South Africa’s diplomacy of Ubuntu – An approach to inclusive socio-economic growth?
“…the most beautiful word in the dictionary today is the word ‘tariff’.” Donald Trump, 2024
Authors have written extensively about the linkages between diplomacy and foreign policy. Western theories have dominated within the international system for the longest time, and it is within the contemporary era that non-Western theories are being acknowledged and adopted – but to what extent? The news bulletins are saturated with information about Trump’s next move. Strategic or not, his policy reforms have kept the world at its feet, thinking or arguing potential justifications of his policy reforms. These reforms have a knock-on effect on inequality and inclusive socio-economic growth in societies. As a nation at the centre of global influence, South Africa’s focus on addressing inequality and fostering inclusive socio-economic growth amongst G-20 members has become an important task. The rising diplomatic tensions between the Trump administration and the G-20 leadership present compounded issues, particularly in relation to the G-20 Troika system, which depends on the past, present and future G-20 Presidents working together. President Trump is set to head the G-20 in the next term. However, the recent diplomatic tension with the current South African President threatens the idea of inclusive social and economic growth. The shock of the high trade tariffs and withdrawal of foreign aid in most countries by the US has placed a huge responsibility on the G-20’s president. Although President Cyril Ramaphosa has the opportunity to enhance South Africa’s effectiveness and place the African continent in positions of global decision-making, there are aspects to consider.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump described what he thought to be the most beautiful word – ‘tariffs’. “The most beautiful word in the dictionary today is the word ‘tariff.’ It is more beautiful than ‘love’. It is more beautiful than anything. It is the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use—the proper use—of tariffs.”[1] Some authors have alluded to his love for tariffs as being inspired by William McKinley, the 25th president of the United States of America (US) who served between 1897 and 1901 (Aronson, 2025). Nicknamed as the ‘Tariff King’ he was celebrated for his protectionist ideals aimed at protecting the American industry.
Trump’s sentiments on the tariffs seem to mimic McKinley’s administration, however, in as much as the tariffs contributed to economic growth for the US, a repetition of this is highly unlikely. As an important partner in the G-20 Troika system, Trump’s sociopolitical and socioeconomic decisions play a huge role in the global socioeconomic stability as well as the continuity of the G-20 inclusive approach to sustainable development goals (SDG’S). In a world that is highly globalised and interdependent, Trump’s adoption of individualistic ideals would fracture economies which depend on one another to survive. The extensive global tariff overhaul has had both the US and international markets reeling. The so called ‘Liberation Day’ – on which Trump had sent out an Executive Order 14257 for “regulating imports with a reciprocal tariff to rectify trade practices that contribute to large and persistent annual United States goods trade deficits”[2], has sent global markets in a tailspin. Seen as a threat to ‘national security’ these so-called reciprocal tariffs put over 50 countries at risk. But what spark the interest in tariffs?
There has been a resurgence of protectionist ideals and backlash against globalisation since 2016 in the EU and North America, importing regions since 2016 (Michalopoulos, 2022). Serving as some of the large importing regions, their protectionist ideals present a global socioeconomic crisis. With issues such as antimigration, exaggerated identity politics in the media, and decoupling, inclusive socio-economic growth is at stake, a global crisis looms.
Although crises have huge societal implications, they also tend to reveal a leader's hidden strengths and weaknesses. Extreme crises have the ability to make or break a political leader. Both expectations and responsibility would lie heavily on the leader. The Trump administration’s foreign policy actions and decisions have raised concerns globally. The withdrawal of humanitarian aid and high trade tariffs have put numerous nations in socioeconomic trouble. Although tariffs may be used strategically by the issuing country to boost economic growth through product competitiveness and protection of local markets, they have their negative effects, particularly for the lower-income earners due to the high pricing of goods. Furthermore, there is risk for a rise in poverty.
Trade reform challenges
Who gains from a trade reform? Policy makers have argued that trade is integral to economic reform (Harrison and Hanson, 1999). While the European Union (EU) trade policy had for the longest time focused on open(ing) markets, it has since embraced open strategic autonomy (Schmitz and Seidl, 2023). This has largely been shaped by the geopolitical framework surrounding trade. In recent months, the US president announced a minimum of 10% tariffs on almost all US imports. Tariffs are understood as being a tax imposed by a government on imported goods and services. This is done to “to influence it, raise revenues, or protect competitive advantages” (Nevil, 2025). In recent months, countries considered to have big economies, such as the US, have fallen into the trend of manipulating the terms of trade for their own advantage through tariffs. This has shocked the global market with Southeast Asian nations and some of the weakest economies in the world being hit the hardest. The weaker economies face the greatest economic threat especially after the USAID programme cuts. Their economic struggle has been compounded as a result. As consumers, wage earners, producers, and possibly taxpayers, trade reform affects their households in myriad ways. The funding and trade constraints impact the economy and risk the rise in social inequalities and injustices within households.
Some studies have argued about the effects of commodity price shocks resulting from trade policy changes. While some states argue for the openness to international trade or export expansion on economic development, others lean towards protectionist ideals that use strategic trade blocks such as tariffs. Although openness to trade may prove beneficial for economic growth, as seen in China, which experienced massive export expansion in the early 2000s and through that boosted their GDP (Feng, Xie, and Zhang, 2021), countries such as the US see the idea of openness and increased imports as a security threat. How does this affect the individual? The increase in export-led economic growth has the potential for positive influences on individual wealth and income due to job creation and the rise of emerging economies.
Tariffs, on the other hand, although seemingly protecting the local industries, also invite retaliation from other countries (Kennan and Riezman, 2013), as seen by the tariff responses by Mexico, China, amongst others, to the US tariff overhaul. This, in turn, would affect the cost of products, making it difficult for locals to afford basic goods. For a country like the US which depends largely on imported goods it also means the basic consumer struggles to access some products. This would increase the cost-of-living, threatening instances of poverty, homelessness, and unemployment as a result of multinational companies exiting the market. The affected countries’ tariff retaliation also raises the potential for a tariff war, which would affect the basic consumer’s affordability and access to goods and services. Furthermore, the US tariff overhaul has also advanced negotiations for a trilateral free trade agreement amongst China, Japan and South Korea. Seen as rising global powers within a highly fractured world filled with alliances, it questions the geopolitical stability in the long run.
Ubuntu vs. Autonomy
Based on the above challenges, the South African Presidency has a lot of responsibility in addressing the issue of inclusive development. Although Ubuntu has played a significant role in shaping African foreign policy, particularly that of South Africa, a renegotiation of its application would need to be considered. The socioeconomic and political decisions imposed by the US lean towards the idea of autonomy by the state, and while most states seem to follow this ideology, there is a need to rethink these policy reforms. Autonomy is deviant from the G-20 goals, which are based on the idea of cohesion and interdependence. The 2025 G-20 theme also sees the importance of living by the notions of Ubuntu. How will this be possible with a fractured Troika? How can South Africa encourage inclusive development?
Ubuntu has been defined as the moral yardstick for humanism. As a philosophy or ethic, it holds great value and has played a huge role in both internal and foreign policy of South Africa by fostering peace and partnership. Making it a key strategy in foreign policy would assist in the mediation of peace negotiations and push for the preservation of human life. Although this is key to sustainability and inclusivity, the antagonistic notions of autonomy push against the ideas of Ubuntu. Therefore, this philosophy must be reassessed within the parameters of foreign policy. This would include the:
· Evocation of multilateralism – that acknowledges the shift from power to partnership, thereby promoting the adoption of the Ubuntu philosophy within diplomacy. Ubuntu through this is seen as soft power that is not wielded by force but rather lies in the partners willingness to seek consensus for the global good (Madise, 2020).
· Re-evaluation of trade agreements – and opening up of inclusive and fair conversations. The tariff decisions would require open conversations between affected parties to ensure fairness and inclusivity.
· Embracing cooperative hegemony by advocating for shared values and policies that would enhance cohesion.
Ubuntu philosophy has the potential to be a resource, wield agency and soft power. It appeals to the African continents internal values and is greatly reinforced within the South African context. Adopted and adapted within the South African constitutional and policy framework it has become an integral part of the nations international identity construction. Ubuntu seeks to respect all nations while advocating for partnership, cooperation and collaboration. Within the global community, Ubuntu can serve as a counter rhetoric to autonomy and individualism. This could enact instances of fairness and coexistence particularly within the global economy. As an ideology and adopted practice it could foster peaceful mediations, recognise isolated states and foster a culture within international relations that emphasizes consensus, collaboration and collectivism.
References
Aronson, J.K., 2025. When I use a word... Tariffs. bmj, 388.
Feng, J., Xie, Q. and Zhang, X., 2021. Trade liberalization and the health of working-age adults: Evidence from China. World Development, 139, p.105344.
Harrison, A. and Hanson, G., 1999. Who gains from trade reform? Some remaining puzzles. Journal of development Economics, 59(1), pp.125-154.
Kennan, J. and Riezman, R., 2013. Do big countries win tariff wars?. In International trade agreements and political economy (pp. 45-51).
Michalopoulos, C., 2022. The rise of populism and anti-globalization. In Aid, trade and development: The future of globalization (pp. 313-339). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Nevil, S., 2025. What Is a Tariff and Why Are They Important? Accessed at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp
Schmitz, L. and Seidl, T., 2023. As open as possible, as autonomous as necessary: Understanding the rise of open strategic autonomy in EU trade policy. JCMS: journal of common market studies, 61(3), pp.834-852.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/trump-proposes-eliminating-personal-income-taxes-work/story?id=115217463
[2] https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-06063.pdf
