appeal to reason had been exhausted many times over before protest action became one of the most powerful ways to oppose the apartheid state.
However, this does not change the fact that the relationship still reflected the interaction between the powerful and the powerless.
Essentially, protest action was deployed by the powerless to deal with the excesses of the powerful.
In the short-term, this approach was very effective, largely leading to the collapse of the apartheid state.
Unfortunately, in the longer-term, this same approach elevated protest action as the go-to tactic when certain ends were sought by many South African groups, such as unions, civil society organisations and communities.
However, the basic structure of the use of protest remained intact.
Whoever used protest cast themselves as powerless and the adversary was cast as powerful.
Imagine my surprise when the mighty US decided to boycott the G20 presided over by SA’s president.
This is the same US which has become the biggest bully on the international stage, particularly under President Donald Trump.
The country has thrown the lies of white genocide at SA to tarnish its image internationally.
It’s not like there was any effort needed in this regard; internally we have been self-tarnishing for a while.
Instead, the efforts of Trump’s regime have won SA many friends internationally.
The US boycott of the G20 Summit in Johannesburg suddenly puts a spin on the relationship between the US and SA.
It is reasonable to assume the US is simply continuing to try to bully SA, something it seems to be failing to do.
However, it also means the US is casting itself as a victim, using the tactics of the powerless against SA, seeking to paint it as the powerful perpetrator.
However, the US has inadvertently elevated SA further, and has indeed made SA a powerful state, something many South Africans probably feel is undeserved.
But at this juncture, we need the boost.
The undignified flip-flopping of the US, almost like our own EFF, has seen the US now wanting to grace the handover of the G20 presidency.
Even this is done so haphazardly that junior officials are to be sent, breaking international protocols.
SA must take the big brother responsibility and remind the US that this too is not proper.
This happens after SA hosted a great G20 Summit without the US.
Instead, it secured a Leader’s Declaration which reflects the consensus reached by the participating global players.
Now South Africans know all too well about the sometimes irritating obsession of Ramaphosa with consensus.
This Leader’s Declaration was reached after the US “advised” SA not to issue it, but rather to settle for a Chair’s Statement.
Ramaphosa politely declined to take the “advice”, to his credit and that of SA, whose sovereignty must be protected from all global influences, not just the US.
This level of transfer of global legitimacy from the US to SA is unprecedented.
The US’s poor diplomatic direction under Trump is backfiring spectacularly, while elevating SA’s diplomatic standing.
“I saw the South Africa president running his mouth a little bit against the United States and the president of the United States earlier today and that language is not appreciated by the president or his team.”
These words were said by US presidential spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, effectively running her own mouth while trying to accuse Ramaphosa of doing the same.
None of what Ramaphosa said can even be remotely classified as “running his mouth a little bit”.
He showed great composure, statesmanship and delivered his responses to the unnecessary US/SA diplomatic tensions with aplomb.
The world knows which president consistently runs his mouth.
