The US government has increased tariffs on South African agricultural exports, raising the rate from 10% to 12.5%. This move, enacted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, was justified by the US on the grounds of South Africa's alleged failure to enforce prohibitions on goods produced with forced labor. South Africa’s government, its private sector, and organized agriculture all made submissions to US authorities opposing the increase, but their appeals were dismissed.
Imperial Pretext, Economic Reality
This tariff hike follows a period in the second quarter of 2025 when South Africa faced higher “Liberation Day Tariffs” of 30%. During a 90-day pause on these higher rates, some South African agricultural exporters pushed more volume than usual into the US market. However, after the pause ended, exports cooled significantly. South Africa’s agricultural exports to the US decreased by 11% in the third quarter of 2025, compared with the same period a year ago, totaling $144 million. The decline deepened in the last quarter of 2025, with exports falling by 39% to $81 million. For the full year 2025, South Africa’s agricultural exports to the US reached $504 million, marking a 3% decrease from the previous year. This annual decline underscores the impact of the earlier 30% tariffs, despite the temporary export surge.
South African Capital Concedes
The US remains a crucial market for South Africa’s agricultural sector, accounting for approximately 4% of its total agricultural exports, valued at $15.1 billion in 2025. Main products exported include citrus, berries, grapes, wine, fruit juices, apples, pears, apricots, and nuts, though oranges, fruit juices, and nuts are currently exempt from these new tariffs. Wandile Sihlobo, the presidential envoy on agriculture and land and chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, acknowledged the new 12.5% tariff is “not desirable.” However, he added that it is “still much better and more aligned with some of South Africa’s competitors” and predicted better export activity in 2026 compared to the 30% tariffs faced for much of 2025. This statement reflects the subordinate position of South African capital within the global trade hierarchy, accepting a lesser form of economic coercion as an improvement.
The Cost of Dependence
The US government also raised tariffs for other agricultural competitors of South Africa, including Australia, Peru, and Chile, placing them at similar levels. The US state’s use of trade policy, cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric about forced labor, serves primarily to protect and advance its own national capital interests. The structural dependence of South African agricultural capital on the US market leaves it vulnerable to such unilateral actions. The inability of South African government and private sector lobbying to sway US authorities demonstrates the limited agency of peripheral states against imperial economic power.