Ambush or relationship reset? Daily Maverick writers assess Ramaphosa's meeting with Trump
Did SA's President walk into an obvious ambush, or was it a step towards resetting SA's relationship with the US? Six Daily Maverick staffers give their take on Cyril Ramaphosa's meeting with Donald Trump in the White House on Wednesday.
'An ambush' — Rebecca Davis, senior journalist
He didn't get Zelenskyed. He didn't get Zelenskyed. He didn't get Zelenskyed.
That's what we have to hang on to: President Cyril Ramaphosa did not get personally insulted by the world's most horrible duo of playground bullies, US Vice-President JD Vance and President Donald Trump, in the full glare of the international media — as happened to their wildly undeserving victim, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, in February.
But what happened in the Oval Office on Wednesday was, nonetheless, an ambush. That's the term currently dominating US media headlines about the encounter.
It was impossible not to feel for Ramaphosa, who had been bombarded with messaging before the trip that he should under no circumstances lose his cool, rise to the bait, or in any way antagonise the world's most powerful man. So he didn't. Some will call that a victory in itself, and yet who among us did not also secretly yearn to see Ramaphosa fight back a little more?
'The meeting should never have happened' — Ferial Haffajee, associate editor
It started well — Team SA with a tactical delegation of well-regarded political, sports and business leaders. A clever touch saw golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, who have teed off with Trump, putt for their country.
Things started genially enough. Then, Trump dimmed the Oval Office lights and played a mini-documentary crudely splicing EFF leader Julius Malema's rendition of his favourite song (Dubul' Ibhunu) and AfriForum's white-cross farm protests to 'prove' his theory of a genocide. The New York Times called it an 'astonishing ambush'; I call it a shit show. Such blatant lies by one of the world's most powerful men, which we were powerless to effectively rebut.
Ramaphosa maintained his calm as he responded with occasional spice. SA may yet grab victory from the jaws of defeat: the US is hungry for critical minerals and we have healthy reserves. Trump did not say he would not come to the G20. His officials are taking part in all the meetings.
But if an attack was anticipated and in the face of obvious calumny, should the meeting have happened or should we have waited for various multilateral processes under way to play out and avoid the public humiliation?
'We got off lightly' — Anso Thom, deputy editor
I am an eternal and impatient optimist, but I had very low expectations of the meeting. I thought Trump would have thrown a much bigger, Trump-sized ambush at us. It felt a bit tired, nothing new to show and images and narratives that have all been seen before.
He played to his domestic base, he was always going to. I thought Trump's response to the question about the International Court of Justice was tame. Other than handing over tabloid media printouts, Vance had no role.
The golfers were there to open a door, open Trump's mind and keep things fairly civil. I think we got off lightly; we didn't get a hole-in-one, but we got a birdie. US-SA relations are in a better place than a few weeks ago, but time will tell. We are dealing with a reality TV star after all.
' Golfing cameos and quiet appeasement' — Angela Daniels, Nelson Mandela Bay bureau editor
When Ramaphosa met Trump, many — well, maybe just those of us who like to see the best in everyone — hoped for a serious discussion on diplomacy, trade and shared challenges.
But no, the meeting quickly spiralled into madness.
Trump launched into a series of wild claims about South Africa, backed by a cherry-picked video. Meanwhile, standing awkwardly by were golf legends Ernie Els and Retief Goosen — talented sportsmen, sure, but what the hell do they have to do with international relations?
Watching Ramaphosa's polite but visibly uncomfortable smile as Trump flicked through crime scene photos was painful.
This was a moment to push back hard. To speak for the country. To correct the record. Instead, we got golfing cameos and quiet appeasement.
What was that, President Ramaphosa? Didn't you see the ambush coming?
'It's about race' — Stephen Grootes, associate editor
Never in the history of reported meetings between heads of state has one ambushed another with videos and recordings. It may have happened at the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but not in a one-on-one meeting, and never with heads of state. And Trump would never do it to a Chinese leader. Or even the leader of Qatar (which is giving him a jet).
This reveals his agenda: it is about race, and thus about South Africa.
Ramaphosa went in with several priorities, but the most important was to avoid a shouting match. He achieved that. And he scored some points of his own.
We should not forget that this is about a much bigger audience than people in the US or South Africa. The rest of the world saw it, and saw it for what it was. To them, Ramaphosa might well have looked like the adult in the room. As he so often does.
'Possible step towards rapprochement' — J Brooks Spector, associate editor
Things first seemed heading towards the style of Trump's meetings with Canada's Mark Carney and Britain's Keir Starmer rather than the Zelensky mugging.
Initially there was sufficient joviality that it seemed just possible this meeting would stay on a relatively adult tenor. But the moment Trump was given his lead, goaded by sharp press questions about such things as the $400-million gift airplane from Qatar, he took off the gloves and showed a video purportedly about the genocide of white farmers in South Africa.
The meeting only partially returned to civility by passionate observations from delegation member and billionaire Johann Rupert speaking about efforts to build a more inclusive society, rebutting a video that included Malema's incendiary words.
It is just possible, by the time the messaging after the meeting comes from the two sides, some movement towards rapprochement will be visible.
There are positive outcomes. Ramaphosa said the luncheon and subsequent discussions focused on real issues like trade and investment and not that nonsense about white farmer genocide. If further meetings move those chess pieces forward, the trip may have been worthwhile despite the charade with the video and the associated vitriol from Trump. Maybe. DM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
6 hours ago
- The South African
Cyril Ramaphosa calls for Israel and Iran to talk, not attack
President Cyril Ramaphosa has called for dialogue between Israel and Iran, warning that continued conflict will only lead to further devastation and economic fallout across the globe. Speaking to members of the media on the sidelines of the 30-year anniversary celebration of the Constitutional Court on Friday, Ramaphosa expressed grave concern over the escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly following reports that the United States may join Israel in potential military action against Iran. The White House said on Thursday that President Donald Trump would decide on 'whether or not to go' with US involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Having just returned from the G7 summit in Canada, President Ramaphosa cautioned that the world was entering a dangerous period of heightened geopolitical instability. 'The world has become a very dangerous place now, with all these conflicts that are flaring up into the destruction of infrastructure and loss of life. 'We want to continue calling on all actors that dialogue peace-making is the only way in which to solve problems, the disputes that arise in various parts of the country, including the dispute between Israel and Iran now should be solved through dialogue, and we say that it must happen immediately, without resorting to further air strikes to further bombs,' President Ramaphosa said. Ramaphosa emphasised that continued violence was claiming lives and causing ripple effects across the globe, including here at home. 'Lives are being lost, and it is actually having a devastating blow on the economies of the world because there is now uncertainty and prices are beginning to rise. We are already suffering from price rises in our fuel… We want the conflict to come to an end,' he said. Ramaphosa reiterated South Africa's longstanding foreign policy principle of peaceful resolution through diplomacy, warning that prolonged armed conflict would only deepen global instability. According to reports, Iran and Israel traded strikes overnight, with no signs of de-escalation in their weeklong conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his military's objective was to strike all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Julius Malema: EFF will not stand by as R700 million is looted under the guise of a National Dialogue
By Julius Malema The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) categorically rejects the grotesque and wasteful plan by the so-called National Dialogue Preparatory Task Team to spend R700 million on what they are calling a 'National Dialogue' because we know that it has no bearing on the lives of ordinary South Africans. In a country ravaged by poverty, joblessness, and a collapsing public infrastructure that continues to fall prey to climate change, it is not only irresponsible but deeply immoral to even contemplate such an exorbitant budget for a talk shop for elites. The timing of this announcement is also indicative of an uncaring government that is out of touch with the majority of the citizens of this country. The proposed dialogue with an inordinate price tag is said to involve only two national conventions and an unspecified number of public engagements. The entire project reeks of cronyism and self-enrichment that is deceptively packaged in the language of nation-building in an attempt to fool the public. But the EFF recognises this for the farce that it is. Dialogues do not cost R700 million. What we are currently witnessing is the return of the very same gravy train that stripped this country and its people of its dignity and robbed deserving South Africans of an opportunity to progress out of poverty. The difference is that now it is dressed up in what is being sold as a democratic consultation. Not on our watch! This absurd plan is being tabled at a time when our country is buckling under the weight of an unforgiving cost-of-living crisis. We have just emerged from a battle with Treasury over its callous and illegal attempt to increase VAT by a staggering 2% when the national budget was initially presented. It was a move that would have hit the poor and working class the hardest but failed because the EFF fought for the people and justice prevailed. However, on the horizon looms a fuel levy increase, which will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the price of food, transport, and essential goods. This again will hit the poor and marginalised people of this country the hardest solely because we are led by a government that has made it its mission to cushion the elite whilst exploiting the poor. Yet in these trying times the same government wants to allocate almost a billion rands for a dialogue. A dialogue with no defined outcomes, no constitutional mandate, and no meaningful connection to the urgent crises our people face. This is the epitome of tone-deaf. It is a slap in the face to millions of South Africans who go to bed hungry, study in dilapidated schools, queue at under-resourced clinics, and live in constant fear of crime in communities where police are severely understaffed. The government of Ramaphosa and his GNU can fund a dialogue but cannot implement solutions that will improve the lives of our people. The EFF supports genuine efforts at public engagement and democratic consultation, but we vehemently reject with contempt the idea that close to a billion is required in order for a dialogue to be classified as credible and meaningful. The government is clearly not serious about public involvement because if it were, it would invest that money into capacitating local clinics and building schools, so our kids are given quality decolonised education at all levels irrespective of their backgrounds. A caring government would focus on rebuilding our ailing infrastructure and resuscitating closed factories and industries as suggested by the EFF because that would lead to a working economy that can absorb young people who are currently jobless. Only an ANC government that is aloof with its DA partners can think democracy can be reduced to conferences in Sandton that will entail inflated invoices and no consequences. The EFF does not share those sentiments because we know that our people face more pressing needs. Our people need jobs, and they need them now. Our people need quality healthcare and safety in their communities. Our people need bold action and a country that prioritises the redistribution of wealth and land without compensation. They need action on load shedding and infrastructure collapse, not panel discussions on theoretical unity. This R700 million dialogue proposal is nothing but a vanity project of this failing government. It is looting of public funds. It is a national parade of misaligned government programs. Inflating prices for a dialogue whilst failing to employ doctors or pay educators. It is further enrichment for the elite and their networks who will benefit through tenders and consultancy fees. The near billion-rand price tag is an insult to struggling South Africans and our unemployed youth. The EFF demands full public disclosure of the dialogue budget, line by line. We will not allow this to happen behind closed doors while our people starve. Furthermore, the EFF is exploring legal options to challenge this wasteful expenditure and to prevent it from proceeding. We are also calling on civil society, labour unions, and all patriotic South Africans to reject this abuse of public funds. The EFF will continue to fight for economic justice, for an end to wasteful expenditure, and for a government that places the interests of the poor and marginalised at the centre of its agenda. This country does not need a dialogue as we all already know what our problems are. We need implementation. We need jobs, land, housing, education, healthcare, and safety. We need a government that works for the people, not one that hosts conferences to congratulate itself while the country burns. Julius Malema is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
Eyewitness News
7 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Trump confirms DR Congo-Rwanda peace deal, gripes about Nobels
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump took credit Friday for a peace deal negotiated in Washington between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda -- and complained that he would not get a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. The warring African nations said in a joint statement on Wednesday that they had initialed an agreement aimed at ending the conflict in eastern DRC -- to be formally signed in the US capital next week. "This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!" Trump said in a Truth Social post confirming the breakthrough. But his triumphant tone darkened as he complained that he had been overlooked by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for his mediating role in conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as Serbia and Kosovo. He also demanded credit for "keeping peace" between Egypt and Ethiopia and brokering the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements aiming to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab nations. Trump campaigned for office as a "peacemaker" who would use his negotiating skills to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza, although both conflicts are still raging five months into his presidency. Indian officials have denied that he had any role in its ceasefire with Pakistan. The government of Pakistan, meanwhile, said Friday it would formally recommend Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize "in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership" during the recent conflict. However, Trump's claims for the Abraham Accords being able to "unify the Middle East" have yet to be realized, with war breaking out between Israel and Iran, and no end in sight to the conflict in Gaza. And critics say the Republican greatly exaggerated the significance of the 2020 Serbia-Kosovo agreements, which were statements of intent that were thin on details and quickly unraveled. The president said officials from DR Congo and Rwanda would be in Washington on Monday for the signing, although their joint statement said they would put pen to paper on June 27. The resource-rich eastern DRC, which borders Rwanda, has been plagued by violence for three decades, with a resurgence since the anti-government M23 armed group went on a renewed offensive at the end of 2021. The deal -- which builds on a declaration of principles signed in April -- was reached during three days of talks between the neighbors in Washington, according to their statement. Trump has received multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations from supporters and loyal lawmakers over the years. He has made no secret of his irritation at missing out on the prestigious award, bringing it up as recently as February during an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. President Barack Obama won the prize soon after taking office in 2009, and Trump complained during his 2024 election campaign that his Democratic predecessor was not worthy of the honor.
