The recent summoning of US ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III to Pretoria was not merely a diplomatic formality; it was a necessary and principled rebuke of conduct unbecoming a foreign envoy. When Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola issued a demarche to the new ambassador, he was not picking a fight with a strategic partner.
He was upholding the foundational principle of international relations: respect for the sovereignty and judicial independence of the host nation.
Bozell’s primary transgression was not merely that he criticised South African policy – diplomats often engage in robust dialogue – but also how he did it. Speaking at Biznews gathering in Hermanus, Bozell dismissed a ruling of the Constitutional Court regarding the “Kill the Boer” chant with the retort, “I don’t care what your courts say.”
In a mature democracy, one may disagree with a court ruling, but a foreign diplomat openly declaring that he holds a nation’s highest judicial authority in contempt is a breach of etiquette so profound that it necessitated an official response. As Lamola correctly stated, “Our courts are very independent,” and their findings must be respected.
The ambassador also overstepped by presenting what he termed “five demands” to South Africa, ranging from a review of the Expropriation Act to a revision of the country’s foreign policy.
While the US is entitled to its preferences, the language of “demands” is reserved for subordinate states, not equal sovereign partners.
Furthermore, Bozell’s characterisation of South Africa’s domestic policies revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the nation’s historical context. By criticising Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment as discriminatory, he ignored the structural realities of apartheid. Lamola defended these measures eloquently, stating they are “not reverse racism” but essential instruments to address “the structural imbalances of South Africa’s unique history”.
The minister pointed out how Bozell’s remarks in Hermanus were in sharp contrast with the positive attitude he displayed when the two met shortly after Trump’s controversial envoy pick first arrived in South Africa.
“In the initial meetings there was positive and constructive engagement that was aimed towards bridging these difficult relations that are now happening. And it is also within that context that he was demarched to engage ‘remember our meeting, our engagements’, but these remarks are not in line with the commitment you have made and we have (also) made. It is going to deteriorate the relationship which we want to build. And there is no other way of bridging relations when things are difficult other than to engage with those that do not agree with you,” Lamola told the media.
Ultimately, this incident was not about shutting down debate but about demanding respect. Bozell has since apologised and retracted his remarks, acknowledging the judiciary’s independence. This was a win for diplomacy.
