Why Trump 'snubbed' Ramaphosa at G7 summit amid Iran-Israel conflict

President Cyril Ramaphosa has concluded his working trip in Canada after he attended the G7 Leaders Summit where he was allegedly snubbed by US president Donald Trump.
Image: GCIS
US President Donald Trump appears to have snubbed his South African counterpart Cyril Ramaphosa when he left the G7 Summit in Canada before the two could meet.
The latest developments raise further questions where SA-US relations stand after Ramaphosa led a delegation to the US in efforts to 'reset' strained relations over false claims by the Trump administration that there was white genocide in South Africa.
Trump is said to have left the G7 summit early to the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, which started just days before the summit.
The US is a strong Israeli ally and continues to support it with weapons, while accusing South Africa of backing the Iranian regime. Iran is now part of BRICS of which South Africa plays a major role.
Ramaphosa, who was accompanied by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola, was an invited guest at the summit as the only African leader. He met with all other leaders on the sidelines of the summit, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and others.
The meeting between Trump and Ramaphosa was expected to discuss trade agreements, including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and US-SA tariffs.
Trump has been vocal about his stance on the Iran-Israel conflict, hinting at the possibility of US involvement and warning Iran to consider talks with Israel to de-escalate the conflict.
Political analyst Sandile Swana said Trump's snub of Ramaphosa was likely due to pressure on Ramaphosa to support the US position on the Iran-Israel conflict.
He said Trump could not afford to be friendly to Ramaphosa when hostilities were escalating around Israel including Gaza and Iran.
'Trump wants South Africa to support the US…The issue of tariffs and all that is a bind for Trump because he wants to be friendly with Afrikaners and whites in South Africa…So he cannot deprive these white South Africans he wants to be friends with of the revenues that they can make from the US.
'The tariffs really pertain to the relationship between Trump and white South Africans and I still believe that Trump will give them what they want in exchange for them being a force against Ramaphosa and against the ANC…so that is an incentive, a pay-off for them for sustaining Trump's campaign in South Africa. This is just a white supremacist agenda,' Swana said.
Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that Ramaphosa will continue to assert South Africa's calls for de-escalation in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere during his deliberations at the G7.
"For some time now, President Ramaphosa has been quite consistent in calling for the de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East," Magwenya said.
'Part of that call was to ensure that this conflict that we've seen in Gaza does not extend to the rest of the region and so one of Canada's priorities for this G7 is this threatening of peace and stability, where we are going to align with the position in so far as calling for a peaceful resolution of all conflicts, Russia and Ukraine, India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Now we will continue making that call that those conflicts have to stop,' Magwenya said.
Cape Times

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

2 hours ago

• IOL News

The national dialogue must include the concerns of the Indian minority

Indian South Africans are descendants of indentured labourers. To build a just and cohesive future, the writer says South Africa must engage with every community's story, not only in the past tense, but in the living reality of today's challenges. Image: South African History Online PRESIDENT Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement of a National Dialogue is a powerful call to action. It is not a mere event or ceremonial gathering, it is a participatory, unfolding process that will stretch from grassroots consultations to a National Convention, aiming to reset our democratic compact and imagine a shared South African future. As the first phase begins on August 15, it is vital that the concerns of all communities are placed firmly on the agenda. This includes the Indian minority, whose contributions and challenges remain under-recognised in national discourse. The National Dialogue promises to be inclusive, representative, and future-focused. Civil society, political parties, traditional and religious leaders, workers, youth, and other key voices are to be engaged in conversations that will culminate in a second National Convention. There, a common vision and programme of action will be adopted. An Eminent Persons Group will help guide this historic initiative, ensuring it is more than rhetoric, it must be renewed in action. Yet, if this dialogue is truly to reflect the diversity of our nation, it must acknowledge the unique experiences and present-day realities of Indian South Africans. The prognosis for this community, which has been rooted in South African soil since 1860, is shaped by a history of marginalisation, contemporary economic pressures, and a search for identity within a changing socio-political landscape. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading Indian South Africans are descendants of indentured labourers and free migrants who came to work in the sugar cane fields of Natal, later becoming traders, workers, and professionals despite the systematic discrimination of colonialism and apartheid. From forced removals under the Group Areas Act to limited political representation under white rule, their history is one of struggle and resilience. Post-apartheid freedom offered formal equality, but the legacy of exclusion persists. Indian South Africans remain a small minority navigating between integration and the preservation of cultural identity. This balancing act is complicated by rising economic inequality, political fragmentation, and at times, resurgent xenophobia and racial scapegoating. Economically, the Indian community often occupies a middle-tier status, better off than many, but still vulnerable. Many small businesses, particularly in logistics, trade, and manufacturing, are threatened by infrastructure failures, load-shedding, and water shortages. While affirmative action is vital for redressing historical wrongs, it can create new forms of exclusion when not applied sensitively. The perception of Indian South Africans as a "privileged" group masks the deep inequalities within the community itself. In recent years, skilled professionals have increasingly sought stability abroad, while working-class Indians remain in under-resourced townships like Chatsworth, Phoenix, and Lenasia, grappling with drugs, unemployment, and crime. These townships are also increasingly diverse, as African and Indian communities live side by side, an opportunity for unity, but also a potential flashpoint if tensions are not addressed through inclusive dialogue. The Indian identity in South Africa is multifaceted, comprising Hindu, Muslim, and Christian faiths, and languages like Tamil, Hindi, and Gujarati. This internal diversity enriches the cultural landscape of the nation. Indian festivals, places of worship, and traditional practices remain vibrant, even as the younger generation increasingly blends identities and adopts cosmopolitan lifestyles. To build a just and cohesive future, South Africa must engage with every community's story, not only in the past tense, but in the living reality of today's challenges. For Indian South Africans, this means: recognising historical contributions and present vulnerabilities; ensuring meaningful political representation in both local and national processes; supporting economic resilience through inclusive growth strategies; protecting cultural expression while promoting intercultural solidarity; addressing township neglect, crime, and substance abuse with tailored, community - driven interventions. The National Dialogue provides a rare moment of reflection and reimagining. If we are to emerge stronger from the crises of our time - inequality, political division, climate shocks, and social fragmentation, we must build a South Africa where every community sees itself in the national mirror. Indian South Africans, while a minority, are not marginal to the national story. Their inclusion in this dialogue is not a favour; it is a necessity for a credible, durable, and democratic social compact. Let us speak not just of unity, but of justice, rooted in recognition, responsibility, and renewal. Jerald Vedan Image: Supplied

eNCA

2 hours ago

• eNCA

World Bank and IMF climate snub 'worrying', says COP29 presidency

BONN - The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. Major development banks have agreed to boost climate spending and are seen as crucial in the effort to dramatically increase finance to help poorer countries build resilience to impacts and invest in renewable energy. But anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. Nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to reduce the shortfall, with the expectation of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. - A 'worrisome trend' - His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The World Bank is directing 45 percent of its total lending to climate, as part of an action plan in place until June 2026, with the public portion of that spilt 50/50 between emissions reductions and building resilience. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has pushed in a different direction. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obliged to pay climate finance to poorer nations. Other countries, most notably China, make voluntary contributions. - Money matters - Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and have committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to cope with the climate crisis. The issue flared up again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank declined to comment on the record.

Mail & Guardian

5 hours ago

• Mail & Guardian

International Atomic Energy Agency resolution was weaponised against Iran

Iranian missiles hit Jerusalem earlier this week. (X) The perversion of multilateral institutions using seemingly benign resolutions as quasi-declarations continues. Consequently, the multilateral system is slowly collapsing. The election of Donald Trump as United States president has further complicated the situation. Trump has pulled the US out of a number of multilateral agreements, including the Paris Accord on climate change. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is accused of selective justice when it comes to the prosecution of those charged with crimes against humanity — of only targeting African leaders and ignoring Western leaders who are accused of similar crimes. The ICC ignored calls to charge former British prime minister Tony Blair and former US president George Bush for crimes against humanity when they falsely asserted that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution that Iran was in breach of its proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years was a precursor to Israel's attack on Iran. The resolution was adopted by the IAEA's board of governors on 10 June; three days later Israel attacked Iran. The resolution was passed by 19 votes in favour, three against and 11 abstentions. The timing of the report and the speed with which Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, acted on it has raised questions. When did he know about the resolution? How did he manage to prepare Israel's attacks on Iran in such a short space of time? Was he given prior knowledge about the content of the resolution? Netanyahu, who has always scorned talks with Iran, took advantage of the resolution and the changes in the Middle East since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. Israel has always claimed that Iran poses an existential threat to it. This follows a statement made by Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2012 at the United Nations. Ahmadinejad said Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be 'eliminated'. He was criticised for uttering an inflammatory statement and ignoring a UN's warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session. Netanyahu has been beating the war drum against Iran ever since, arguing that 'Iran has to be stopped on its tracks before it is too late'. There are 191 countries that are parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), making it one of the most widely adhered-to arms control agreements. But four nuclear weapons states — India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — are not signatories to the treaty. The treaty's objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The IAEA, an agency of the UN, is responsible for monitoring nuclear activities and obligations of countries party to the treaty. South Africa has a nuclear power station generating 5% of the country's electricity. The country ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in February 2019 and was the first country to have disarmed its nuclear weapons. Fearing that these could end up in the wrong hands, South Africa ended its nuclear weapons programme, which began during the 1970s, in 1989. The decision was executed just months before negotiations on ending apartheid between the National Party (NP) and the ANC started. It was an important decision which facilitated a smooth political transition in South Africa. Otherwise, global powers could have delayed or derailed the political transition. According to Ali Mazrui, a Kenyan intellectual, the NP was under pressure from various quarters to prevent what he referred to as the 'Black Bomb' from being transferred to an unknown black political leadership. (Graphic: John McCann/M&G) Back to the Middle East. Who is presenting an existential threat to other nations in the Middle East? Who possesses nuclear weapons in the region? There is a wide belief that Israel has nuclear weapons. The estimates are that it has nuclear stockpiles of between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads. According to political analyst Msano Zive, it is Israel that poses an existential threat in the region. The manner in which Israel has continued with the genocide in Gaza, its willingness to starve and suffocate civilians in Gaza and its disproportionate response to the attacks on 7 October 2023 has never been experienced in modern times. Israel is intent on committing the same atrocities in Iran. The destruction of property in Gaza and the number of deaths, including those still lying under the rubble, resemble a country that was struck by an atomic bomb, Zive argues. Israel has not ratified the non-proliferation treaty, meaning that the IAEA's monitors have no access to its nuclear programme. The world should be concerned. Israel has continually violated national sovereignty and security of its neighbours. Other than continuing to commit genocide in Gaza, it is relentlessly bombing Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and now Iran. Netanyahu's political survival and avoiding jail time is dependent largely on the continuation of the war in the region. Israel's failure to destroy Hamas in Gaza has led to Netanyahu to search for new targets. Iran has been the low-hanging fruit for a long time, given the national sentiments on Iran in Israel. The IAEA has to ensure a nuclear weapon-free and responsible world. Importantly, it also has to ensure that those who possess nuclear weapons and run nuclear related programmes act responsibly and adhere to the basic rules and regulations of the treaty. Importantly, the role of the IAEA of encouraging a nuclear weapons-free world has to be promoted. It is important therefore how the IAEA deals with Iran; it has to be seen to be fair. Iran ratified the non-proliferation treaty voluntarily. Why is it then harassed by a country known to possess nuclear weapons that refuses to ratify the treaty and scrutiny by the IAEA? The continuation of these double standards is likely to encourage other countries in the world who intend to produce nuclear weapons from being open about their plans. Thembisa Fakude is a senior research fellow at Africa Asia Dialogues and a director at the Mail & Guardian.