BLAMING Patricia de Lille for the rand's weakness, as Maria Ramos has done, is simply astounding.

Treasury director-general Ramos, in a departure from her super-rational self, last week blamed the Pan Africanist Congress firebrand for sowing suspicion about corruption in government. Concern over the possible involvement in the arms scandal of "a senior African National Congress MP" is said to have sent our currency reeling.

It is true that the arms scandal has added to the rand's woes. Noone can dispute that. But what makes Ramos's intervention curious is that she singled the issue out, in direct contrast to her style when the Zimbabwean land invasions and President Robert Mugabe's heavy-handedness were blamed for the rand's troubles.

Last year, when investment banks routinely sent out notes on Zimbabwe and the rand, Ramos and Finance Minister Trevor Manuel steadfastly maintained that the rand's weakness was a reflection of the euro's losing battle against a rampant dollar.

To be fair to Ramos, it must sap all her energy (and then some) to remain super-rational in the face of a battered currency and constant badgering by journalists.

Nevertheless, her comments have firmly put the focus on country-specific reasons, rather than global trends, for the rand's weakness.

The reeling rand is not just an accident caused by the weak euro, Argentina's debt problems, Turkey's failing banks, the defiantly strong dollar, plummeting commodity prices as global growth slows, or any of the other familiar reasons for the rand to be hammered.

There are issues related to SA itself which play an important role, and which we need to think about, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

Whether by accident or design, Ramos's comments betrayed concern over the currency's weakness. This is not surprising, as she and her team assumed a relatively stable currency in the budget review.

If not for the rand, SA's interest rates may well have been able to follow the global trend downwards.

The single most important reason for the rand's vulnerability is the absence of stable capital flows to the region.

SA's current account deficit is small when compared to other commodity export countries whose currencies are under pressure. The rand's problem is not trade; it is investment. And that is why the proposed buy-out of De Beers' minorities by an Oppenheimer-led consortium is so important. Ditto for the sale of the state's stake in M-Cell, as well as the Telkom listing.

The likelihood that the De Beers buy-out may not succeed increased on Friday. That means that an inflow of about $3bn may no longer come SA's way, because shareholders perceive more value in the longer run from holding onto their shares.

It is indeed ironic, even sad, that the delisting of the bluest of SA's blue chips should be the key to the rand's short-term strength. And the emphasis truly is on the short-term. In the longer run, nothing positive is to be had from SA losing De Beers.

The question SA's policymakers should ask themselves is why foreign capital is so reluctant to flow to SA? What can we do to make it a foreign investment destination of choice, so that rumour-mongering by politicians makes little difference?  

With acknowledgment to Business Day.