[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



     EXAMINING THE CURRENT U.S.-SOUTH AFRICA BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           September 27, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-49

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs





                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                



Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 

                       or http://www.govinfo.gov







                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-674PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023











                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida		     AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California		     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 	     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    American Samoa		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		         Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey	     JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York	     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida		     JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia		     JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas

                                     
                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Africa

                           JOHN JAMES, Chair

CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey        SARA JACOBS, California, Ranking Member 
YOUNG KIM, California                SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Florida    
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     COLIN ALLRED, Texas    
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey	     JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida

                       Joe Foltz, Staff Director











                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Carroll, Anthony, Adjunct Professor, John Hopkins University 
  School of Advanced International Studies.......................     7
Tlhabi, Redi, Senior South African Journalist, Broadcaster, and 
  Moderator......................................................    15
Maroleng, Chris, International Chief Executive Officer, South 
  African Development Community, and Executive Director, Good 
  Governance Africa..............................................    22

                  INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Information submitted for the record.............................    40

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    52
Hearing Minutes..................................................    54
Hearing Attendance...............................................    55

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    56










 
     EXAMINING THE CURRENT U.S.-SOUTH AFRICA BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP

                     Wednesday, September 27, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Africa,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. John James (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. James. Good afternoon. The Committee on Foreign Affairs 
Subcommittee on Africa will come to order. The purpose of this 
hearing is to examine the current status of the United States-
South Africa bilateral relationship. And I recognize myself for 
an opening statement.
    I am quite proud of the United States and South Africa's 
cordial relations for nearly my entire life. South Africa has 
been the United States' largest trading partner in Africa since 
2014. It is home to hundreds of American businesses, and the 
value of our two-way trade has reached 21 billion in 2021.
    However, it is becoming clear that the African National 
Congress of today is no longer the party of Nelson Mandela. 
While the South African story is one of hope, reconciliation, 
and determination, the ANC today is motivated by perpetuating a 
system of elite capture built on corruption and increasing 
government dependence through its national democratic 
revolution and while clearly deepening relations with the 
Chinese Communist Party and Putin's Russia.
    As a Black man, I carry the knowledge of my own country's 
historical burden of inequality. And as a conservative Black 
man, I understand that hard work, perseverance, and getting a 
shot pays off. That is clearly not the case in South Africa's 
ruling party, where nearly 30 years into ANC rule, the South 
African people are more dependent than ever on a State that 
fails to consistently provide even the most basic services and 
provides bad policy.
    Take the example of Black Economic Empowerment, a policy 
intended to support historically disadvantaged Black citizens 
by providing increased access to the economy, but one that is 
repeatedly being undermined by corruption and nepotism from the 
ANC elites, who have manipulated the scheme for personal gain 
at the expense of the broader Black populace.
    The ANC elite are focused on increasing dependence on the 
State in order to exert control. Recently, it was publicly 
statedthat there are now 18 million South Africans receiving 
State grants compared to just 2.5 million in 1999, much of this 
going to provide basic needs at the failure of State to 
generate meaningful and sustained employment that can only come 
with a healthy, growing private sector.
    Another disastrous policy is the ANC's land reform effort 
to enforce expropriation without compensation and to destroy 
South Africa's constitutionally protected private property 
rights. The ANC claims that land reform and EWC are widely 
popular, but their own surveys show that only 2 percent of 
Black South Africans identify land reform as a serious 
unresolved problem, while 80 percent prioritize economic growth 
and more jobs over land expropriation. Despite this, the ANC is 
currently pushing the expropriation bill and Land Court Bill 
through Parliament to reward themselves for a job poorly done.
    There is no country in the world that has remained 
democratic after removing its population's private property 
rights. And I remain concerned about the ANC's democratic drift 
away from constitutional rule, especially in light of the 
Electoral Amendment Act being signed into law in April. This 
legislation undermines the fundamental democratic principle of 
proportional representation. Counting independent votes as 
votes for the majority, the ANC is not a step toward 
constitutional rule. It is a further step away from democracy.
    In February, I introduced a House Resolution 145, which 
criticized specific aspects of the ANC's growing relationship 
with the Chinese Communist Party and Russia. Specifically, it 
highlighted South Africa's hosting of military exercises with 
Russia and China on the anniversary of Russia's further 
invasion of Ukraine and the fact that South Africa has 
abstained on multiple United Nations votes condemning Russia's 
invasion, an invasion that an official ANC policy blames on the 
United States and attributes to NATO's eastward expansion. This 
while the ANC accepted roughly 826,000 from a firm directly 
linked to the sanctioned Russian billionaire Victor Vekselberg.
    More recently, the ANC hosted the BRICS conference in 
Johannesburg and has actively involved itself in Moscow/
Beijing's effort to de-dollarize the global monetary system and 
rewrite international norms. Simply put, I believe these 
actions are inconsistent with South Africa's proud tradition of 
nonalignment, and it should not go unaddressed in our 
relationship.
    In conclusion, in her meeting with Secretary Blinken 
yesterday, Foreign Minister Pandor described the United States 
as one of the most important partners for South Africa. The 
United States has provided over 8 billion in bilateral aid to 
South Africa in the past 20 years, much of this through PEPFAR, 
an incredible bipartisan effort that has roughly halved South 
Africa's national HIV and AIDS mortality rate.
    The United States is South Africa's second-largest trading 
partner, and 21 percent of South Africa's exports to the U.S. 
enjoy nonreciprocal duty-free trade status. I have said before 
and I will say again, South Africa has a choice in what 
partners to prioritize. But so, too, does the United States. I 
believe it entirely appropriate to scrutinize the conduct of 
our important partner when the risks compromising our strong, 
dynamic bilateral relationship are at hand.
    In closing, it is my belief that South Africa is currently 
at an inflection point, and I view the next several months as 
critical in demonstrating whether it will put our important 
partnership back on track.
    The chair now recognizes the ranking member, the 
Congresswoman from California, Ms. Jacobs, for any statements 
you may have.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair and all the witnesses, for 
testifying before the subcommittee today on the current U.S.-
South Africa bilateral relationship.
    I think it is important to remember that our relationship 
with South Africa doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is built on 
decades of complicated history that, at times, has been self-
serving and shortsighted. So we cannot talk about today's 
relationship with South Africa without recognizing our history 
and understanding how it impacts our present and our future.
    The story of our relationship with South Africa is familiar 
to many African countries during the cold war. Too often, the 
U.S. supported and propped up authoritarian regimes in exchange 
for fleeting geostrategic alignment. In the long term, these 
decisions have fermented resentment against the U.S. and the 
regimes we supported, often undermining our long-term 
interests.
    In the 1980's, the United States supported the apartheid 
regime in South Africa largely because it took on anti-
communist efforts in the region and was aligned with the United 
States during the cold war. The Reagan Administration demonized 
opponents of apartheid, namely the African National Congress, 
as dangerous and communist, even designating the ANC as a 
terrorist organization. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union supported 
the ANC in their liberation efforts.
    Fifty years later, we are still feeling the legacy of these 
relationships. South Africa's majority party, the ANC, is more 
aligned with Russia instead of the United States. And 
thankfully, since then, we have made significant progress in 
the bilateral relationship and are now a strong friend and 
partner of the South African people, as demonstrated by our 
strong trade relationship through AGOA, significant gains we 
have made in health with our PEPFAR programs, and the over 600 
U.S. companies in the country.
    But at the same time, we still see some justified lingering 
resentment. That is why, in this new age of strategic 
competition, we need to keep this history and these lessons in 
mind, lest we make the same mistakes again. The Biden 
Administration understands this, as their strategy toward Sub-
Saharan Africa makes it clear that the U.S. seeks partnership 
with African countries, and we won't force Congress to choose 
between the PRC or Russia and the United States.
    African countries do not want to be forced to choose, as 
they had to do during the cold war. And frankly, it is not in 
the U.S.'s interest to do so because we may not like the 
outcome. We know there are very real challenges between our two 
countries, and we shouldn't ignore them or brush them aside. 
But real partnership means being honest and clear about these 
challenges and working through them together, like the endemic 
corruption within the government, particularly since former 
President Zuma's Administration and within the ANC itself. And 
when the Lady R, a U.S.-sanctioned Russian ship, recently 
docked near Cape Town and allegedly transported weapons to 
Russia, we were very clear that this was a violation of U.S. 
sanctions.
    But we also cannot let these challenges get in the way of 
the many opportunities that our bilateral relationship creates. 
So we need to find productive ways to continue engaging with 
the South African people on issues of mutual interest, whether 
that is economic growth, addressing the energy crisis, good 
governance, or building a just and representative global 
governance system. And we need to make sure that our policy 
toward the South African Government do not have negative 
impacts on our relationship with the South African people.
    So I am looking forward to hearing from experts here today 
on their perspectives and recommendations on how U.S. 
policymakers should address the opportunities and challenges in 
the U.S. relationship with South Africa.
    I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Ms. Jacobs.
    Other members of the committee are reminded that opening 
statements may be submitted for the record.
    We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses 
before us today. Mr. Anthony Carroll is an adjunct professor at 
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International 
Studies. Redi Tlhabi is a senior South African journalist, 
broadcaster, and moderator. Chris Maroleng is the international 
chief executive officer at SADC, executive director of Good 
Governance Africa.
    Thank you for being here today. Your full statements will 
be made part of the record, and I will ask each of you to keep 
your spoken remarks to about 5 minutes in order to allow time 
for questions.
    I now recognize Mr. Carroll for his opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF ANTHONY CARROLL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, JOHN HOPKINS 
      UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

    Mr. Carroll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    South Africa can be viewed as a glass that is both half 
empty and half full. South Africa has Africa's most advanced 
economy, offering sophisticated capital markets, financial 
institutions, and professional services. South Africa's leading 
research universities collaborate with U.S. counterparts in 
myriad areas. South African companies such as MTN, Shoprite, 
Standard Bank, Absa, and Aspen Pharmaceuticals have become 
omnipresent in Africa.
    The courts in South Africa are professional and 
independent. South Africa's media is open and independent and 
outspoken. Its Reserve Bank is independent of government and 
operates in accordance with global monetary standards, and its 
Department of Treasury does its best to monitor fiscal 
policies.
    As a result, the rand is the most stable and convertible 
currency in Africa. The Southern African Customs Union includes 
South Africa's four neighboring countries, ensuring duty-free 
access across borders and providing a revenue-sharing formula.
    From a civil liberties standpoint, there are no constraints 
on free speech or exercise of religion. Since 1994, South 
Africa has held free and fair elections and has a vibrant 
multiparty democracy. And South Africa has a robust civil 
society.
    Yet by many measures, South Africa is a failing State. 
Unemployment is estimated to exceed 40 percent, particularly 
for youth. Almost half of South Africa's households receive 
some form of welfare payment. The country has among the worst 
distributions of wealth in the world. Labor is expensive and 
inflexible. Corruption and criminality are at frightening 
levels and involve international criminal networks from 
Nigeria, Russia, and China, resulting in South Africa's being 
placed on the FATF grey list.
    Infrastructure is collapsing at the national and local 
levels. The failure to deliver on critical public services has 
undermined confidence, resulting in low voter turnout in recent 
elections and a brain drain. Last, xenophobia is rampant and 
often deadly.
    The U.S. economic relationship with South Africa is mixed. 
No country has benefited from AGOA as much as South Africa. 
Last year, South Africa exported over $14 billion in goods to 
the U.S., and the U.S. exported 6.5 billion of goods at an 
increase of 15 percent from 2021, and another estimated 2 
billion in services. Our imports from South Africa include 
manufactured goods and agricultural products that employ 
thousands of people and have fostered the emergence of regional 
value chains.
    Over 600 U.S. companies operate in South Africa, and many 
do so as a gateway to Africa. Blue-chip U.S. companies, such as 
Pfizer, J&J, Amazon Web Services, Stellantis, and Ford have all 
recently invested billions of dollars in South Africa plays an 
important role in our quest to secure critical minerals.
    While our diplomatic relationship has foundered in such 
areas as intellectual property rights and the United Nations, 
South Africa does provide fertile ground for U.S. development 
assistance, most notably with PEPFAR. Additionally, myriad 
collaborations between U.S. institutions and South African 
counterparts exist. For example, Texas Children's Hospital is 
supporting the training of South African pediatric oncologists 
and nurses at two leading South African hospitals. And at last, 
among all nations, South Africa--U.S. is the leading 
contributor to South African tourism.
    But our relations in South Africa have been colored by 
recent developments. South Africa's trade relationship with 
China has blossomed, and China is now its largest trading 
partner. However, there is much dissatisfaction on both sides 
of that relationship. China has not been able to assert its 
will over South Africa that it has in other African countries, 
and there is much dissatisfaction in South Africa because that 
trade is largely the export of raw materials and the import of 
finished goods. Many South Africans fear that that BRICS will 
become primarily a vehicle for Chinese commercial and political 
influence.
    South Africa's relationship with Russia is also perplexing. 
The recent joint military maneuvers with China and Russia 
underscore South Africa's ambivalence about reproaching Russia 
for its aggression. The ANC's largest donor is a Russian 
oligarch. However, this closeness is not new. The ANC received 
decades of support from the Soviet Union in its struggle 
against apartheid, and many aging leaders of the ANC were 
educated in the Eastern Bloc.
    Upon the installation of a democratic government, South 
Africa and then the Russian Federation entered into an 
agreement of cooperation. But Russia's economic influence in 
South Africa is minuscule in comparison to that of the U.S., 
and recent polls have showed that South Africans do not support 
Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
    In conclusion, while I share the concerns of many about the 
direction of our relations with South Africa, I would oppose 
making it ineligible for AGOA. First, I do not believe that its 
embrace of Russia constituted a direct threat to U.S. security. 
Second, goods exported by--to the United States provide 
critical jobs to South Africa and provide lower-priced goods 
for the U.S. consumers. Third, South Africa's removal from AGOA 
would only play into the hands of anti-U.S. elements within the 
ANC and the radical EFF party.
    Also, South Africa is a member of SACU. Removal would 
damage the economies of friends, member States. Rather, while 
AGOA needs to be extended in this Congress, that does not 
preclude starting--restarting negotiations with the U.S. South 
Africa Customs Union free trade agreement as is now being 
negotiated with Kenya.
    Also, South Africa has an economic partnership agreement 
with the U.S.--with the EU that disadvantages U.S. exports. We 
could make South Africa's continuation in AGOA as a beneficiary 
subject to the grant of equivalent status. Third, I am hopeful 
that Africa will conclude the Africa Continental Free Trade 
Agreement that will allow us to enter into a continent-wide 
trade agreement.
    Last, while not directly related to trade, I believe that 
the U.S. can make three vital contributions to South Africa and 
Africa, the world's youngest continent: first, by transferring 
technology; second, making creative capital available; and 
third, educating young African leaders in the U.S. such as to 
the remarkable success of the YALI program.
    Thank you, sir.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Carroll.
    I now recognize Ms. Tlhabi for her opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF REDI TLHABI, SENIOR SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNALIST, 
                   BROADCASTER, AND MODERATOR

    Mrs. Tlhabi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The year 2024 is a seminal moment in South Africa. We, like 
the United States, are entering an election year. We are also 
marking 30 years since the first democratic election in 1994, 
and that moment is special. And I do want to spend time 
reflecting on it because it was the first time that I saw my 
mother voting. She was the same age as I am. My grandparents, 
who were in their 70's, were voting for the first time. And my 
father died without ever voting in the land of his birth.
    This history is important. This election was emblematic of 
a rebirth. A new nation was emerging from the yoke of racism, 
exclusion, and oppression and could offer a model for a 
thriving democracy. The election was about restoring the 
dignity of Black citizens but also assuring our white 
counterparts that South Africa remains a home for them. That 
election was also about providing basic services and economic 
opportunities to the previously disadvantaged.
    So you have used the word ``inflection point,'' and it is 
true next year's election is an inflection point. We arrive at 
that election with the promises of 1994 remaining elusive and 
unfulfilled. The powder keg, though, that could undo our 
democratic edifice--unemployment and inequality. These must be 
taken seriously, as they have a direct impact on citizens' 
engagement and preference for and against democracy.
    The Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa's social 
attitudes survey conducted annually, shows us that South 
Africans are increasingly dissatisfied with democracy. If 
democracy is so good, why are so many South Africans 
increasingly dissatisfied, from 59 percent satisfied with 
democracy in 2004 to only 32 percent satisfied?
    While this research tells us that South Africans attach an 
instrumentalist value to democracy, it is a preferred form of 
governance in as far as it delivers on the socioeconomic needs 
of many. They do not attach to democracy because of its 
intrinsic value of equality before the law. They do not see it 
as the best political method to advance human rights, dignity, 
freedom, and equality. It is about basic services and the right 
to economic opportunities. These restore human dignity far more 
than anything else.
    I would like to suggest that there is a strong link between 
democracy on the ground and our foreign policy choices. South 
Africa's democracy must not be allowed to collapse, even as 
some of its foreign policy choices are found disappointing.
    A strong economy keeps rogue nations out. We have seen 
Russia's aggressive return and reengagement with the continent, 
and we must use the word ``return and reengagement'' because it 
suggests that there was a time when Russia left Africa, which 
is not a message that it preaches. It likes to create an 
impression that it was always on African soil. It wasn't. The 
Soviets did leave Africa, and that relationship itself was 
complicated. They are returning now.
    I do want to say that Africa is not monolithic. There is 
diversity and plurality. We see with Russia's engagement is 
that they have been most successful in weaker States where 
democracy is precarious, where the regulatory environment is 
nonexistent, and where the returns are quick. I repeat this. 
Russia has been most successful in weaker nations where 
democracy is flimsy: Madagascar, Sudan, the Central African 
Republic. The list goes on.
    Africa is not only a stage on which Russia projects its 
power to the United States and its western allies but also a 
space for the exploitation of new commercial opportunities. Why 
does Russia succeed? Russia has presented this history as an 
ally of Africa, claiming to treat the continent as an equal 
partner in strengthening economies and crafting a multipolar 
world that can offer a geopolitical counterbalance in the world 
order.
    It uses normative justifications like anti-imperialism and 
sovereignty to penetrate the continent. These messages find 
fertile ground in a continent that is breaking free from the 
shackles of colonialism, imperialism, and racism. This message 
matters to Africans, and Russia recognizes that and exploits 
it.
    The United States, while being our strong ally and partner, 
does not quite enjoy the same affection, and it is not only 
because of the Soviets' ties to the ruling party in South 
Africa, but it is because the U.S. is viewed as threatening and 
condescending. Some epistemic humility is required as the U.S. 
engages with its partners.
    Africans value their hard-earned autonomy, and any partner 
that adopts a paternalistic tone is viewed with disdain. The 
United States is viewed as a country that seldom reflects on 
its own contradictions and inconsistencies and uses its 
economic and military might to ensure that others toe the line 
while adopting a different set of rules for itself.
    In Niger, there has been a coup. A coup is antidemocratic. 
But the United States is vulnerable there from a security and 
an antiterrorism point of view, and you have had to engage with 
the coup leaders. It is not ideal, but we agree that a coup is 
unsavory and antidemocratic. You work with what you have in 
foreign relations, and South Africa has a relationship with 
Russia.
    But we value the relationship with the United States. It is 
true that South Africa benefits richly from its relationship 
with the United States far more than it does from its 
relationship with Russia. South Africa also has far more in 
common with the United States than with Russia, a free press--I 
can say whatever I want to say about South Africa, and nothing 
happens to me--a robust civil society that pushes back against 
State excesses, a free judiciary. These are our common values, 
and perhaps they offer some pathway to salvage that 
relationship.
    But South Africa and other African countries do not want to 
appear weak, do not want to appear to be dancing to the tune of 
the United States. Western governments will need to take Africa 
into their confidence regarding geopolitical matters rather 
than berate the sovereign stances of countries that feel and 
seem and undermine.
    The United States must demonstrate respect for historical 
wounds and the sovereignty that matters so greatly to its 
African counterparts. The historical ties with Russia are 
there, but now there is growing mistrust. The vaccine 
inequality caused some injury to African citizens. The lack of 
a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council--those 
things matters. It makes Africans feel that United States is 
our friend on its terms; the door doesn't quite open and open 
fully.
    We must not exaggerate Russia's influence on South Africa 
and other African nations, but it is worth reflecting on how 
the United States treats its partners. It is worth reflecting 
on what this nonalignment--why it matters to African countries. 
Seek to understand rather than throwing a fit of pique.
    Russia's influence is limited by the extent to which it can 
influence the political elite of the country and spread its 
patronage network. In South Africa, Russia has not succeeded in 
penetrating the State. There was aggressive pushback against 
the nuclear deal, which would have bankrupted our State.
    There is much affection for our history with the United 
States. There is an embrace of the vibrancy of the United 
States democracy, and there is much alignment. While South 
Africa's position on Russia's aggression was disappointing, I 
posit that away from the flashing cameras and slogans, our 
democratic institutions have held that they need to be 
supported.
    Furthermore, programs that bolster economic growth and 
democracy will go a long way in closing the door for any rogue 
players and ensuring that the South African State always acts 
within the dictates of liberal democracy and constitutionalism.
    Thank you, Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Tlhabi follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Mr. James. Mrs. Tlhabi, I--your remarks were quite 
incredible, so I let you extend for about three and a half 
minutes because your words were very important. Thank you very 
much. But in the future, if we could attend to time, it would 
be very much appreciated. Well done.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Apologies, Chair. Thank you.
    Mr. James. The chairman now recognizes Mr. Maroleng for his 
opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF CHRIS MAROLENG, INTERNATIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
  OFFICER, SOUTH AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, AND EXECUTIVE 
                DIRECTOR, GOOD GOVERNANCE AFRICA

    Mr. Maroleng. Chairman John James, Ranking Member Sara 
Jacobs, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on 
Africa, let me start by expressing my gratitude for the 
invitation to express views of my organization, Good Governance 
Africa, on this crucially important subject of bilateral 
relations between the United States and South Africa. We are 
indeed honored to appear before you today.
    With your permission, Chair, I would like to summarize my 
original remarks and submit the rest to the subcommittee 
record.
    South Africa, as has been mentioned by many of those who 
have testified today, stands at a crossroad of profound 
significance. We have overcome colonialism, apartheid. It now 
faces two critical new challenges, the first being finding its 
place in the world entering a new era of great power 
competition and the post-apartheid State susceptibility to 
opportunistic governance and the mismanagement of our country's 
economy.
    While we take a moment to acknowledge South Africa's 
commendable strides since the dawn of democracy some 30 years 
ago, such as our robust democratic framework and unwavering 
judicial independence, we should be equally robust in 
acknowledging our shortcomings.
    Let us begin with a frank assessment of South Africa's 
domestic situation. The diminishing efficacy of the State, the 
escalating specter of crime, and the decline of health and 
educational standards are pressing concerns. The State has 
become a hub for political patronage and cronyism, leading to 
conflicts between and within big business and the private 
sector.
    The deterioration of South Africa's State-owned 
enterprises, especially our Nation's power supply, Eskom, 
threatens political stability and social harmony. The governing 
elites' interest, marked by corruption, have resulted in 
mismanagement and financial instability.
    The ideological battles in the ANC over the State's role in 
the economy arise from resource conflicts, with the greatest 
challenge being the antidemocratic politics that have been 
marked by a tax on key State institutions, which have broadly 
come to be described in South Africa as State capture.
    Its second great challenge, we would argue, comes from 
renewed emerging rivalries between major economies such as 
China, India, Russia, and the United States. The rivalries will 
define how the world navigates some of the great challenges of 
our century. To name a few, these are conflict, technological 
disruption, climate change mitigation, and poverty alleviation.
    South Africa remains an important partner to the great 
powers. It is the greatest individual trading partner that 
China, the EU, India, and the United States each have on the 
African continent. It also ranks among the top five African 
countries in terms of aggregate trade with Russia. Great powers 
are therefore seeking South Africa's support, especially over 
contentious issues.
    At the heart of the tension lies fundamental differences in 
foreign policy. The South African foreign policy, characterized 
by active nonalignment, contrasts with the United States' 
assertive global posture, which is a reflection of its power on 
the global stage.
    These differences have been notably evident in key areas. 
The war in Ukraine has been a contentious issue. South Africa's 
reluctance to join in international condemnation over Russia's 
invasion of the Ukraine stands in sharp contrast to the United 
States' stance against Russian aggression. Another flashpoint 
has been the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two nations have 
adopted divergent approaches and perspectives toward the Middle 
East, deepening this seeming rift between them.
    Further complicating matters is South Africa's growing 
alignment with China, particularly as a member of BRICS. 
China's increasing economic and strategic influence in South 
Africa has raised concerns in the United States, which views 
China as a strategic competitor.
    A particularly contentious event was South Africa's 
decision to host naval exercises with Russia and China in 
February 2023. The move was met with sharp criticism from the 
United States, which perceived it as undermining diplomatic 
efforts to isolate Russia.
    The deterioration in relationships between Washington and 
Pretoria has thrown into sharp relief--or has been thrown into 
sharp relief when the United States Ambassador, Reuben Brigety, 
alleged that South Africa had supplied arms to Russia in 
December 2022 using the Russian carrier Lady R. Ambassador 
Brigety has yet to provide tangible evidence to validate these 
claims.
    This claim did appear, on the face of it, not being privy 
to the background sequence of events, to have resulted in 
convincing Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, to forgo in-
person attendance at the recent BRICS summit in Johannesburg.
    For many, these events have exposed a contradiction in 
South Africa's foreign policy. Many see strategic nonalignment 
as incongruent with our constitutional aspirations of human 
dignity, the achievement of equality, and the advancement of 
human rights and freedom.
    In conclusion, let me State the following. The implication 
of the strange relationship between the United States and South 
Africa is significant and extend beyond the diplomatic arena. 
Trade, investment, and cooperation in a number of sectors have 
characterized the economic relationships between South Africa 
and the United States. South Africa serves as a gateway for 
many of the approximately 600 U.S. businesses into our 
continent.
    Conversely, the U.S. represents a significant market and a 
source of foreign direct investment for South Africa. AGOA has 
boosted South African exports, especially in the automotive and 
agricultural sector. And both countries have shown an interest 
in collaboration in areas like technology research and 
development.
    While any deterioration in the relationship could 
potentially harm South Africa's economy, both--and I repeat 
both--nations have a vested interest in ensuring stability, 
democracy, and human rights in Africa. South Africa remains an 
enormous opportunity to the U.S.
    Chinese loans to Africa are at a two-decade low. We need 
more unconditional initiatives in South Africa underpinned by 
the shared and common values that our countries have. Such an 
approach based on mutually valued norms, anchored on inclusive 
and effective governance, will lead to more enhanced 
cooperation, focusing on people-to-people relations.
    So, in conclusion, as my father used to say, sometimes it 
is not about the message, but it is about the messenger. In 
this regard, the Brigety incident has demonstrated that there 
is a need for the U.S. to maintain decorum in bilateral 
diplomatic relations, while South Africa must carefully manage 
its ties with China and Russia to ensure that it does not come 
at the expense of relationships with this important ally like 
yourselves.
    The U.S. has an opportunity to reimagine the future with 
not just South Africa but the continent as a whole. South 
Africa and the United States have a great deal to offer one 
another. Both societies place a strong emphasis on human 
rights, individual liberties, and protecting the rights of 
citizens.
    As our relationship continues to evolve, our shared values 
and commitment to multilateralism should become the bedrock of 
our collaboration and partnership on various global issues, all 
to the mutual benefit of our great country. Thank you very 
much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Maroleng follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Maroleng.
    I exercised a bit of discretion from the chair to grant a 
few minutes to those who may have traveled many hours to be 
here. Moving forward in the future, in the spirit of respect of 
everyone's time, I will be giving a light gavel at the 1-minute 
warning mark, and then I will be giving a hard gavel at the 
conclusion of 5 minutes. If there are remaining questions, we 
will circle back for another round. Thank you.
    I will now recognize myself for questions. First, Mrs. 
Tlhabi, am I pronouncing your name correctly?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. You're doing great. Thank you.
    Mr. James. OK. Thank you.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. James. Mrs. Tlhabi, South Africa has one of the world's 
most expensive social grant systems, the size of which is 
increasingly growing. In 2023, there are 18 million South 
Africans receiving State grants compared with 2.5 million in 
1999. For comparison, 16 million people in South Africa have a 
job, and only 5.5 million pay income tax.
    This level of increased State dependency is worrying and 
implies decades-long economic failings. In addition to the very 
poignant and, I think, important points that you made around, 
if I can summarize, the United States' finger-wagging foreign 
policy and how it is received and perceived amongst diverse 
groups of South Africans, can you give us a bit of insight into 
what the statistics show about the ANC's ability to govern 
effectively and how the United States can more appropriately 
partner with South Africans to increase opportunity?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. It is absolutely true that the ANC government 
has failed, and it is being articulated through various forms 
of ongoing protests, the proliferation of more opposition 
parties, the strengthening of civil society. And the ANC 
government does indeed speak about the number of recipients of 
social grants as a sign of success.
    Yes, it is true that in a decent nation, you do make 
provisions for the most vulnerable members of society. I do not 
think that South Africa should be ashamed of providing social 
security for those who are indigent and desperate because our 
conditions are really, really dire, especially for those who 
have not tasted the fruit of democracy.
    However, having more and more people rely on the State is a 
sign of poor governance and the poor management of our economy. 
Poor people should not be caught in the crossfire of the ANC's 
poor governance. They need those social grants precisely 
because they are so desperate.
    And I want to support what Chris was saying, that it is 
possible for the United States to reframe a relationship with 
South Africa that comes with certain conditions, conditions 
that will empower the economy, fire up the economy so that we 
have more and more people absorbed into the job market.
    So, in a nutshell, I'm saying a country does need to 
provide for its desperately poor. But the growing number in 
South Africa does indicate poor governance by the South African 
State, and it also shows that our economy has not been run 
properly.
    But I will tell you this, Mr. Chairman, that the United 
States must perhaps consider that our country is not just made 
of government decisions or of the government; it is made of 
citizens, civil society, people who remember the United States' 
history with South Africa, which perhaps is not well exploited.
    I am referring here to an incident that happened in 1986. 
In fact, on the 29th of September is the anniversary of that 
incident where the House overwhelmingly voted 313 to 83 to 
override President Reagan's veto----
    Mr. James. In the time that we have in your response, I 
would like you to maybe give a little bit of insight on exactly 
how we can address the needs of the people without taking that 
paternalistic tone, that condescending contradiction that you 
mentioned before. How can we execute that from the U.S. 
Congress to actually affect the lives positively of South 
Africans?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. I think supporting South African businesses, 
because the business community remains vibrant. It remains 
influential. The business community does often hold the 
government to account.
    When it comes to our energy crisis--I am sure you are 
familiar with the fact that our country has been experiencing 
some load shedding, or blackouts, as it were. It is the 
business community that has come to step up and rescue South 
Africa.
    Mr. James. And what level of accountability can we share 
with the American people that their tax dollars are being used 
efficiently and in their own best interest?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. I think when you start seeing the fruits of 
the investment into South African businesses, youth programs 
that the United States already has and runs with South Africa, 
those kind of interventions that make a real improvement in the 
lives of the people. But also, when you see that South Africa's 
civil society and the voting choices--they are not rewarding 
the ANC. The ANC is the party in power. Of course, there are 
historical reasons for that.
    But when you look at its share of the vote, you can see 
that citizens are starting to talk back. They are starting to 
turn away from poor governance and corruption. So I think the 
United States has to have a vested interest in democracy by 
supporting entrepreneurship, investment opportunities, and 
giving education opportunities for many Africans who want to 
stay at home and build their country.
    Mr. James. Thank you very much.
    I am going to practice what I preach and now recognize my 
ranking member, Ms. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I first want to drill down a little bit more on just the 
perceptions of the United States in South Africa. We have 
talked a lot about the bilateral relationship and the history. 
But, Mr. Maroleng and Ms. Tlhabi, if you could add more color 
on what is the perception of the United States and today's 
Russia both among the South African population and within the 
ANC, recognizing that neither of these are monoliths, and, you 
know, how do these perspectives range?
    Mr. Maroleng. Can I start?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Sure.
    Mr. Maroleng. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for 
the question. I think the--as you indicate, the perceptions are 
varied and are representative of the diversity of views in 
South Africa. However, generally speaking, you could say that 
within the ANC, the perception of the United States is shaped, 
as we have indicated in our submissions, by the histories--that 
is, the history of the anticolonial struggle and, of course, 
the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
    Historically, as was pointed out very well by Redi, the 
ANC, the governing party in South Africa, has typically had 
close ties with the former Soviet Union. These have been 
extended to Russia. However, this closeness to the Soviet Union 
must not be interpreted as a generalized view of the population 
in South Africa. Indeed, it was pointed out by my colleague 
here that polls have demonstrated in South Africa that the 
views of the people are not necessarily aligned in the majority 
with those of the ANC shaped by these histories.
    However, having said so, let me hasten to add that it is 
important that you also understand that the people of South 
Africa and the people of the United States share similar 
values, similar aspirations, which in my humble opinion should 
be the centerpiece of the thing that unites the United States 
and its people and the people of South Africa.
    A focus on these similarities in values will allow this 
relationship to be enhanced and, in my view, allow the United 
States to shift away from a policy that is shaped by 
conditionality toward a policy that recognizes the sameness in 
the normative values of the United States and, of course, South 
Africa.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. I would add that it is so important to have 
perspective and not to overreact. The fact of the matter is 
that in opinion pieces, in analyses, it is very clear that 
South African society pushes back against the ANC's gravitation 
toward any nation that is deemed to be autocratic.
    That happens on the ground, and I think that is a point I 
was making earlier, that when you imagine South Africa, do not 
just think ANC. Think about plurality. Think about the rest of 
the citizens and other pillars of the State, that there, 
different opinions and different contestation can be found.
    The ANC--even though it is the party in government, I would 
say that they do not always reflect what South Africans are 
feeling. And I think that the United States can find partners 
within South African society.
    But the point I also want to make is that, you know, there 
is this perception that the Soviet Union supported the fight 
against apartheid. OK. We know about that history. But the 
history that doesn't get spoken about is that the U.S. also 
supported the fight against apartheid. I mentioned an 
anniversary of that 1986 veto. The House and the Senate 
overwhelmingly supported the Comprehensive Apartheid Act that 
put sanctions on South Africa.
    That history is important. And what has happened is that 
Russia perhaps has exploited its involvement and exaggerated to 
great benefit if the information was capturing the narrative. 
And perhaps the United States has been a tad too humble about 
its support for the democratic process.
    So some know about this history. Others reflect it in 
everyday commentary. But I do think that we do not have a 
Russia--a voice from South Africa that just supports Russia 
without any conditions. There is a pushback against that 
perception, too.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. Very helpful.
    I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, ma'am.
    The chair now recognizes Rep Kim for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman James and Ranking Member 
Jacobs, for holding this hearing today.
    And, you know, we are talking about very important 
relations with South Africa. So I want to thank all of our 
witnesses for coming and attending and answering our questions.
    You know, the CCP's efforts to gain economic and strategic 
influence in South Africa have been less successful than 
elsewhere on the continent, largely because of the size of the 
South Africa economies and the strength of the South African 
institutions, such as the Constitutional Court and independent 
media.
    I want to ask my first question to Mrs. Tlhabi. How 
important are the judiciary and media, as well as other strong 
institutions, in protecting South Africa from the tool kit 
China typically employs to gain influence in the African 
continent?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Thank you very much for the question. And I do 
sound like a broken record now because it goes to the point 
that South Africa's society is vibrant. What the party in 
government does often gets challenged even in the 
Constitutional Court.
    The apex court has ruled on the constitutionality of 
certain measures by the ruling party. They cannot just get 
their way. We have a vibrant parliamentary and constitutional 
democracy. So when I say that it is important for the United 
States to continue supporting South Africa, those are the kind 
of pillars that you can continue supporting.
    We have seen our judiciary being attacked by politicians 
who are in trouble with the law. And I think this country would 
have experience with that in recent----
    Mrs. Kim. Can I ask you, then, as a followup, how effective 
are the same institutions in promoting South African population 
from the ineffective governance and rampant State capture 
orchestrated by African National Congress ruling class elites 
who are increasingly out of touch with the wishes of the 
people?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. The institution that you have mentioned is--
for your question, the judiciary, how effective has it been, it 
was the judiciary that made a historic ruling on the right to 
housing where the State was shown to have had resources to 
provide housing for poor people. I won't bore you with the 
history.
    But the Constitutional Court often comes in to compel the 
State to act in a particular way. We have examples of the State 
acting unconstitutionally, of Parliament acting 
unconstitutionally, challenges--challenging the authority of 
the public protector, withholding important information from 
the media and from the public.
    Our courts have come in, and they have shown themselves to 
be resilient and have been a bulwark of our democracy. There 
are many case studies, I will say----
    Mrs. Kim. Thank you.
    Mrs. Tlhabi [continuing]. Of when the courts have stepped 
in.
    Mrs. Kim. You know, oftentimes, the U.S. does not 
effectively broadcast the message of all the work it is doing, 
not only in South Africa but across the continent. From trade 
to PEPFAR, the U.S. has been an instrumental partner in the--
South Africa for over the years.
    So I want to ask this question to Mr. Carroll. You know, 
how can the United States better message its work in South 
Africa, especially considering the Russia and Chinese media 
influence?
    And maybe Mrs. Tlhabi can talk, but I wanted to pose this 
to you, Mr. Carroll.
    Mr. Carroll. Thank you very much. First, the United States 
provides, as noted before, $750 million a year to support the 
PEPFAR program in South Africa. That is certainly a--been a 
bulwark against the terrific horrors of infectious disease in 
South Africa. And it is greatly appreciated by clinicians, by 
patients, by the media. I think there is certainly room for us 
to perhaps even get more credit for it.
    We also--perhaps taking a leave from Russia's activities in 
the Sahel, we can do more in enhancing educational 
collaboration between the United States and young South 
Africans, who themselves aren't necessarily wedded to the 
messages of the ANC. They want to learn, and I think we can 
give them opportunities.
    I have been involved with the YALI program since its 
inception, and I have seen the wonderful benefits that that has 
provided. But I--but----
    Mrs. Kim. Can I ask you to just, you know, talk about--walk 
us through the impact that PEPFAR has had in South Africa and 
across the continent? And also, how would South Africa, as well 
as other African countries, view United States if we let PEPFAR 
expire, especially given Russia and PRC's growing influence in 
the region?
    Mr. Carroll. Yes. I mean, there has been no public 
diplomacy program in my lifetime--and I am a Peace Corps 
volunteer, and I take credit for the experience that I had as a 
Peace Corps volunteer. But I have never seen anything with such 
an impact as PEPFAR. It strengthens the whole infrastructure of 
African health.
    It not only provides treatments to people who are on 
death's door, but it also provides the infrastructure that 
Africa can help and manage its disease--manage diseases, 
whether it be infectious diseases or chronic diseases. We are 
supporting human capacity. We are supporting laboratory 
development. We are the--really, the linchpin, if you would, of 
African health.
    And I think the collaborations we see--like I mentioned 
with Texas Children's Hospital, these institutional 
arrangements--Rutgers in New Jersey has a strong program in 
HIV. Many in California have done great work. I think these 
institutional collaborations are very important, and they are 
very much appreciated by clinicians and patients alike.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Carroll, for your response.
    And thank you, Rep Kim, for your time.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. Jackson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you very much. Mr. James, thank you. I 
have several concerns. I want to first thank the outstanding 
leadership in South Africa. I remember in 1985, I was 19 years 
of age, protesting the apartheid government in South Africa 
right here in Washington, DC. And I was arrested along with 
many others that--and my family members: father, sisters, 
mother, because it was the last majority African people to be 
held to an undemocratic standard by a White minority, and the 
U.S. Government supported that. And in return the Russians had 
supported the South Africans, so there is a unique relationship 
that the South Africans have with Russia because they were an 
ally.
    And I would simply like to know from anyone on the panel 
how can we single out our most vital democratic ally in Africa 
whose position in the Russian-Ukraine conflict is no different 
than some of our allies in India, in Saudi Arabia, and in 
China? Why are we singly focusing on South Africa's unique 
relationship, and if you will, letting them mute their voice on 
their right to self-determination? They are very respectful and 
they are very appreciative of the American trade agreements and 
the trade that they have, but they also have a complex history 
that I think we fail to recognize.
    Mr. Maroleng. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson, for the 
question. I do not think it's about singling out. I think it's 
about acknowledging the fact that South Africa is enjoined by 
its victim to represent certain values around sovereignty, 
human rights, respect for the rule of law, which the aggression 
that is being perpetuated in Ukraine violates.
    So in essence what we are saying here is, especially as we 
consider the relationship between the United States and South 
Africa, is basically amplify and put at the forefront these 
shared and common values. These shared and common values are 
around inclusive governance, around democracy, around the rule 
of law, and ensuring that the equal sovereignty of both 
countries are respected.
    And I think the plea of the majority of South Africans is 
simply that. It is not asking the United States to act in a 
patriarchal manner, in pointing fingers, as was pointed out by 
my colleague earlier on, but it is simply saying to your South 
African counterparts uphold the values that you are enjoined to 
respect and that you believe in.
    Mr. Jackson. Let me add a similar question: There is no 
such thing as a perfect relationship amongst and between 
countries, not even the U.S. with its closest historical 
allies. Are we not better off having a constructive engagement 
relationship with South Africa to bridge the divide so that 
other countries when we say no, hypothetically the United 
States, they would say yes and have a trade advantage? I am 
more concerned about building bridges as opposed to taking them 
down. I am more interested in opening doors as opposed to 
closing. Would we be better served, the United States' 
interests, to trade more with South Africa?
    I have heard a lot of disparaging comments about the ANC, 
but there are 13 political parties. There have been six or 
seven parties to form since South Africa has become liberated. 
So it seems that the young country, an infant country, if you 
will, just 30 years of age, is going through growing pains like 
any other country. So like why is this such a singular issue on 
attacking South Africa's respectful emergence onto the world 
stage?
    Mr. Maroleng. In my view, with respect, it is not about 
attacking South Africa. As I indicated before it's about 
holding us to uphold our constitutional values. The ANC is the 
party of Nelson Mandela. And Nelson Mandela himself would not 
have been non-aligned in his condemnation of a violation of 
human rights and democracy.
    So it is incumbent that yes, we enhance our trade 
relations. That's very important and I agree with this, but 
also at the same time I think the United States----
    Mr. Jackson. How has South Africa violated human rights?
    Mr. Maroleng. It is not--it is not violating human rights. 
I'm talking about the relationship between South Africa and the 
U.S. within the context of the Ukraine. That's what I'm talking 
about.
    However, I wanted to say that one of the things that we 
must also consider is calling out the hypocrisy as viewed as us 
in South Africa of some of the foreign policy positions of the 
United States. On the one had you want to determine who we can 
trade with and who we cannot trade with, but at the same time 
the United States trades with the very same people; for 
example, like China, which is one of the largest investors into 
United States' economy.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you. I yield back my time. Thank you, 
chairman.
    Mr. James. The chairman how recognizes Representative Beard 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member.
    And the witnesses, I appreciate you being here today. I 
guess my question focuses on the United States and South Africa 
have a strong two-way trade relationship as it pertains to 
agricultural products. Agriculture is my background. And so 
South Africa is the largest food producer in the African 
continent, the way I understand it, and South African farmers 
are world-renowned in their expertise.
    So in 2022 South Africa exported $243 million worth of 
citrus fruit to the United States. Similarly, in 2022 the U.S. 
exported $67 million of meat to South Africa. I am concerned 
about the impact the ANC's governance will have on South 
Africa's agriculture sector, both with its ability to continue 
to produce products for export to the U.S. and as well as 
trying to maintain its own demand for U.S. products.
    So, Mr. Carroll, I guess I am going to ask you how would 
you say the expropriation bill and mismanagement of the 
transport and power sector--what affect will that have on South 
Africa's ability to produce agricultural products?
    Mr. Carroll. Well, let me--thank you, Mr. Beard, for that 
question, and certainly let me address the issue of 
infrastructure, and trade infrastructure specifically.
    South Africa has among the least competitive ports in the 
world. And not only does it impact South Africa's ability to 
export products; it also impacts the neighboring countries' 
ability because they primarily use South African ports.
    The rail infrastructure and the road infrastructure are 
visibly declining on a yearly bases. Road and rail backups have 
snarled trade and have made it very, very uncompetitive to 
transport commodities not only within Africa, but of course to 
the United States.
    Fortunately the citrus industry has been very competitive 
and anticipated and was able to manage its value chains to such 
an extent that it is now the largest supplier of whole oranges 
into the United States, which is a real success and very much a 
product of AGOA.
    There are many challenges in South Africa in the 
agricultural sector including climate change, which as we've 
seen just recently in the Western Cape with massive storms that 
have flooded many agricultural areas, and that means that this 
year's crops will probably be on the decline.
    So I do think that South Africa's investment in 
infrastructure to facilitate these value chains and be able to 
provide competitive products to market is going to be the best 
mode in which they can improve not only their export market, 
but also facilitate the import of commodities into South Africa 
from the United States.
    But on the issue of land reform perhaps I would turn it 
over to Redi to talk a little bit about that from a perspective 
of South Africa and particularly on the expropriation of 
agricultural lands.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. The land issue is a very emotive and very 
polarizing one which has a very sad and tragic history. The 
1913 native land--that dispossessed South Africans, Black South 
Africans, forcibly removed them from their land. And they lost 
their livestock and their well-being. So there is a history 
attached to the land question, which I do think gets exploited 
every time we get to an election. It is very important I think 
to have some perspective.
    Our constitution has always enabled the ANC to achieve land 
redistribution, restitution, and tenure. The ANC has not used 
the provisions of the constitution. However, it is also 
important to not create an impression of a rogue ANC that is 
about to expropriate land without compensation. That has not 
happened. If you go to South Africa today you do not have a 
Zimbabwe situation of forced removals and so on. The ANC 
government, whatever its fault, has actually respected the 
rights of land owners.
    Many years ago there was a willing buyer, willing seller 
wherever redistribution and restitution could happen in a 
negotiated conversation with the landowners, who of course, if 
we look historically, Black people would say those are not the 
legitimate landowners. But post-1994 there was no one-upmanship 
or trying to force landowners off their land. It has not 
happened. Even now when you look at what the ANC government is 
talking about, it is expropriation without compensation where 
it can be justified. That's what it says. It's talking about 
abandoned land, abandoned buildings, under-used land.
    So I'm just saying that the conversation gets heated in the 
buildup to the election and it something that the EFF has 
brought on the table. But from the government's point of view 
there has always been a negotiation on the land issue.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Beard.
    Thank you, Mrs. Tlhabi.
    The chair now recognizes Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you so much for your testimony here. I wanted to go 
back to what we were discussing when it came to our 
relationship. The major part of the Administration has been 
trying to move our relationship particularly with South Africa 
forward. And we touched on some of the conditions. So I wanted 
to ask this question to anyone who would want to answer it.
    What are specifically some of the conditions that you would 
like to see South Africa abiding by, especially for its 
continued participation in AGOA?
    Mr. Maroleng. I think one of the key things that I hoped 
would have been sort of focused on or come out in my testimony 
is the fact that we are really advocating for a differentiated 
approach in the foreign policy toward South Africa by the 
United States, which is not underpinned by conditionality, 
because the conditionality that we could be encouraged to focus 
on right now really reflects and highlights the past policies 
that the United States has had toward South Africa.
    In this time of strategic competition, especially on the 
African continent with South Africa in particular. The United 
States needs to adopt, in my view and humbly saying, a more 
nuanced approach to the relationship between our two countries. 
This relationship----
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. I want to just pause you real 
quick because I do----
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick [continuing]. Want to address--my 
next question was actually going to talk about the 
Administration's position.
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. The Administration's position 
recently--when it comes to Africa there has been a renewed 
policy and efforts toward building relationships with Africa 
where we are moving not just from giving Africa aid, but more 
of a dignified approach where it comes to trade, economic 
resiliency, partnership. So the Administration has laid out 
several initiatives, partnered with funding, and even 
introducing the African diaspora in the United States, 
partnering with Africa.
    And so that has been our position and I wanted to get to 
that right afterwards, but I thought because you clearly 
identified some of the tension points----
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick [continuing]. With the 
participation with Russia that we could look at the 
conditionality.
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And if we could specifically 
touch on that. And then we could take a look at if these new 
policy stances we have been taking, are they actually being 
felt and--are you feeling it? Because we can have--the 
Administration could be for this policy, but are you seeing it 
actually on the continent? Is it actually being amplified or 
has right--as it stands right now is it just words on paper?
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. So if you want to address that, 
you can.
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes, very quickly. In actual fact it goes to 
the recommendations that I had in my presentation, which 
advocate for the following thing: The U.S. in our view should 
really focus on a bottom-up approach. By this we mean direct 
more resources toward empowering civil society, citizens, key 
institutions that support democracy in South Africa. And this 
is because it is these parts of our society that have stood up 
as a bulwark against State capture, corruption, and other 
inequities that have happened in our country.
    The other aspect that I wanted to really emphasize here is 
that there's a need to strengthen private sector 
collaboration----
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Yes.
    Mr. Maroleng [continuing]. Between the United States and 
South Africa, which will in our view foster greater economic 
growth which benefits both parties.
    Finally, I also want to emphasize the following, that maybe 
there's a need to transition from, as you indicated, this aid-
centric approach toward a trade engagement leveraging on 
opportunities that are presented by the African Continental 
Free Trade Agreement and Area.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. I want to step in for 1 minute 
before the chairman starts to give us that light tap, because 
he is putting a lot of pressure on us today, but thank you.
    I agree with everything you are saying.
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. And so that is why I wanted to 
pinpoint exact points where we can grow, because we have 
programs present, even where we have educational institutions. 
Howard University has a program in South Africa where we had 
many discussions with the students in South Africa directly 
trying to talk more about democracy and what they would like to 
see.
    So I want to know how can we expand on that relationship 
and also how can we deepen that relationship? So that is really 
the course of my questioning. I know you only have 30 seconds 
for anybody who wants to come in.
    Mr. Carroll. I'll take 12 seconds. I think the--one of the 
areas that we overlook in South Africa is the South Africa 
institutions that I mentioned in my testimony are very robust 
and very strong and we should look to partner particularly in 
the financial sector with South African institutions as we 
develop our ambitions or implement our ambitions on such things 
as the Development Finance Corporation.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. I think also let's just be mindful that there 
are a lot of politicians who say stupid things. And when they 
do that it creates the impression that this is the stance of 
South Africa. We have a minister who recently said something 
about the CIA funding non-profit organizations. That's a lot of 
nonsense. And it gets called out in South Africa.
    What I would urge you to do is look at the tangible 
results. You mentioned PEPFAR. You mentioned USAID. When you go 
to the ground, when you go to the communities, those people are 
not listening to the politicians. So let's not frame that 
relationship, our relationship as only being confined to what 
the politicians are saying. On the ground communities are 
active, communities are entrepreneurial, communities need the 
support. That's where the results will lie.
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much.
    And thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the 38 
seconds.
    Mr. James. And thank you for your questioning discipline 
and thank our panelists for their brevity.
    The chair will now recognize Rep. Kean for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As has been established by this panel and in a number of 
questions already by this committee, unfortunately corruption 
and economic mismanagement by the ANC-led government has 
crippled the country and we now see closer engagement and 
relations between the ANC and the Chinese Communist Party and 
Russian Federation.
    With the current war in Ukraine, in great power competition 
with China, South Africa has drifted closer to the anti-Western 
camp. During this past year South Africa, China, and Russia 
held military exercises. In the recent BRICS summit in 
Johannesburg President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that Iran 
would be joining the bloc.
    I will soon be introducing legislation which if enacted 
would require the Administration to conduct a bilateral review 
of the U.S.-South Africa relationship. And I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today.
    I am going to start with you, Mr. Carroll, if I may. In 
addition to my membership in this subcommittee I am also the 
chairman of the Europe Subcommittee. And there seems to be 
trend in South Africa that is deeply concerning to me, as I 
explained in my opening commentary.
    What do you think about these actions of allowing U.S.-
sanctioned Russian vessels to stop at ports, holding military 
joint exercises with Russia and China, and abstaining on U.N. 
votes condemning Russia's aggression and legal aggression 
against Ukraine? What do these actions suggest about South 
Africa's broader foreign policy and what actions might be 
appropriate to address Pretoria's drift toward Russia and China 
without alienating our partners in South Africa?
    Mr. Carroll. Well, I certainly do not condone and support 
your concerns about this drift, as you described it. I do think 
as we've evidenced here today among my fellow witnesses there 
is a robust civil society structure in South Africa that itself 
is pushing back and is providing a platform for robust 
discussion and criticism, open criticism. I urge you to read 
the South African media. I do every day and it's remarkably 
candid and open in terms of its criticisms of government.
    I think we need to work with and use the tools that we have 
to try to encourage and enable those robust debates within 
South African civil society so they themselves can guide the 
government in terms of where these policies are heading and 
perhaps correct them in a manner which I think are more 
consistent with our aspirations and our common objectives in 
developing a very holistic and fruitful relationship with South 
Africa.
    I do think that we can certainly send messages such as you 
suggest that I think may accelerate those concerns and those 
issues, but I really think it's the South Africans that really 
need to be in the fore of this debate and that--and supporting 
and encouraging civil society and developing these type of 
relationships with our institutions, whether they be in media 
relationship, whether they be educational relationships----
    Mr. Kean. What in your experience and your opinion would 
explain these actions by the ANC-led government?
    Mr. Carroll. Well, there----
    Mr. Kean. I agree with you on the need for----
    Mr. Carroll. OK.
    Mr. Kean [continuing]. Engaged civil society.
    Mr. Carroll. Sure.
    Mr. Kean. The question here is between those issues that I 
laid as well as their position toward the Ukraine invasion by 
Putin. How would you explain why the ANC-led government is 
having the current positioning it is?
    Mr. Carroll. Two principal factors: First, Mr. Kean, the 
historic relationship that the ANC had with Russia and the 
Soviet Union during the apartheid struggle. And second I think 
we all have to be candid here. There have been officials within 
the ANC power structure and in these circles surrounding the 
ANC power structure that have commercial interests with Russia. 
Whether we saw that in the nuclear relationship during the Zuma 
career and was--or the Zuma era--but we've also noted that the 
largest benefactor to the ANC is a Russian oligarch. So there 
are commercial interests that are driving this issue, and I 
think they're also well known within South Africa.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. If I may add, all of that is true, but I want 
to go back to the theme of my presentation, that perception 
matters. It informs how people respond. The United States is 
viewed largely as the State that makes foreign policy decisions 
that benefit itself when it wants to benefit, whether we're 
talking about the war in Iraq--I know it's a long time ago, but 
it has influenced how the United States is--is that----
    Mr. Kean. No, no, you have got----
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Yes, I've got----
    Mr. Kean. [continuing]. all the time in the world.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. OK.
    Mr. Kean. You have got 25 seconds.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. OK. Twenty seconds. So the perception is that 
the United States does not mind working with anti-democratic 
regimes if it suits its foreign policy interests. And that 
explains also why countries like South Africa would also want 
the autonomy to have relations with whoever they want to have a 
relationship with because the United States does the same when 
it wants to.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Kean.
    The chair now recognizes Rep. Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you 
again for the invitation to participate on today's hearing.
    I have there questions. We have 5 minutes. We are going to 
do this, people.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. It has been concerning to see the United 
States-South Africa bilateral relationship come under 
significant strain over the past year, and a few key insights. 
First, AGOA benefits U.S. foreign direct investment in the 
strong trading relationship between the United States and South 
Africa. We are a major counterweight to the government's 
interest in orienting toward Russia.
    Second, there is a divergence between the government's ties 
with Russia and the affinity of the South African people and 
their civil society who share with the U.S. values of human 
rights, freedom of expression, and accountable governance.
    So, Mr. Carroll, if we were to amend AGOA in the 
reauthorization what enhancements do you believe would increase 
its utilization of the program and what might be the effect of 
including a digital trade component that reduces barriers to 
online commerce on the continent?
    Mr. Carroll. Well, let me return to my earlier statement 
that I believe that the U.S. should engage starting now in the 
development of a bilateral trade relationship with South Africa 
and it neighboring SACU countries, for a variety of reasons.
    First of all, that's a permanent relationship, one that 
doesn't have to be renewed. And moreover it would provide more 
incentives for the U.S. to invest in South Africa. So I do 
think that we should embark upon, as we're doing right now with 
Kenya, in the development of a more durable permanent trade 
relationship in terms of a bilateral one. And that would also 
benefit U.S. exports which right now suffer from a disadvantage 
versus European exports which enjoy about a 15-percent margin.
    The other area that I think South Africa could benefit from 
is in encouraging and partnering with South African 
institutions in the development of their value chains and their 
infrastructure: roads, rails, ports, what have you. I think 
this is an area where the USDFC can partner with not only South 
African institutions, but such institutions as the African 
Development Bank to be able to foster making South Africa more 
competitive in its export sector.
    On the digital space I think there's been a lot of 
controversy. There's a lot of fears and protectionism in South 
Africa that's inherent in those discussions. I think we just 
continue to need to put pressure on saying the benefits of 
having open access and digital trade. I think right now they're 
not well understood in South Africa and I think there's a 
protectionist element there, a fear element that I think needs 
to be overcome. And I think it can be overcome with persistence 
and more education on those issues.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. So one area that is ripe for 
greater engagement is South Africa's blossoming creative 
industries which employ nearly 7 percent of the national work 
force and are supported by foreign investments.
    So, Mrs. Tlhabi, can you share how you think deepening U.S. 
engagement and support for South Africa's homegrown film and 
television industry could help strengthen the bilateral 
relationship?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. That is an area that I'm very passionate about 
because it's an area that offers us an opportunity to share 
universal values and beliefs, whether it is through--of 
democracy, of human rights. South African artists are very 
political. And by that I'm--I do not mean they're aligned with 
this party or that party. They care about society. They produce 
output. That constantly shifts the needle.
    In fact I've seen comments on social media where people 
make a joke that our weakest link is the State because we've 
got these globally talented citizens who go anywhere in the 
world and they make a mark. And that is why I was saying in 
reviewing your relationship with South Africa remember those 
people. They have contributed to the global market of ideas. 
They're entrepreneurial. They're innovative. Every single day 
in South Africa we see their output and their occupation of the 
global stage.
    So I would say that an investment into those creative 
industries will unleash the potential of South Africa. It will 
create jobs. It will absorb even more of the talented youth 
into the labor market. There are so many people who cannot 
afford a university degree and I think we are still backward in 
a lot of ways, Tony, in seeing social mobility as being 
dependent on a university degree, which is important. I 
wouldn't be here today if I didn't have an education.
    But we have a plurality and a diversity in South Africa 
that you must care about. It deepens democracy, it gives young 
people a sense of agency, and it creates a global village of 
ideas. So do not give up on us in that regard.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. All right. Well, you all must work on 
your time management. So I am going to adhere to the 
constraints of the chair and I will yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Sorry.
    Mr. James. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    The chair now recognizes Rep. Mills. And I will say we will 
come around for a second round of questions because this is 
very intriguing and I want everybody to be able to have their 
say.
    Rep. Mills?
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ranking member. 
Appreciate the guests as well.
    Before I get started I want to request unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a document which I had sent over to the 
Honorable Molly Phee, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of 
African Affairs of the State Department, addressing the 
Administration's priorities for Fiscal Year 2024 that I sent 
June 16 that I have never actually gotten a response back.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. James. So ordered.
    Mr. Mills. You know, I heard a lot of things that were said 
today that I actually agree with. Perception in many 
countries--and I have spent a large portion of my life 
overseas. I spent over 7 years in Iraq, and 3 years in 
Afghanistan, and Kosovo, and Pakistan, Somalia. Lived in Kenya 
for a while. Perception is reality in many of these areas.
    And I look at one of the things that you talked about with 
regards to how people viewed Iraq, and I recall in the 2005 
Iraq constitution that was this idea that amalgamation of a 
British and U.S.-based constitution that had kind of had a 
parliamentary structure they had Article 76, which actually 
established sectarian democracy, which has destroyed that 
country today. We know that sectarian democracy did not work in 
South Africa and it did not work in pre-apartheid and it did 
not work in Northern Ireland.
    And so I definitely see where the mistakes that were made 
by the U.S. from a foreign policy perspective has impacted 
things which actually probably drove South Africa more toward 
BRICS because America, like many Western nations, has an 
inability to ask a country what they want as opposed to telling 
them what they need. I think this is a huge thing that needs to 
be corrected and I think that's one of the areas that we all 
need to be addressing.
    In that light I want to talk about that letter I just gave 
to the chairman. The Biden Administration has contributed $1 
billion toward the Just Energy Transition Partnership which 
plans to transition the South African power grid toward clean 
energy solutions by paying owners to close their coal plants 
earlier than they otherwise would. Today coal fire-powered 
plants actually provide over 80 percent of South Africa's 
electricity and with the current energy crisis plaguing the 
country it is nonsensical for the funding to ignore the current 
realities in favor of an aspirational long-term goal of the 
U.S. and other Western countries.
    So my question, how do South Africans view projects like 
these that prioritize the climate change talking points of a 
select few Western countries over the energy crisis which is 
facing them at the here and now?
    Mr. Maroleng. Thank you very much for that question. I 
think it's very important points that you raised as a preface 
to the question. And I agree with most of the points that you 
raise.
    It's exactly that, that what is sort of characteristic of 
this foreign policy approach that we've seen by the United 
States is the fact that it lacks this element of seeming 
awareness of issues relating to social justice. We all are 
aware of the needs that climate change and of course a just 
transition requires. However, having said so, the burden is 
seemingly placed on countries that didn't cause the climate 
challenge but at the same time are required to sacrifice the 
most in ensuring this just transition.
    I agree with you that maybe it's not necessarily that we 
should not go toward the implementation of projects that seek 
to bring about renewable energy and the aspects of the just 
transition. What is important is that it should not be at the 
sacrifice of the people on the ground.
    And our point here today was as follows: that the United 
States in its policy toward South Africa and of course the rest 
of Africa must be aware of the perceptions that are raised by a 
failure of addressing these issues of just transition and 
seemingly implementing foreign policy that is not just aligned 
with the needs of politicians, but certainly with the 
aspirations of the needs of the people of South Africa.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Mills, for the question. And let 
me be very brief. South Africa has about 7,000 megawatts of 
installed power, about 2,600 of it are being actively used. I 
think where we can make big investments and inroads is how we 
can improve the efficiency of the existing system.
    I share your concerns about propelling an agenda upon South 
Africa that fits our interests our needs but doesn't meet their 
needs in a society that is already constrained by many anti-
competitive elements, but I do think we can help South Africa 
improve the power structure that it does have.
    Mr. Mills. Well, I do agree with that. And I guess my 
biggest thing is is when I think of foreign policy, yes, 
clearly as an elected representative of the United States I 
look at how it benefits us from a trade and partnership or 
bilateral-trilateral agreement, but I also think about the host 
nation and how we build long-term and long-standing 
relationships. I think that is something that has been 
neglected for far too long. With that I yield back.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Mills, for your excellent 
questioning and time discipline.
    The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Jacobs for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So I want to turn the discussion to South Africa's role as 
a leader in the Global South including in articulating a vision 
for a multi-polar world and where Global South countries have a 
larger role in the global governance system. I am also very 
supportive of this, as is the Biden Administration, who 
recently supported the AU's accession in the G20. But I was 
hoping you all could share how you view South Africa's 
leadership role in articulating the views of the Global South 
and how does this role they are trying to play play into the 
U.S.-South Africa bilateral relationship?
    Mrs. Tlhabi. I will speak to that for 2 minutes or less. 
One minute. One minute, he said, the chair.
    I think that countries that identify as marginalized and 
unheard will necessarily gravitate toward each other. And the 
conversation around creating a multi-polar world is not about 
strengthening Russia or China or India. It is about not having 
one country that is more powerful than the rest. We know the 
history. We have had bipolarity, unipolarity at the fall of the 
Soviet Union and so on.
    So I do think that South Africa is actively seeking a 
world, a global architecture where everybody's voice can be 
heard. And that is the reason you have bound the BRICS members 
coming together. And I understand that there are others who are 
applying to expand and it's about to get complicated. I do not 
know how far that will go. But there is in the Global South a 
recognition that we cannot have a world of super powers 
anymore, where there is the United States and everybody else, 
where there is Russia and everybody else. There isn't a choice 
between Russia and--or America. It is about creating a world 
where everybody has agency, where everybody belongs.
    South Africa is regarded as a powerful economy on the 
African continent. We've held several leadership positions in 
the African Union. And so the march toward a multipolar world 
is about positioning the Global South so that it's not always 
functioning at the expense of the Global North.
    Mr. Carroll. South Africa is certainly stepping forward and 
providing leadership in this evolution of shall we say a new 
dialog between the West and the Global South, as you point out. 
And I think South Africa can provide continued leadership as 
it's doing right now as the Africa Continental Free Trade 
Agreement is led by a South African lawyer, a very able one, 
who I think is starting to show some merits in terms of getting 
South Africa to be more coherent as a trading regime.
    But I think there's a sense here that my co-panelist Redi 
said, that there's a perception that Africa has been left aside 
for a long time. It's the fastest growing continent. It will be 
a population center by 2030. Nigeria will be the third most 
populous country in the world. I think that they're--a sense 
that they needed to be at the table. And I think our foreign 
policy has to be more nimble in being able to adapt to these 
new realities.
    Mr. Maroleng. Thank you very much. I agree with what has 
been said earlier on by my two colleagues, however one thing 
that I want to add is that it's not just at the foreign policy 
level where the United States can create the kind of change 
that we want to see. When I say we, I'm talking about us in the 
Global South and South Africa.
    It is at the international governance level, the United 
Nations. It is currently inequitable with a few countries able 
to have a veto while the majority of countries, most of them 
being the Global South, not having the ability to have their 
views affirmed and expressed.
    So the United States in supporting the reform of the 
Security Council and also the reform of the United Nations and 
other multilateral forums internationally can go a long way in 
shaping a foreign policy that presents the United States as a 
partner for development, a partner for change and progress 
globally.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. And really quickly, on anti-
corruption efforts how can the U.S. do it in a way that it 
actually breaks through but doesn't seem like we are finger 
wagging? Mr. Maroleng?
    Mr. Maroleng. Yes, I would basically say it will be done by 
supporting key institutions that support and uphold good 
governance, especially in South Africa. These institutions are 
numerous, however they have suffered in the past years in South 
Africa during a period that was described as State capture by 
attempts to also capture them, undermine their authority, and 
ensure that their effectiveness is reduced. So I would say one 
of the key things that the U.S. can do is to support these key 
institutions that support democracy and good governance.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you.
    Mr. James. Thank you very much.
    Call a little bit of an audible. The chair will now 
recognize Mr. Jackson, if you have any additional questions, my 
friend.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman James.
    I am very much interested in following up on your question. 
How can we expand and increase our role in trade with South 
Africa. South Africa has been statedas the shining light for 
the African continent. With competing interests from China, 
India, Russia it seems like it is at a crossroad intersection 
for everything that we want to do in Africa and I am concerned 
that if we do not step up, that there will be a vacancy and 
other people will find an opportunity.
    And you have had tremendous challenges going forward. I am 
very familiar with the region from Zambia and Zimbabwe. The 
population has come down from Botswana, and Namibia, and 
Angola. It just wasn't that long ago that what was a cold--what 
was a hot--a cold war in Europe made a hot war in Africa. And 
now the hot war in Europe is making cold war tensions in the 
African continent. How can we expand and improve and how our 
further friendship for the enormous challenges that you have 
had?
    You have had populations and a migration crisis like we 
have in the United States to enter your borders while you are 
trying to satisfy your citizens, people from neighboring 
countries that did not have water, did not have electricity, 
did not have housing, came to your borders, yet you never made 
a crisis out of it. You simply opened your doors, kept the 
borders open. You let people come in. What can we do more to 
assist and help with your enormous challenges that you have 
confronted in a very short period of time?
    Mr. Carroll. Well, on the trade front South Africa, as we 
have statedhere, is going to have to make itself a lot more 
competitive. And one of the areas that it can make itself more 
competitive is by improving its infrastructure. And you know 
what, it's not going to be done by the government. It's going 
to have to be done with private sector initiative and private 
sector capital.
    The U.S. has tools, a private sector capital that can be 
brought in and perhaps mitigated with U.S. Government 
assistance such as the Development Finance Corporation, U.S. 
Export-Import Bank. And we can help South Africa partner with 
South African institutions and investors to try to improve 
efficiency of South Africa.
    Also I think there's a lot more than we--can be done in 
technology transfer, whether it be in the development of 
agricultural technology exchanges, whether it be in the new 
areas of information technology where the U.S. has special 
advantages.
    Yesterday I was with the chairman and CEO of MTN Bank--or 
MTN Telecom System, the largest in Africa. And they use about-
95 percent of their important circuitry and intelligence of 
their system is not made up of Chinese technology, but it's 
made up U.S. and European technology. So we can continue to be 
a player in technology transfer and we can be--continue to be a 
partner in developing capital that will help make South Africa 
more competitive.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you.
    Mr. James. Does the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Jackson. I yield, Mr. James. Thank you very much.
    Mr. James. No problem. Thank you.
    Mr. Carroll, I am going to jump in and piggyback on that 
great question from my colleague Mr. Jackson.
    I like your line that you are going here with business and 
private sector engagement and investment. And it is estimated 
that South Africa have about 250 days of power blackout in 
2023, or have had--will have had, excuse me. The primary 
domestic priority for South African governments should be I 
believe the betterment of the lives of its people and ending 
the national State of emergency over the energy crisis and 
ensuring an increasingly reliable power supply for the South 
Africa people.
    And piggybacking on your comments, can you give us a little 
bit more insight and clarity on the impact of South Africa's 
energy crisis on the private sector to attract some of that 
investment? And specifically that tech transfer, how it may be 
impaired and how much of a business disincentive this may be, 
or even a potential for capital flight, flight of money that is 
already there leaving?
    Mr. Carroll. Well, I mean I think you can ask any 
manufacturer who's already struggling with labor challenges in 
South Africa, which is labor's expensive relative to other 
economies of its--in its category. It's also inflexible. If you 
add on top of that the inability of being able to get power, 
and manufacturing venture is going to be really, really 
challenged. So I think South Africa, which really needs to grow 
its manufacturing and its agricultural processing sectors, are 
very much hampered by the power supply problem.
    I do think that there are ways in which we can invest and 
co-invest with South African institutions to improve the power, 
whether it be transmission, distribution, or improving existing 
production and creating new production can certainly be 
facilitators in being able to reduce those costs and increase 
reliability.
    But I think the partnership shouldn't be--also can be a 
two-way partnership. I think it's clear to say that South 
Africa was at the fore of developing what was called a pebble 
bed nuclear power which are the small modular reactors that 
South Africa was really at the fore of in developing a 
generation ago have now come back en vogue. And the 
opportunities of being able to partner with some of the 
technology that was developed in South Africa for the creation 
of small modular reactors could also be a great way of being 
able to have a country such as South Africa leapfrog into a new 
technology platform for the creation of power.
    We have many myriad institutions in the United States that 
can help facilitate that process, whether it be engineering 
institutions such as the University of Michigan, which has 
world-class engineering and power engineering that can partner 
with South African universities and companies to be able to 
develop some of those technologies.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Just to add on that, I cannot speak in 
granular details about those particular issues, but what I can 
tell the chair is that we are reading reports in South Africa 
that as a result of the government's lethargic response to the 
energy crisis citizens and the private sector have had to rely 
on themselves. It emphasizes the point that I was saying that 
let's not look at South Africa as just being its government. 
The private sector has been self-reliant. Ordinary citizens 
have been self-reliant in pursuing other alternative energy 
means.
    You cannot of course ignore the State. You want the State 
to be there. But what I'm saying is that there is potential on 
the ground. There are people in South Africa who want to find 
solutions and those are the people with whom the United States 
can work.
    And I do not have the figures as well, but it is a fact 
that more supply has been added on the grid. And the government 
is taking credit for it. OK. That's fine. But the fact of the 
matter is that the private sector and citizens have found other 
alternative means. That opens the door for these investments 
that Mr. Carroll has been talking about.
    Mr. James. Thank you for those responses.
    With that I yield--the chair now recognizes Rep. Kamlager-
Dove if she has five more minutes of questions.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This question is for Mr. Maroleng. Russia has poured 
significant resources into shaping the information environment 
and spreading disinformation in Africa including setting up a 
Russia Today English language Africa hub in Johannesburg.
    So what are the narratives that Russia uses to heighten 
grievances against the United States and to positively frame 
its own engagement on the continent? And then how can we help 
South African media and civil society in promoting an 
independent information environment?
    Mr. Maroleng. Thank you very much for that question. Well, 
one of the things that we've also seen is really Russia 
positioning itself in terms of strategy to the extreme left of 
the United States by presenting and raising histories of the 
liberation struggle. It effectively points out that it was the 
Soviet Union at the time that supported many of our liberation 
movements including the Chinese, especially in Southern Africa. 
This approach basically tries to present a view that presents 
Russia and China as pro the people of our region.
    The interesting issue about this situation is that we 
believe, as policy analysts, is the following: That the United 
States can simply pivot in an opposite direction by doing what 
we have been advocating here, highlighting and presenting the 
similarity and shared values that the people have on the 
ground. And this can be done not necessarily through 
government-to-government engagement, but it is by presenting 
these views and using institutions within civil society, the 
media in particular, who are very progressive in South Africa 
and have their finger on the pulse of what the sentiment is of 
the people.
    So my view is that a strategic engagement by South Africa--
by the United States that focuses on empowering civil society, 
NGO's, and other parts of South African society to present 
these messages in a more palatable way to society in South 
Africa.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. I'd like to add to that because I'm a 
journalist. I work in this field. It's quite exhausting to be 
honest, this approach to the Soviet Union's presence in Africa 
as having resulted in this positive outcome for all African 
nations. It's complicated. The presence of Russia in Africa 
during the cold war had mixed bags. There were some countries 
that benefited more than others. There were military and 
economic costs. And when the Soviets left there was a 
leadership vacuum. And they also left because of a realist 
approach of self-interest. That is historically correct.
    I cannot suggest that the U.S. Government must be funding 
African media because that is unethical from a journalism point 
of view. We do not want government-funded media houses. 
However, I do stress the importance of other institutions, 
businesses in the U.S. or NPOs--NGO's having an interest in 
democracy. You do not want to respond to Russia's information 
war with participating in it or creating a new one.
    We need independent media. And perhaps we can use democracy 
as the center supporting democracy through supporting credible 
information. And I do not think that it's the U.S. Government 
that should go in and be funding media houses. That is the 
exact opposite of what should be done and it creates a 
similarity between that approach and the Russia--and Russia's 
approach.
    I can tell you right now I'm very proud of a lot of our 
media in South Africa. Investigative journalism in South Africa 
has brought the country from the brink of the abyss. It exposed 
corruption. There are a lot of weaknesses. There are a lot of 
challenges in our newsrooms, but the media has been steadfast 
and it has a history of taking on the State. That's something 
that investors and people who have an interest in democracy 
need to be mindful of. We've got to invest in the media, in 
information, in training the storytellers, but always with a 
focus on democracy.
    Mr. Carroll. And as I said earlier, Africa is the world's 
youngest continent. We should engage youth. We should engage 
them in programs such as the YALI program which will mean that 
we have to play a long game. But I think that the exposure that 
we give youth in Africa to our norms and our standards and our 
society I think will go far if we invest in that and willing to 
take a long-term view.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. James. Perfect timing. I am going to once again thank 
our panelists and also the members who were here and attending. 
I have one final question.
    Can each of our guests here State how important PEPFAR is 
to African nations, but specifically to South Africa, and what 
would happen to the United States' standing if this important 
program were to be jeopardized?
    Mr. Carroll. I spend a lot of time in this space and have--
was involved in the original drafting of PEPFAR and have worked 
in a variety of capacities since its passage.
    PEPFAR is, as I said, the most important public diplomacy 
program that I've seen in my lifetime. We've saved 25 million 
lives. We have 5 million people under treatment. We've made 
terrific strides in managing and developing mechanisms and 
institutions to combat not only infectious diseases such as 
HIV, but the whole spectrum of disease.
    A country that I lived in, Botswana, is now the highest 
achieving country in the world in terms of having people on--
being tested and on medication. I think that we have made a lot 
of successes here.
    I think our withdrawal from PEPFAR, particularly on a 
sudden--in a sudden way, would I think be a huge step back for 
the United States and its image in Africa and in South Africa 
where $750 million a year is spent. And we are the backbone of 
infectious disease management in South Africa.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. If I may add there, I like to bring historical 
context as well. Again, South African civil society and the 
medical fraternity fought very, very hard to make the States 
respond to the devastating impact of HIV. To challenge it, to 
ensure that people are on treatment, to ensure that people have 
information, that was a dark period in South Africa.
    And I know that PEPFAR also involves other African 
countries, but if we can use South Africa as a microcosm, that 
there were losses by families, civil society, religious 
organizations, the medical fraternity, the media, NGO's fought. 
The reason we have access to ARVs is because of those efforts. 
And ultimately the State had to yield. The power lay with the 
people.
    And so I see PEPFAR as a manifestation of that battle. And 
if it were to be withdrawn it would erase all those advances 
that were made at great cost. We know that on the Africa 
continent PEPFAR is appreciated as a mechanism to reduce HIV in 
Africa. And years later you have something to go back on and 
see the positive impact.
    PEPFAR cannot be compromised because of geopolitical 
tensions or because of whatever differences that States have 
amongst themselves. It is a great program. It has saved lives. 
It has made sure that there is a universality in our responses. 
Scientists from Africa are working with scientists from the 
United States. That is something very, very positive to educate 
nations and to change lives. It matters and should not be 
compromised.
    Mr. Maroleng. I can only agree with my colleagues. PEPFAR 
is an important tool that enhances and demonstrates the ability 
of the United States to change the living conditions and the 
lives in a positive way of the people of our continent.
    It is initiatives like this, chair, that we believe the 
United States should not just enhance the involvement in, but 
certainly broaden--and this is in terms of finding other 
areas--for example, the circular economy, ensuring that 
citizens are empowered to hold their governments to account, to 
ensure that processes are developed on--in South Africa that 
really develop joint policies between the United States and 
South Africa that are aimed at the citizen, aimed at ensuring 
that the people on the ground in South Africa are the ultimate 
beneficiaries of the good will that is provided by the United 
States. To PEPFAR is one such initiative that is proved the 
caring nature and the generosity of the people of the United 
States.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. Chair, if I may----
    Mr. James. What should we say to entities who would 
prioritize their political ideologies over the benefit of 
PEPFAR?
    Mr. Maroleng. It is not about political ideologies, chair. 
It is really about ensuring that the relationship between South 
Africa and the United States is put in its proper context. And 
I believe our shared values, our common norms are the things 
that will underpin and uphold this relationship. Ideology, as 
has been said by many people in South Africa, does not put food 
on the table. It is--the ability of developing policies that 
create jobs, enhance the livelihoods of the people of South 
Africa are the kind of things that our citizens on the 
continent are looking for.
    Mrs. Tlhabi. If I may, PEPFAR is not just about South 
Africa. There are other African countries, and we need to be 
mindful of them as well. I'm also reminded of how PEPFAR was 
utilized in the 2014 Ebola outbreak. So this conversation is 
much bigger than South Africa and whatever ideology some 
politicians may talk about.
    And I also want to say that political leadership changes. 
This country more than any other knows that. Political leaders 
change. We have elections next year. We do not know what the 
outcome will be. A couple of years down the line we do not know 
what the outcome will be. But can we agree around certain 
values that should never change regardless of who is in power? 
And I think saving lives and empowering young people should not 
be hostage to political and ideological permutations.
    Mr. James. I think that is the perfect way to conclude.
    I would like to thank the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the members for their questions. The members of 
the committee may have some additional questions for the 
witnesses and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
    Pursuant to the committee rules all members may have 5 days 
to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for 
the record subject to the length of limitations.
    Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              [all]