By Bertie Jacobs
Washington’s growing use of visas and trade access as diplomatic leverage is a modern form of gunboat diplomacy, and African governments should take note, according to analysis from South Africa’s North-West University (NWU).
The comparison draws on 19th-century practice, when naval powers such as Britain used warships to press their terms. American Commodore Matthew Perry’s arrival in Japan in 1853 is a well-known example. Today, the pressure comes through entry restrictions, tariffs and market access.
The United States has imposed entry restrictions on nationals of several African countries. A June 2025 proclamation fully restricted nationals of seven countries, including Chad, the Republic of the Congo and Sudan. A December expansion added Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, with partial restrictions on others, including Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania. Washington cites security concerns, inadequate screening and visa overstays.
South Africa is the clearest case. On 15 September, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions on people involved in policies Washington says enable uncompensated land seizures, racial discrimination or incitement of violence against minority groups. No individuals were named.
Prof. Piet Croucamp, a political analyst at NWU, said the vagueness is the point. He said the restrictions rely on a provision giving the Secretary of State wide discretion, leaving room to target anyone from legislators to officials. He suggested Julius Malema may be a principal target. “In practice, the visa restrictions are less a precise legal instrument than a flexible political stick,” he said.
The dispute also overlaps with foreign policy. Washington has criticised South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
Croucamp also acknowledged weaknesses in Pretoria’s position, saying there is a fair argument that its foreign policy is driven more by ideology and the ANC’s historical relationships than by consistent human rights principles.
His main concern is escalation. Targeting individuals could make it easier to move to trade measures, he warned. “Changes to AGOA access or tariffs would hurt far more South Africans than a visa ban,” he said. Workers, exporters and their families would bear the cost of a dispute they had little part in.
The analysis argues that Africa’s answer lies in building stronger economies, more trading partners and deeper intra-African trade. The African Continental Free Trade Area aims to create a single market for goods and services, and making it work would strengthen the continent’s bargaining position. That requires functioning infrastructure, credible institutions and governments willing to remove barriers between African businesses.
African states need not agree on every dispute, it says, but should recognise the danger of negotiating with powerful countries from a position of overwhelming dependence.
Ends…
Source: Analysis by Bertie Jacobs, North-West University (NWU), South Africa. Commentary by Prof. Piet Croucamp, NWU. Issued 2 October 2026.
Loading …
Leave a Reply