What did the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting tell us about the image of SA and its leaders?

A video is played as US President Donald Trump meets with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington last Wednesday. The meeting was amid tensions over Washington's resettlement of white Afrikaners that the US president claims are the victims of "genocide." Trump criticised EFF leader Julius Malema and the "Kill the Boer" chant, citing it as evidence of targeted violence against white Afrikaner farmers.
Image: Jim WATSON / AFP
THE much-anticipated meeting between our President Cyril Ramaphosa and his counterpart in the United States, President Donald Trump, lived up to expectations, with the latter turning up the heat on his guests.
By the admission of our delegation, South Africa is a very dangerous place because of rampant crime and lawlessness.
While the jury is still out as to whether Ramaphosa succeeded in his attempts to reset the strained bilateral relations, what is clear is that the meeting gave the international community the impression that South African leaders are failing in their constitutional duty to protect citizens and govern the country.
The result is that our pride as a beacon of hope in Africa is now hurt. The South African government came across as inept and lacking the political will to deal decisively with the scourge of violent crime, mass unemployment, and racial intolerance, to name a few crises.
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
We are not yet privy to what was discussed behind closed doors and the deals that were made. What will be remembered about the meeting is Trump's wild and unsubstantiated claims of genocide suffered by Afrikaners and his display of brute power over Ramaphosa in front of the cameras. One could easily tell that Ramaphosa, like Ukraine's Zelensky went to the White House with a begging bowl.
Unlike Zelensky, though, Ramaphosa went out of his way to massage the errant Trump's ego and thus came across as submissive; suffice it to say that some people would argue that he was being diplomatic.
However, the big takeaway and the elephant in the room has got to be the painful admission from the South African delegation of the government's helplessness in the fight against rampant crime.
This helplessness was in full display in 2021 during the looting spree after former President Zuma was arrested. To date, not even a single mastermind behind the 2021 riots has been successfully prosecuted. Similarly, those fingered by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry have not been prosecuted, suggesting that there's no political will to deal decisively with corruption and wrongdoing.
This raises the question: what does this tell us about the image of South Africa and its leaders?
The image of South Africa that Trump portrayed and that the delegation conceded to was of a lawless country whose government cannot protect its citizens from violent crime. In recent years, more and more South Africans are living in fear of political assassinations, hijackings, extortionists, burglars, armed robbers, kidnappers, and taxi violence.
What exacerbates South Africa's problems are its porous borders and corrupt officials managing the borders. Lawlessness and the lack of political will to combat crime in South Africa are attracting criminals across the continent and from abroad to come and operate in the country with impunity.
Crime in South Africa permeates every aspect of life, and it undermines good governance, efficient economic management, public safety, social order, and compliance with the law. The result is that South Africa is increasingly becoming an unattractive destination for foreign direct investment and international tourists.
No wonder our domestic economy is struggling to grow and create much-needed jobs. What this means is that the problems of high unemployment and poverty are not going away soon, and crime is likely to continue.
While Trump might not have succeeded in proving the genocide case, he appeared to succeed in making the South African delegation concede that crime, across the board, is out of control and the government is failing in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens.
South Africa's businessman, Johann Rupert, was at pains explaining to Trump that 'crime affects everyone' and that South Africa needs America's 'help to stop this awful killing….' Interestingly, Rupert made the point that South Africa needs to fix its wobbly economy to end what he labels the culture of 'dependency and lawlessness.'
The portrayal of South Africa as a country that cannot fix its problems does not bode well for its aspirations as a regional leader in Africa.
South Africa styles and markets itself as a 'bridge' and a getaway into the African continent. Its membership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the G20 makes South Africa see itself as a spokesperson for and leader of Africa.
This begs the question: Is South Africa fit and fully equipped to be a regional leader if its government cannot provide domestic leadership?
The idea that economic problems, such as high unemployment among the youth and poverty, are to blame for intolerable levels of crime is not convincing. There are many poorer countries in Africa without high levels of crime. The difference is that there are consequences for breaking the law in many African states. In countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, there is a political will to hold lawbreakers accountable.
Ramaphosa's cute move to dispel the notion of genocide:
In an attempt to debunk and send a message that there is no genocide of Afrikaners, Ramaphosa 's entourage comprised prominent Afrikaners such as golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen as well as businessman Johann Rupert and John Steenhuizen, a member of Ramaphosa's GNU Cabinet.
Even the presence of prominent Afrikaners appeared not to be enough evidence to convince Trump that the South African government is not discriminating against whites, in general, and Afrikaners, in particular. It should be remembered that the GNU has passed three laws that white political parties vehemently opposed, that is, the BELA bill, the NHI bill, and the Expropriation bill.
In this context, Trump came to the meeting wanting to put pressure on Ramaphosa to do more to accommodate the interests of the white population. This could explain why Trump saw the multi-racial composition of South Africa's delegation to the US as superficial and condescending.
The Malema factor:
In making his case of a genocide in South Africa, Trump played a video of the EFF's Julius Malema chanting 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer' and even former president Zuma singing about shooting Afrikaners. Trump then baselessly claimed that 'they take the land. They kill the farmer. And nothing happens to them.'
There is no doubt that these slogans and songs about killing Afrikaners do constitute hate speech and incite violence, even though the courts have found otherwise. It was quite embarrassing to see our prominent leaders utter such venomous words at a time when South Africans should be forging racial tolerance and unity.
Without realising it, Trump gave Malema the attention he craves and the status of a leader who stands up to the 'imperialist' West. Malema might have looked bad in the eyes of the Western audience for shouting hateful slogans, but among his sympathizers, he is now the real deal, who is feared by Western leaders.
The slogan, 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer,' has a long history in South Africa, and it is associated with the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle. How embarrassing it could have been for Ramaphosa had he been seen next to Zuma singing a song about shooting Afrikaners, since the video Trump played showed Zuma wearing an ANC golf shirt while still the president of the ANC.
So what message does it send to the world when prominent leaders in South Africa, including its then state president Zuma, sing about shooting and killing members of a minority group?
The governing ANC has never denounced this awful slogan. This is the same ANC government that accused Israel of genocide but tolerates leaders who advocate for the killing of a racial minority. I guess this is the hypocrisy Trump sought to expose. No wonder no meaningful racial reconciliation has happened in South Africa. Can one then blame those Afrikaners who recently emigrated to the US?
Zakhele Collison Ndlovu
Image: File
Zakhele Collison Ndlovu is a political analyst at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
THE POST

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mail & Guardian

an hour 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.

eNCA

an hour ago

• eNCA

Ramaphosa calls for diplomatic resolution

JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa says the Israel-Iran conflict should be resolved through dialogue. He's concerned about the uncertainty around an increase in global fuel prices. "We want to continue calling on all actors that dialogue, peace-making is the only way in which to solve problems," Ramaphosa said.

Daily Maverick

4 hours ago

• Daily Maverick

As Constitutional Court turns 30, Ramaphosa vows support for judicial independence

President Cyril Ramaphosa joined dignitaries and judicial leaders at Constitutional Hill to honour the court's legacy of championing rights and shaping democracy, on the 30th anniversary of South Africa's (SA's) Constitutional Court. When former President Nelson Mandela opened the doors of the Constitutional Court for the first time on 14 February 1995, he reminded the founding bench of their duty, saying: 'Yours is the most noble task that could fall to any legal person. In the last resort, the guarantee of the fundamental rights and freedoms for which we have fought so hard lies in your hands. We look to you to honour the Constitution and the people it represents.'' On Friday, 20 June 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa, members of the government, former and current chief justices, and dignitaries from around the world, gathered at Constitutional Hill. To commemorate 30 years since the establishment of the apex court and each landmark judgment which pushed SA closer to turning the Constitution into a living document. Delivering his keynote address, Ramaphosa said that since ConCourt was established, it has handed down judgments that have had a profound impact on the law in SA, including the abolishment of the death penalty in 1995, the 2002 right to health care and access to HIV/Aids treatment, the 2004 right of access to social security by permanent residents, among many others. While Ramaphosa praised the ConCourt for its meaningful work over the last 30 years, remaining unshaken when embroiled in political pressure and controversies, the president acknowledged that 'the advancement of socio-economic rights is not as far as we wish it to be, particularly with respect to housing and basic services'. Referencing the landmark Grootboom judgment, in which Irene Grootboom and her family's right to access adequate housing was affirmed by the ConCourt, Ramaphosa said it was a blight on SA's hard-won democracy that Grootboom died without her dream of a decent house being fulfilled. 'Deepening respect for constitutionalism across all sectors must start with the state. 'We must acknowledge the troubling irony of lauding the Constitutional Court's progressive judgments on one hand, especially on socio-economic rights, with the reality that the state apparatus has in many of these cases had to be compelled by this very court to fulfil its obligations,' said the president. 'Our people should not have to resort to litigation to have their rights realised, and this is the paramount consideration.' More support Ramaphosa said the state had on many occasions failed to support the court adequately and vowed that this would change. To this end, Ramaphosa vowed that the government would increase its support to the judiciary to ensure that it could execute its duties independently, effectively and with dignity. 'Government must and will provide a range of institutional, infrastructure, financial, administrative, and legal support. The support is crucial to maintaining judicial independence, which is a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law,' he said. The challenges faced by ConCourt are well documented, especially concerning finalising matters against targets. The Constitutional Court Review found that over the years, the court's workload had increased significantly, which has led to longer processing times for judgments. The government is working to solve this. Ramaphosa said that funding for the ConCourt was mentioned for the first time in Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's recent Budget speech, with money being allocated to enhance access to justice and improve court services. 'We reaffirm our commitment to providing all the necessary support to our courts as they administer justice. At our meeting with the judiciary recently, we committed to taking steps to advance the independence of the judiciary and the future of our courts' administration,' he said. Speaking to journalists at the sidelines of the commemoration, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, who is leading the commemoration, said Ramaphosa's announcement was a long time coming. 'We are quite happy, naturally, about this development,' said Maya. 'It was understood that the rendering of the judiciary to be fully independent would happen in two stages, the first one starting in 2013. It was anticipated that the finalisation of the process would be put into place soon thereafter, but it has dragged and dragged for well over a decade. It's never too late to do the right thing, here we are now, and moves are afoot,' Chief Justice Maya said. Targeting full judicial independence Maya said that the judiciary is in a hurry to finally obtain full judicial independence, jokingly adding that they would not allow the president and his team to delay the process any further. Standing next to Maya, Ramaphosa said that a joint committee had been appointed to work on the modalities, and everything that needs to be in place to ensure that the judiciary can execute its role without any hindrance. 'Its own independence as an entity has always been secured, it's just been the support that it needs from government that we are now putting in place,' Ramaphosa said. DM