For decades, the global stage has been dominated by the United States, its military reach, economic muscle, and technological prowess setting the tempo for world affairs. But as we move deeper into the 21st century, that tune is changing—sometimes discordantly. The post-Cold War unipolar moment, when American primacy seemed unassailable, is well and truly over. In its place, a more complicated, multipolar order is emerging, marked by shifting alliances, contested values, and new centers of influence.
According to Brigadier Arun Sahgal (Retd), founder director of the Office of Net Assessment, Integrated Defence Staff, the United States now finds itself on the back foot in all three of its traditional strengths: military, economic, and technological. "America’s strength lay in three areas—its unmatched military reach, its dominance over global economic levers, and its technological edge. In all three, it now finds itself on the back foot," Sahgal observes. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has exposed U.S. shortages of basic ammunition, while China has surged ahead in shipbuilding. Even high-profile security initiatives like AUKUS are hampered by manpower constraints and the sticky business of sharing sensitive technology.
The economic story is equally sobering. The U.S. model of importing cheap goods, adding value, and re-exporting has faltered in the face of China’s manufacturing juggernaut and ballooning trade deficits. Former President Donald Trump’s push for reindustrialization and the imposition of tariffs signaled a recognition that the U.S. could not continue as the world’s policeman while remaining economically vulnerable. Yet, Washington’s allies in Europe and Asia have grown increasingly hesitant to follow America’s lead, wary of being drawn into conflicts or economic wars that may not serve their own interests.
All this strategic flux has opened the door for other power centers to step forward. Russia, for instance, has weathered Western sanctions thanks in part to robust economic ties with both China and India. New multilateral platforms—like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the expanding BRICS bloc—are gaining traction, offering what Sahgal calls a "Global Governance Initiative" that stands in contrast to the West-led, rules-based system. These emerging structures are not just talking shops; they are creating parallel rules and influence networks, especially in the Global South and Africa, where China in particular is making significant inroads. Still, Beijing faces its own limitations: a lack of global cultural appeal and a dependence on digital infrastructure largely controlled by Western companies.
Nowhere are these shifting tides more evident than in the complex, sometimes fraught relationship between South Africa and the United States. As Charles A. Ray of the Foreign Policy Research Institute notes, both nations are heavyweights in their own right—South Africa as a regional powerhouse, the United States as a global superpower. Yet genuine strategic alignment has always eluded them, and the reasons stretch deep into history.
During South Africa’s apartheid era (1948-1994), the United States adopted a contradictory approach: public condemnation of institutionalized racism, but also a willingness to engage with the apartheid regime out of Cold War calculations. The Reagan administration’s policy of "constructive engagement" was criticized for failing to curb government repression, even as Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1988, overriding Reagan’s veto to ban new American investments and imports from South Africa. It wasn’t until 2008—long after apartheid’s end—that the U.S. finally removed Nelson Mandela and other African National Congress (ANC) leaders from its terrorism watchlist.
The end of apartheid did bring a period of optimism. The United States backed South Africa’s democratic transition, supporting efforts in public health and nuclear non-proliferation. High-level visits, such as President Bill Clinton’s in 1998, signaled a desire for closer partnership. But even in this honeymoon period, frictions surfaced: South Africa staunchly opposed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and trade disputes over agricultural products and intellectual property rights became recurring headaches.
Today, the economic relationship is substantial—U.S.-South Africa trade in goods topped $26 billion in 2024, with the United States as South Africa’s second-largest trading partner after China. Yet, the political relationship is marked by increasing divergence. Since joining BRICS in 2010, South Africa has deepened its ties with China and Russia, both rivals of the United States. The country has hosted joint naval exercises with these powers, most notably in February 2023, when Russian and Chinese warships joined South African vessels off the Indian Ocean coast. The timing, coinciding with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was widely seen as a rebuke to Western efforts to isolate Moscow.
South Africa’s foreign policy is guided by a commitment to sovereignty, multilateralism, and leadership in the Global South. The country routinely abstains from UN votes on U.S. sanctions against Iran, Cuba, and Russia, and is a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause—positions that often put it at odds with Washington. The ruling ANC’s anti-imperialist and pan-African roots, forged during the anti-apartheid struggle with support from Moscow, Beijing, and Havana, continue to shape its approach to international affairs.
The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has further exposed the limits of U.S.-South Africa alignment. While the United States expected South Africa to join in condemnation of Moscow, Pretoria initially adopted a neutral stance, calling for dialogue and refusing to support sanctions or military aid to Ukraine. In a surprising twist, in February 2025, South Africa voted for a UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Russia respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, while the U.S. abstained. South African officials, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, have criticized what they see as Western double standards and have emphasized the importance of peaceful resolution—much to the frustration of American diplomats.
Suspicion and mistrust have occasionally spilled into public view. In May 2023, the American ambassador accused South Africa of supplying arms to Russia, a charge Pretoria flatly denied. An official inquiry found no evidence of such transfers, but the episode underscored the underlying tensions and lack of trust between the two governments.
For the United States, the challenge is clear: it seeks reliable partners in Africa to counterbalance China’s growing influence and to advance its own strategic interests. For South Africa, the priorities are different—regional leadership, continental unity, and autonomy from great power politics. South Africa has pushed for reforms in the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund to give developing countries a stronger voice, while the United States has resisted any move that would dilute its own privileges.
Climate change is yet another area of divergence. South Africa, vulnerable to its impacts, has championed ambitious global targets, while the United States has often hesitated to make binding commitments, to the frustration of South African negotiators.
As Sahgal points out, India faces its own crossroads in this evolving landscape. "We have power but don’t always know how to use it. What India needs is not just strength, but a strategy to leverage it," he says. India cannot afford to remain on the sidelines; it must work actively with Global South partners to shape the new rules of global governance. That will require not only hard power and economic heft, but also vision and the ability to build coalitions.
In the end, the relationship between the United States and South Africa may be best described as complex, durable, and periodically contentious. Their differing histories, strategic priorities, and alliances suggest that a true friendship remains elusive. Instead, expect a future marked by pragmatic cooperation in some areas—trade, public health, peacekeeping—alongside persistent disagreements over geopolitics, human rights, and the shape of the international order. The world, in short, is no longer waiting for America to lead. And as new power centers rise, the challenge for all nations is to find their place—and purpose—in a world where the old rules no longer apply.