Ramaphosa’s diplomatic dance with Trump: success or failure?
Between the firefighting and fireworks, South Africa’s delegation did just enough to meet its strategic objectives.
The recent meeting between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and United States (US) President Donald Trump at the White House triggered a predictable flurry of reaction and commentary.
Some praised Ramaphosa’s composure and restraint under pressure, while others criticised the lack of pushback and saw him as overly cautious. Aside from its theatrics, the meeting should be assessed based on what it aimed to achieve.
A useful framework comes from the psychological model of relationship effectiveness, which evaluates complex engagements across three dimensions: the objective, the relationship, and self-respect. The underlying principle is simple: in high-stakes interactions, it is rarely possible to optimise all three. Trade-offs are necessary, and success depends on correctly identifying the hierarchy of priorities and acting accordingly.
Consider the analogy of a tenant facing eviction. If a landlord threatens to terminate the lease without immediate alternatives, the focus shifts. Securing an extension (the objective) becomes the priority. Preserving the relationship comes second, and defending one’s pride or making a moral stand (self-respect) comes last. Survival takes precedence over principle. The same logic pertains to diplomacy.
Applying this to the Ramaphosa-Trump engagement requires first identifying South Africa’s strategic objectives. Relations between the two countries have deteriorated significantly in recent years and are at a nadir. Washington’s annoyance has been no secret, and the risk of diplomatic or economic retaliation has loomed large.
So, the primary aim was clear: stabilise or ‘reset’ relations, reduce tensions and preserve space for commercial and diplomatic engagement. It was an exercise in damage control. This – more than the relationship or self-respect – was the key priority the South African delegation had to deliver on. The goal was to prevent the relationship from deteriorating further and establish a platform, however minimal, for functional future engagement.
Viewed through this lens, the outcome was a measured success. The meeting preserved lines of communication, while averting the worst-case scenario: a complete breakdown in relations.
The goal was to prevent the relationship deteriorating further and to establish a platform for engagement
The secondary axis of analysis – the relationship – considers the quality of bilateral engagement in the room. While US-South Africa ties are rooted in formal channels, the personal dynamic mattered in this case. Trump’s leadership style, heavily centred on personality politics and performative diplomacy, often subordinates substance to chemistry.
Ramaphosa appeared to grasp this reality. The meeting opened on a cordial note, with informal references to golf and mutual acquaintances. These seemingly trivial gestures were deliberate and calculated. Ramaphosa’s team clearly understood Trump’s engagement style. The president also deferred to members of his delegation on certain matters, allowing Trump to engage with figures he could relate to, avoiding unnecessary friction.
Given Trump’s unpredictability and tendency towards undiplomatic outbursts, a Volodymyr Zelensky-type moment was a risk. That such a scenario didn’t materialise is partly a reflection of Ramaphosa’s composure and situational awareness.
To be sure, the Oval Office meeting was not going to be the kind of high-chemistry ‘bromance’ that characterised Trump’s meetings with leaders like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Too much ill will had preceded it. But that was not the South African delegation’s objective.
By managing a tense situation without triggering further instability or inviting personal antagonism, Ramaphosa passed a difficult test. Of course, it would be premature to suggest the relationship has been substantively repaired. The underlying differences remain unresolved, and the mood music from Washington remains sceptical. The outcome may not have been a turning point, but it established a constructive starting point for the reset.
Ramaphosa would have known that to secure the main objective, some restraint and discomfort was required
The final dimension – self-respect – was arguably the most constrained from the outset. In a setting defined by asymmetric power and a hostile undercurrent, it was always going to be difficult for Ramaphosa to be assertive. He would have known that to secure the primary objective, some degree of restraint and discomfort was required.
Ramaphosa was subjected to subtle provocation and coded language that many observers noted carried racial undertones. Yet he resisted the impulse to engage emotionally or defensively. He avoided confrontation, maintained composure and stayed focused on the strategic imperative – leaving difficult conversations for outside the public domain.
Critics in South Africa were disappointed that he didn’t rebut falsehoods or respond more forcefully to provocations. And the lack of coherent messaging from the South African delegation and failure to use statistics to enhance the counter-argument was a blind spot.
There is some validity to this view. At times, Ramaphosa appeared overly cautious. However, a combative response would likely have been counter-productive, escalating tensions and undermining the very objective that brought him there. Preserving space for future negotiation required keeping the temperature low.
Away from the theatre of the absurd, the meetings were constructive, indicating a willingness to engage pragmatically
Despite the imperfections, there are signs the relationship may be moving to a more constructive footing, underpinned by economic and diplomatic factors.
Three positive signals are worth noting. First, commercial talks appear to have progressed. South Africa’s offer of a comprehensive trade and investment plan – emphasising liquefied natural gas imports, critical minerals and digital trade, alongside a regulatory carve-out for Elon Musk’s Starlink – was clearly pitched to Trump’s dealmaker instincts. The alignment with US strategic sectors gives the trade relationship a path to move from terrible to workable.
Second, the absence of any serious reference to South Africa’s ‘malign actor’ designation or broader geopolitical alignment, including the highly contentious International Court of Justice case, was notable. That silence may reflect Trump’s cooling relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly after his recent Middle East visit. Whatever the reasons, South Africa will view it as a diplomatic reprieve.
Third, insider accounts suggest that away from the theatre of the absurd, the meetings were largely constructive and cordial – indicating a willingness, at least behind closed doors, to engage pragmatically.
So, was the trip a success or failure? Ramaphosa entered a hostile environment, navigated complex political terrain and emerged without further damaging South Africa’s core strategic interests. On the axis of objective – clearly the most critical – he met the mark.
On the relational front, he managed a volatile dynamic with pragmatism. On self-respect, he absorbed some tactical discomfort to protect broader national priorities.
To be sure, the diplomatic endeavour was less about fireworks and more about firefighting. And although the Oval Office meeting delivered both, the South Africa delegation did just enough to meet its objectives.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
