50% of Manufacturing Losses for Chinese Imports, South Africa Still Leans to China

cs_opinion_img
Despite the continuous expansion of BRICS, some may worry that trade disputes or leadership changes between member countries may affect their relations. Regarding this kind of concerns, Busani Ngcaweni, director general of National School of Government in South Africa, discusses why the trend of multipolarization led by the BRICS will not be hindered.
January 23, 2025
author_image
Director General of the National School of Government in South Africa; Visiting Fellow at the China Institute, Fudan University
Click Register
Register
Try Premium Member
for Free with a 7-Day Trial
Click Register
Register
Try Premium Member for Free with a 7-Day Trial

When South African people purchase new vehicles, you’ll notice a shift—there are now three to four non-European, non-American, and non-Japanese brands among the top sellers. Chinese and Indian brands, which were not historically dominant in the auto sector, have now made their way into the top ten, challenging over a century of dominance by traditional players.

These are consumers making a significant decision—to take out a bank loan to buy a car. Now, think about it: would you abandon a trusted, tried-and-tested American, European, or Japanese brand with decades of reputation to purchase a Chinese or Indian brand, which is relatively new? Yet, this is exactly what’s happening.

It shows that South African consumers, who are highly conscious when making such decisions, have seen, been attracted to, and come to trust these newer brands. Buying a car is not a casual choice—it’s a long-term commitment, often requiring 5 to 7 years to pay off. This shift highlights how the market and consumers are increasingly engaging with products from countries outside of Europe and the U.S., bringing more diversity into the automotive market.

After the 2010 World Cup, this shift was one of the most notable changes. Brands like Toyota and Hyundai, long considered market leaders, began losing market share as new entrants gained traction.

Basically, what I’m saying is that the growth of Asian brands—Chinese and Indian—in the South African market is driven by ordinary people who borrow money from banks to buy cars. These consumers trust that ‘Made in Asia’ can provide the same value for money as ‘Made in Europe’ or ‘Made in America.’

This is a key data point illustrating how people are forming new connections that go beyond the historical alliances shaped by colonial encounters.

Apart from automobiles, this shift is also evident in agriculture. If you examine South Africa’s export basket, you’ll notice that we are now exporting more agricultural products to Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

For South African farmers, it’s clear that growth over the next decade or so will come from the Asian market. As they encounter increasing barriers in Europe and the U.S., where markets are becoming more protectionist to safeguard own industries of the West, they naturally pivot to where opportunities are growing. This shift reflects a change in whom people trust to trade fairly and competitively.

This is how the course of history evolves and adapts. And this shift is reflected in the choices made at different levels: a South African family deciding to purchase an Asian car brand, and a consumer in Shanghai enjoying fruits grown in a rural area of South Africa.

In October 2024, the first batch of South African avocados were being packaged to ship to Shanghai after gaining access for exporting to China.

Ordinary people may not frame it that way, but it is our responsibility, as those who study political history and international relations, to draw these connections and explain why it matters so much for South Africans. For example, when watching a World Cup match, South Africans might find themselves supporting the Brazilian team, even when Brazil is playing against a French team that may consist of 90% Black players. This support isn’t about race; rather, it reflects the historical patterns and deep sense of solidarity between Africa and Brazil.

When watching the Olympics, you might notice excitement in Africa as China’s team rises in the medal rankings, challenging the dominance of the U.S. and other Western countries. This excitement isn’t because Africans have been overly influenced by Chinese media. Rather, it’s a natural response to seeing a country from the Global South building strength, competing convincingly, and challenging the dominance of Euro-American teams. And that is how ordinary people naturally respond to this pattern of consolidation.

So, people must understand that South Africa’s entry into BRICS was neither a coincidence nor an accident of history. Before South Africa joined BRICS, it has already established an organization called IBSA with Brazil and India.

Found on 6 June 2003 in Brazil, the IBSA Dialogue Forum promotes south-south cooperation and great understanding of three developing continents, namely Asia, Africa and South America.

So, half of BRICS had already been established at that time. You could say that BRICS is, in a way, a convergence of IBSA and perhaps the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

If you trace the history, you’ll see that South Africa joining BRICS was a logical consolidation. The presidents of Brazil and India had been engaging for over three years before BRICS was formed.
Other than these three countries, others also already had strategic partnership agreements, such as South Africa’s agreements with China and its historical ties with Russia.
This evolution was a natural progression of the relationships between these countries, as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and similar initiatives in Asia.

Of course, others may try to take credit for it—Goldman Sachs, for example, claimed to have coined the idea of BRICS. However, the point I’m making is that the presidents of these three countries had already established IBSA. BRICS, therefore, became a natural evolution of ideas that were already in place among nations with shared similar histories and mutual interests.

In fact, the year 2025 marks the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference. Bandung was significant because it symbolized the meeting of the ‘Black Star’ and the ‘Red Star.’ This refers to the presence of African leaders, such as those from Ghana, whose flag prominently features the Black Star, and the leadership of China, where the Communist Party had already triumphed with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. And Indonesia played a major role in hosting and facilitating this historic conference.

Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai addressing at the Bandung Conference

We must view all these events as patterns of history that consolidation at different moments of the time. South Africa’s membership in BRICS is part of this logical evolution that has unfolded over the years.

Beyond economic considerations and other global affairs, it is also about solidarity. South Africa has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of international solidarity, and this pattern is evident throughout its history.

Some criticize why the South African president supports Palestine. But this criticism stems from ignorance of history. South Africa has been the greatest beneficiary of international solidarity, both during the struggle against apartheid and, between 2000 and 2010, during the AIDS pandemic.

On 11 and 12 January 2024, public hearings of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel were held at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

International solidarity was a cornerstone of South Africa’s struggle against apartheid. It brought together people from all races and backgrounds across the globe to stand united against this injustice. This culminated in a UN resolution declaring apartheid a crime against humanity.

In fact, apartheid is one of only two systems in history to be officially classified as such by the UN—the other being Nazism.

It doesn’t make sense to think that a country like South Africa, which has been a significant beneficiary of international solidarity, would not extend its support to others in need of solidarity to overcome their own struggles.

South African President Nelson Mandela embraced Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat as he arrived for the opening of the 12th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Durban on 2 September 1998.

When people fail to recognize these patterns of history, they often perceive decisions as isolated or merely tied to specific moments, rather than part of a broader historical continuity. At different epochs, the pattern may evolve in distinct ways, but the idea remains the same.

But often, there are concerns that the relationship between the BRICS countries might be affected by trade disputes or leadership changes. One thing I always point out is that BRICS has endured significant political changes: South Africa has had at least two different presidents since the first BRICS summit. Putin wasn’t the Russian president at the time of the first summit. And Brazil has seen four president changes.

Despite these shifts, BRICS continues to exist because its foundation isn’t a political alliance tied to specific ideological positions. It’s not something that collapses simply because of a change in political parties.

These are the deeper patterns of history that need to be studied and understood to appreciate why such frameworks persist.

Let me share some fun facts. Even within the context of BRICS, South Africa hasn’t been able to sell as much wine to the Brazilian market as we potentially could. This is because Brazil protects its market for Argentina and other Mercosur countries. However, this contradiction doesn’t mean there are problems in the relationship between Brazil and South Africa.

Similarly, South Africa’s manufacturing base has suffered significant losses—almost half of it wiped out—due to cheap Chinese imports. This is another contradiction, yet the relationship with China remains healthy because such contradictions are inherent in the global trading system.

There are also tensions between China and India, but both countries continue to participate in BRICS. Why? Because at a higher level, they are managing these contradictions while pursuing a much larger and shared vision that goes beyond trade imbalances or disputes. It doesn’t mean that because we have agreed to work on a particular common program.

What do these things mean? Everyone is excited about the possibility of the world shifting towards multipolarity. In this multipolar environment, countries would no longer be forced to choose sides or adopt prescribed development models. Instead, they could make their own choices based on their unique circumstances, explore various options, and select the best available solutions.

This shift would mean that countries could trade and sell goods and services at fair prices, addressing the historically problematic global terms of trade. It would also enable nations to negotiate for industrialization by adding value to their minerals rather than simply exporting raw materials.

Furthermore, multipolarity could democratize the global governance system, making it more inclusive and legitimate. This would allow for greater popular participation, ensuring that even the smallest countries feel they have a stake in global affairs. Power would no longer be determined solely by nuclear capabilities or other forms of dominance.

This vision reflects what the world is striving for—a fairer global trading system and more democratic governance structures. While some may attach labels to this transformation, the patterns of history are undeniably shifting, and they are doing so rapidly.

Editor: Chang Zhangjin

VIEWS BY

author_image
Director General of the National School of Government in South Africa; Visiting Fellow at the China Institute, Fudan University
Share This Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comment
Cancel

  1. A

    Good information

    Show more
    Show less
    likednot_liked 0likednot_liked 0Reply
  2. It’s not Chinese problem if some of those African countries can’t find a way to produce cheaper goods. Museveni of Uganda offered you one to solve that is get connected with railway networks. Poor Africans just want every solutions brought for them on a silver

    Show more
    Show less
    likednot_liked 0likednot_liked 0Reply
  3. As has been made apparent very recently by Donald Trump speaking to an international forum, as Trump referred to the Monroe Doctrine’ in different epochs the pattern may change,but the idea remains the same.

    Show more
    Show less
    likednot_liked 0likednot_liked 0Reply