The Agoa dispute has added an international dimension to the parties’ competing election messages. Graphic: Dorothy Kgosi
The US’s decision to withdraw South Africa’s Agoa benefits has exposed divisions between the ANC and DA over the country’s foreign policy, with the governing party alleging an attempt to influence voters as the ANC faces mounting electoral pressure.
The ANC, on the one hand, has questioned the timing of Washington’s decision to withdraw South Africa’s preferential trade benefits from January 2027, suggesting it could be an attempt to intimidate voters and pressure the government to abandon its transformation agenda.
The DA, on the other hand, has blamed the exclusion on the ANC’s foreign policy and what it describes as the diplomatic failures of international relations minister Ronald Lamola.
Both parties are key members of the government of national unity currently running the country. They also run some metro councils together in coalition with some smaller parties.
The competing positions come as the Ipsos Khayabus “Pulse of the people” survey shows the ANC at its lowest level of support, with the DA gaining ground as the political landscape becomes increasingly fragmented. The uMkhonto we Sizwe party registered 12%, and the EFF 10%, leaving no party with a national majority.
The Agoa dispute has added an international dimension to the parties’ competing election messages, exposing divisions over how South Africa should balance its domestic transformation policies with its economic and diplomatic relationship with Washington.
In a statement on Tuesday, the ANC rejected what it described as the weaponisation of Agoa against South Africa’s economic transformation agenda, saying the timing of the announcement alongside special voting raised concerns about attempts to influence the country’s democratic choices.
“The announcement’s timing during special voting, alongside economic misinformation, deepens concern about attempts to intimidate voters and undermine democratic choices,” the party said.
The ANC accused AfriForum, Solidarity and the DA of contributing to international pressure against South Africa through their opposition to transformation policies including broad-based BEE, land reform and employment equity.
Trade labour federation Cosatu has estimated that South Africa’s exclusion from the preferential trade programme would hit agriculture and manufacturing sectors the hardest, with estimates of about 3,000 job losses, or almost 10,000 overall.
“We’re particularly concerned about jobs in the agricultural sector, especially in the Western Cape, Limpopo and Northern Cape, where a lot of citrus farmers and other farmers export to the US,” says spokesperson Matthew Parks.
“We’re also concerned about job losses, and we’ve seen some already over the past year and a half because of the fluctuation of tariffs from the US.
“But I think it’s important not to create too much alarm, because it doesn’t mean you can’t export to the US; you can continue to export to the US.
“This just means that you lose about three-and-a-half percent of the reduced tariff regime towards the US. So you’re three and a half more expensive, in other words, for customers in the US.”
The DA, however, described South Africa’s exclusion as avoidable, blaming Lamola’s handling of relations with Washington and what it called the ANC’s ideological approach to foreign policy.
The party argued that the government’s relationships with Russia and Iran, with its domestic transformation policies, had contributed to South Africa being viewed with suspicion by liberal democracies.
It also accused the ANC of undermining economic growth through BEE legislation and said its refusal to engage with the DA on domestic policy reform in the government of national unity had contributed to the breakdown in relations.
The DA’s criticism of the ANC’s transformation policies and foreign policy positions overlaps with arguments advanced by AfriForum and Solidarity in their engagements with the Trump administration.
Both organisations have lobbied US officials over land reform, affirmative action and employment equity, arguing that these policies discriminate against minorities. Their campaigns have also promoted claims of persecution of white Afrikaners and targeted attacks on farmers and included calls for sanctions against South African political leaders and government officials.
The South African government has rejected allegations of a white genocide, while available evidence does not substantiate claims of a systematic campaign to eliminate white South Africans. AfriForum and Solidarity have continued to press their case in Washington, arguing that the government’s policies and foreign relations warrant intervention.
North-West University Business School economist Raymond Parsons said the withdrawal would have a limited effect on the economy as a whole, though the motor and agricultural industries would bear the brunt, putting thousands of jobs at risk.
PSG Financial Services chief economist Johann Els similarly cautioned against overstating the direct impact. About 7% of South Africa’s goods exports went to the US in 2025, worth about $16.5bn. Of these, about $1.6bn entered under Agoa preferences, representing about 0.7% of total goods exports.
Els said the bigger concern was the potential damage to business confidence, investment and diplomatic relations between the two countries.
“Less than 1% of our total goods exports currently enter the US under Agoa. This is not insignificant for the businesses and workers affected, but the bigger concern is the signal it sends to investors and the potential impact on confidence, investment and our broader relationship with the US.
“We should not confuse South Africa’s large share of total Agoa trade with the much smaller share of our own exports that depends on Agoa,” Els said.
The American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa (AmCham SA) said it noted the announcement by the US Trade Representative’s office with disappointment. It said the removal applies only to South Africa and Rwanda, and that Agoa itself remains in force, having been reauthorised to end-2028.
AmCham stressed that losing Agoa removes a tariff preference but does not stop trade. Citing analysis by XA Global Trade Advisors, it put South Africa’s net preference at about 3.5%, with annual duty savings of less than R2bn concentrated in a few companies.
The motor industry carries the largest employment risk, it said, while citrus, wine, table grapes and nuts are the most affected agricultural lines.