The question is not where U.S. President Donald Trump has not touched in less than 100 days in office. It is how the world is coping with the shock and devastation of his touch and the trail of chaos it is leaving behind.

Because of its vulnerabilities, Africa was never far from Trump’s reach. When the continent thought the looming mass deportation of immigrants and the scrapping of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were among the worst measures in the early days of Trump’s second term, he unleashed a body blow that has left South Africa in a daze.

As of March 23, South Africa’s Ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, arrived back in Cape Town to tumultuous cheers from large crowds after he departed Washington. He was declared persona non grata by the Trump administration on March 14 for his comments at a webinar.

Rasool’s ‘sin’
Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Rasool’s criticisms of Trump’s policies as “unacceptable”, adding that the ambassador harboured animosity towards the U.S. president. Rubio said on X, where he also announced the expulsion, Rasool “hates America.”

The last time the U.S. declared a foreign ambassador persona non grata was 17 years ago, under President George W. Bush. And even then, it retaliated against Bolivia after that country expelled the U.S. ambassador for allegedly interfering in its “internal affairs.”

What was it that Rasool said? He told a webinar hosted by a South African think tank that Trump was “mobilising a supremacism” and also trying to “project White victimhood as a dog whistle” as a reaction to the demographic reality of a diminishing White population.

He said, “We see it in the domestic politics of the USA, the MAGA movement as a response not simply to a supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA in which the voting electorate in the USA is projected to become 48 per cent white.”

Inconvenient truth
That was the inconvenient truth. Could it have been said differently? Did Rasool walk into a trap, or was Rubio’s excuse a red herring? Apart from Somalia, no other African country has been targeted by the new U.S. administration as much as South Africa.  

First, there was an executive order freezing U.S. assistance to Pretoria for alleged “unjust racial discrimination” against White Afrikaans over the Expropriation Act, which seeks to redistribute land in the country, and then followed the stoppage of the USAID-funded HIV/AIDS programme that has put hundreds of lives at risk.

Rasool did what he had to. I won’t remove anything from his words. Relations between Pretoria and Washington were already testy, and the beads holding them had been broken from the waist by Trump’s chaotic dance steps. It was not a matter of if but which way the beads would fall.

Behind the story
The anti-Pretoria lobby in the U.S. has had it for South Africa for a long time, especially following that country’s stand against Israel in the ongoing war on Gaza.

During my visit to Israel last December, the talk at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs was that South Africa took a bribe of $2 billion from Iran to mount a case against the Benjamin Netanyahu government at the International Criminal Court, an allegation that diplomatic sources in Pretoria have denied.

Despite Trump’s expression of displeasure, South Africa said it would not withdraw its case of genocide against Israel, saying it is aware that “standing by our principles sometimes has consequences.”

Silent Africa
Rasool’s eviction is another consequence of South Africa’s principled stand, and the country is taking it in its stride. My surprise is the loud silence over Trump’s decision across African capitals. The continent’s media have also treated the story like a footnote.

We’re not talking about the U.S. evicting illegal immigrants or smashing drug gangs. We’re talking about an ambassador with a distinguished career in the foreign service who was first appointed to the U.S. in 2010 under Barack Obama.

He served for five years and was reappointed because of his extensive experience in U.S. domestic politics and ability to navigate complex international relations.

Contrary to what Rubio would have the world believe, Rasool’s “cardinal sin” was championing the case against Israel at the ICC – a matter of principle for which the ambassador should have no regrets.

Either African governments and the AU are too shocked to offer a clear response, or the continent has accepted chaos as the inevitability of the Trump era.

Dangerous silence
Whatever it is, silence is a dangerous option. If Trump can evict the ambassador of one of Africa’s most consequential countries for expressing an inconvenient opinion, it is only a matter of time before the less endowed countries will be in the firing line.

An academic and diplomat who served in many conflict areas in Africa, Prof Babafemi Badejo, said, “South Africa has, of late, been leading many countries over Gaza-Palestine. About four-fifths of African countries are, at best, lukewarm on this issue.

“It’s not a surprise that African countries have been mute over the US Secretary of State’s action declaring the South African ambassador persona non grata.”

If South Africa’s primary offence is its position on the war in Gaza – a position shared by many African countries – why is the continent unable to rally against Rasool’s eviction? Why is the AU silent?

European example
In 2018, three European countries – France, Germany and the UK – took a common stand against the U.S. in response to Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the comprehensive action plan to guarantee the nuclear agreement with Iran. They bypassed the dollar-trading system and set up their mechanism to trade with Tehran.

Why is Africa a spectator in its own case?

“Fear of punishments and resignation to a life of minimal relevance, if at all, has been the stance of many African countries,” Badejo said. “How does a Lilliputian state begging for food aid for its people assert itself.”

Africa’s other reasons
There could be a less apparent reason Trump would get away with his diplomacy of bullying. Several African leaders would like to copy him. In West and Central Africa, for example, five countries – Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Guinea and Chad – are under military rule.

Four of them have broken away from the regional group ECOWAS. Their leaders, who might have been in the soup in a different, bygone world, would now consider themselves lucky beneficiaries of a chaotic global order. The last thing they would want to do is to challenge Trump.

Apart from the president of Cote d’Ivoire, Alassane Ouattara, whose supporters are already urging to continue for a fourth term against the constitutionally approved limit, the presidents of three other African countries are pressing for an extended term limit, the sort of thing Trump is already hinting at.

I didn’t expect the South African Development Community or the AU to call an extraordinary meeting to discuss Rasool’s expulsion. But it’s a measure of how weak and resigned we have become that neither an officer of these organisations nor an African head of state can call out his eviction.

It’s Rasool today. Trump’s next victim is not far away.

MultiChoice apartheid pricing?
I’m usually not one to interfere with the markets, whatever the invincible foxes or forces want to do. But how can you ignore the nonsense that MultiChoice has been up to lately? The pay-TV service provider has increased fees in Nigeria by 21 per cent through the backdoor while cutting subscription fees in South Africa by 38 per cent. Why? It said the cut in South Africa was a token to subscribers for the cost of living crisis.

And in Nigeria?

You know the old story – inflation, infrastructure, blah, blah. I wouldn’t mind if MultiChoice had a competitor. But it’s nonsense for this monopoly to make most of its profits in this so-called high-risk environment and use it to subsidise subscribers elsewhere.

We had a name for it: apartheid!

Ishiekwene is the Editor-in-Chief of LEADERSHIP and author of Writing for the Media and Monetising It