Navigating a Multipolar World: Shaping Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

Thabo Mbeki

If we take our three administrations of 1994, 1999, and 2004, I am sure you will agree with me that, the one person in those administrations who was most experienced in international relations was Aziz. He was indeed, in a sense, the expert on whom we depended for guidance with regard to these issues. 

I am very glad that we have decided to say something at this meeting about his book, The Insurgent Diplomat because that tells a particular story, which is important.

All of us will recall the time when the US, supported in particular by the United Kingdom, went to war against Iraq in 2003. We were very interested in stopping that war before it broke out. 

So, what happened was that Aziz had to engage Saddam Hussein on the issue of the cooperation of Iraq with the UN arms inspectors who were led by the Former Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Hans Blix.

It was clear to us watching at a distance that not enough cooperation was happening, and indeed, Hans Blix was talking publicly about that.

To avoid a war, Aziz engaged, then President Saddam Hussein to convince him of the importance of cooperating with the UN and dealing with the challenge related to weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam agreed. 

He led a delegation to go to Iraq, to engage the Iraqis on whether they owned weapons of mass destruction. The delegation led by Aziz wrote a report and said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The report was submitted to the United Nations Security Council. When President George Bush called me to say that he was very concerned about the possibility of this war, and wanted to avoid it if he could.

I said to him, that there is a report at the UN Security Council which says there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he should access that report. 

I'm telling you this story because this was an indication of the kind of serious engagements in which Aziz would be involved, and of course, we all know when the war broke out and the search started for these weapons of mass destruction, the result confirmed what Aziz and his team had said, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 

I am also mentioning the Insurgent Diplomat book because one of the things that it deals with is four years which focused on preparing for the transition from apartheid to democracy, in which Aziz was involved. 

A group of leading Afrikaners - academics, business people, leaders in the church, and professionals - who I could say undertook a voyage of discovery, which was to talk to the ANC to find out what the ANC is, and what it thinks. What is its view about the future of South Africa?

They had to discover this because they had brought themselves up with a fake notion of what the ANC was. Aziz engaged in this discussion for four years. They would ask questions like, “When we say the people shall govern, what do we mean?” because in their understanding, we meant the ANC shall govern, that there would be an election, one election, and the ANC would win and stay in power forever.

We had to explain all of this, we had to explain when we say South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, after all of these centuries of oppression by the white minority, what do we mean?

Aziz was a part of the process of explaining what that meant, and what it would mean once South Africa was liberated.

I am quite sure that Aziz would have been very shocked if he read the executive order that was issued on the 7th of February by the President of the United States.

Aziz would have been shocked to listen to that, because he spent many years explaining what the ANC stood for and what it would mean for South Africa, what that would mean for South Africa when the country was liberated, that you could have a false statement like that is being propagated.

But, Aziz would have treated this as a wake-up call.

In this sense, it indicated that it was as imperative, correctly, to understand the world in the world in which we engage in foreign policy and international relations.

To understand how any government could so readily accept a falsehood of that kind. To understand the world in which we engage in foreign policy and international relations.

Let me ask some robust questions: 

• Does DIRCO understand the world in which it engages international relations for the people of South Africa? 
• Does it have the internal capacity to develop this understanding?
• In practice, what is done, practically, to get this understanding? 
• What is done to relate policy to that understanding?

I think these are very serious questions that Aziz would have raised so that whatever we do, is based on an objective understanding, and an understanding of the objective world within which policy develops, which might have explained why a falsehood like this claim about the persecution of Afrikaners, was accepted by an important government in the world.

In that context of understanding the world, let me make some remarks about the United States.

In March, the US issued its annual threat assessment developed by the US Intelligence Community, and it is important to study and understand this as part of understanding the objective world within which we operate. The US intelligence asset threat assessment, among others, has a section headed Major State Actors that says that: 

“Several major state actors present proximate and enduring threats to the United States and its interests in the world, challenging U.S. military and economic strength, regionally and globally. China stands out as the actor most capable of threatening US interests globally, though it is also more cautious than Russia, Iran, and North Korea about risking its economic and diplomatic image in the world by being too aggressive and disruptive. Growing cooperation among these actors expands the threat, increasing the risk that should hostilities with one occur, it may draw in others.”

This assessment of the US Intelligence Community about major state actors also contains a section dealing with Transnational Islamic Extremists, and it says:

“ISIS’s most aggressive branches, including ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), and its entrepreneurial plotters will continue to seek to attack the West, including the United States, via online outreach and propaganda aimed at directing, enabling, or inspiring attacks, and could exploit vulnerable travel routes.

I think the legitimate question that arises from these quotations is what the implications for Africa of these assessments are, concerning major state actors and transnational Islamic extremists as the US intelligence report says.

So far, of course, there is no Africa policy from the Trump administration, but in December 2018, which policy would have informed us about whether these intelligence assessments have an impact in terms of US policy towards Africa?

I am saying so far there isn't such a policy, but in December 2018, during President Trump's first term, Ambassador John Bolton, who was the National Security Adviser to President Trump, spoke about the Trump administration's new Africa strategy, and here is what he said:

“We have prioritized everything, developing this new Africa strategy document because we understand that lasting stability, prosperity, independence, and security on the African continent are in the national security interest of the United States. We want our economic partners in the region to thrive, to prosper, and to control their destinies. In America's economic dealings, we ask only for reciprocity, never for subservience”. 

And, “Second, countering the threat from Radical Islamic Terrorism and violent conflict…

He went on to say:

“Great power competitors, namely China and Russia, are rapidly expanding their financial and political influence across Africa. They are deliberately and aggressively targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage over the United States… 

“China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands.” And continued, “Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption, and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as U.S. developmental programs…

He went on to say that “Russia, for its part, is also seeking to increase its influence in the region through corrupt economic dealings. Across the continent, Russia advances its political and economic relationships with little regard for the rule of law or accountable and transparent governance.

“It continues to sell arms and energy in exchange for votes at the United Nations—votes that keep strongmen in power, undermine peace and security, and run counter to the best interests of the African people…

“In short, the predatory practices pursued by China and Russia stunt economic growth in Africa; threaten the financial independence of African nations; inhibit opportunities for U.S. investment; interfere with U.S. military operations; and pose a significant threat to U.S. national security interests.

And he says, “We will focus our economic efforts on African governments that act with us as strategic partners, and which are striving toward improved governance and transparent business practices."

We do not know whether the current Trump administration will persist with these positions concerning what it has described as its strategic adversaries according to its threat assessment. 

It may very well be that the current administration may take what John Bolton said on behalf of the first Trump administration, as a framework within which to formulate their Africa policies. If that is the case, the question arises, what does Africa do, in light of that? 

So, the question arises, what do we do, as the continent, in light of what Bolton said about countering the threat from radical Islamic terrorism and violent conflict and the commitment he made that the US would intervene in Africa to achieve that objective?

Another matter which was of importance relates to the global economy, raised in the context of what the Trump administration has been saying about raising tariffs on many products. It raises a question, therefore, not only of tariffs but of the economy. In terms of the global economy, what does the Trump administration think?

Alistair Crooke is a former British Ambassador and belongs to a group called the Conflicts Forum, in this regard, talking about the economy, he makes an interesting proposition. He writes: “The post-WWII geo-political outcome effectively determined the post-war global economic structure.”  And says, “Both are now undergoing huge change.”

He says, “The US has been forced into two major conclusions: First, that the budget deficit coupled with exploding Federal debt finally has turned the ‘Resource Curse’ back onto the US.”

Crooke continues to say, “As the ‘keeper’ of the global Reserve Currency, it has necessarily made America’s primordial export to become the US dollar. By extension, it means that the strong dollar (buoyed by a global synthetic demand for the reserve currency) has eviscerated America’s real economy - its manufacturing base.”

Crooke writes that “The US administration has two answers to this conundrum, which is to weaken the value of the dollar and therefore to increase the value of the partner's status currencies. Thus, the US solution is to force the rest of the world to appreciate their currencies to improve the US export competitiveness.” 

“The second option”, he says, “is a unilateral approach. In the unilateral approach, a ‘user fee’ on foreign official holdings of US Treasuries would be imposed to drive reserve managers out of the dollar – and thus weaken it.”

Crookes further says a “US economic rebalancing is coming, and says, “Putin is right, the post-World War two economic order is gone”. 

This analysis may be right or wrong, but I think the size of the issues it is raising, concerning a country which can still make a major impact on the global economy is important, and therefore emphasising the need to understand the global economic objectives of the Trump administration. 

Alistair Crooke said Putin was right and that the old economic order was on the way out, creating new possibilities. And it talks about what Putin said earlier this month when he addressed the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.

He was talking about Russia, in the context of this economic world order that is on its way out. Putin said:

“Sanctions are neither temporary nor targeted measures; they constitute a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Regardless of global developments or shifts in the international order, our competitors will perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities…

And he says, “I reiterate: sanctions and restrictions are the reality of the existing new stage of development that the entire world, the entire global economy, has entered. The global competitive struggle has intensified, assuming increasingly sophisticated and uncompromising forms…

"(But) The so-called Western dominance is slipping away, and new global growth centres taking the centre stage is a long-term trend, and I want to emphasise that. Yes, of course, we are fully aware of the advantages offered by our so-called Western partners, such as advanced technology and production process organisation…"

“Of course,” he says, “this long-term trend will remain unchanged. It will be bolstered up by, among other things, the BRICS development platform that is currently taking shape.”

What Putin is arguing here is that despite all obstacles, essentially, because of the old order in the economy, the global order no longer holds.

What's our reading about this?

Is the world order, the old economic order, on the way out? Are Putin and Alistair Crooke, correct? And where does that position us and position the African continent, if that is a reality?

Some have correctly suggested that despite this changing world, it is still necessary to make an objective assessment of the power of the United States, given its prominent economic, technological, and military standing globally.

South Africa itself, of course, has been exposed to some action by the Trump administration. The challenge remains, with all these various assessments of what the Trump administration stands for, how should we relate to the US, under the Trump administration?

In my view, it is not a very straightforward matter, but I believe that in this regard, DIRCO must give us the lead. 

As Aziz insisted, we are seeing the emergence of a multipolar world; the issues we've been discussing are part of that multipolarity. Many were surprised when the new US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said during an interview on the 30th of January 2025:

“So, it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power.  It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet.” 

He said, “We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.”

In the same interview, he said:

“The way the world has always worked is that the Chinese will do what’s in the best interests of China, the Russians will do what’s in the best interest of Russia, the Chileans are going to do what’s in the best interest of Chile, and the United States needs to do what’s in the best interest of the United States.”

It is obvious that an important part of what is in the best interest of Africa is its correct and timely positioning in the evolving multipolar world, so that the emerging global order places our Continent in a better position to address its many challenges of the eradication of poverty and underdevelopment, silencing the guns, ensuring that the people govern and ending Africa’s international marginalisation.

The serious challenge in this regard is that there is no evidence or sign anywhere that Africa’s political and intellectual leadership is not only conscious of the need to define our Continent’s place in the emerging multipolar world but is ready to act on this urgent matter.

Given its recent performance with regard to many of Africa’s contemporary challenges, it is very doubtful that the Continental body, the African Union, would be up to this task.

This problem is compounded by the reality that over the years the spirit of Pan-Africanism among our African political leadership in general has waned significantly, such that, to borrow a favourite Aziz expression, “very few among these eat, sleep and dream while at the same time focusing on addressing the historic task of achieving Africa’s renaissance”.

It would therefore be very apposite that as DIRCO is engaged in this inaugural process of honouring a giant thinker and practitioner in the field of international relations, Aziz Pahad, it should resolve to lead the process whereby our country, a member state of the African Union, would present to the AU, a concrete programme Africa should follow practically to define and find its rightful place in the emerging multipolar world.

* This is an edited version of Former President and Patron of the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Thabo Mbeki's, statement at the launch of the inaugural Dr Aziz Pahad Peace, Security and Human Rights Dialogue held in Pretoria on March 31, 2025.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.