Trump’s attack on SA causes backlash

What started with a social media post by United States (US) President Donald Trump – apparently prompted by the passage of South Africa’s Expropriation Act – snowballed into stopping all aid to this country and offering refuge to Afrikaners. Jews were somehow caught in the crossfire.

The anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiment that followed Trump’s latest executive order (EO) put out on 7 February is due to many viewing Trump as favouring Israel, which leads to the belief that he favours Jews.

Understandable, considering that Trump cited South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its close relations with Iran among his reasons for this radical policy shift.

It has led to a call by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to close down the Israeli embassy.

On 8 February, former EFF politician Mbuyiseni Ndlozi tweeted to his 1.9 million followers, “Has anyone asked another beneficiary of Trump’s executive order what their reaction is? I suspect that the South African Zionist Federation and Jewish Board of Deputies are far more responsible for this executive order than these Boer chaps. Of course, they are equally racist & alarmist! But through Netanyahu, we may discover they thought this order will find popular reception & see South Africa’s moral high ground affected over the ICJ case.”

“Those Boer chaps” refers to groups like Afriforum that have lobbied in the US about farm murders and the negative effects of affirmative action, black economic empowerment policies, and the Expropriation Act.

This standoff risks therefore exacerbating racial tensions in South Africa and affecting social cohesion of a fragile society. It could also increase anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

“Inevitably,” former US diplomat and writer Brooks Spector said, “some South Africans have chosen to hint that the contretemps actually speaks to America’s support for Israel and against the Palestinians and South Africa’s support for their cause.”

Advocate Mark Oppenheimer said, “For far too long, the ANC [African National Congress] government has been openly antagonistic toward the United States. The South African case against Israel at the ICJ is a blatant attack on America’s closest ally. It’s clear that President Trump rejects such overt antisemitism and brazen support for Hamas. His administration is now ensuring that South Africa faces the consequences of its errant ways.”

With South Africa’s profound economic problems – minuscule growth, staggering unemployment, widening inequality – it can ill-afford to be in Trump’s crosshairs. This latest incident further sours an already fraught bilateral relationship.

The EO elicited indignant but measured government responses, heated public comment, and an almighty X battle between Elon Musk and Julius Malema. The Democratic Alliance is also now suing the government over the Act.

The diplomatic furore further imperils the chances of South Africa continuing to benefit from duty-free access to the US market for its exports under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). AGOA is due to expire in September 2025, and if it is reviewed, South Africa doesn’t want to be excluded on the grounds that it is acting against the interests of the US. AGOA provides for thousands of jobs in the motor industry, agriculture, and wine-making sectors.

Dr Martha Bridgman, the editor of the South African Journal of International Affairs, said, “Exclusion from AGOA [instead] when the review comes up this year would have sent a very clear message to Pretoria regarding US disapproval.” If relations don’t improve, AGOA eligibility could well be revoked down the line. Those close to Trump may have hoped that a radical threat to cut aid would prompt a policy U-turn in Pretoria. Unlikely.

Dr Scott Firsing, a Trump supporter with a doctorate on US-South Africa relations, said, “You really don’t want to get on Trump’s bad side. If you are an individual or country who supports America’s adversaries like Iran and its proxies, China and Russia, and you threaten America’s interests, Trump will take action against you. The ANC has never passed an opportunity to poke America, and it’s sick and tired of it, hence the recent X posts by Trump, Rubio, and others and the executive orders.”

Firsing cited as recent examples the case at the ICJ; Lady R; pressure on Taiwan to closes its liaison office in Pretoria; and statements supporting Hamas and Iran as irritants to the US. He also noted that Musk felt snubbed when his SpaceX’s Starlink wasn’t allowed to operate in South Africa due to his refusal to accept a 30% shareholding for “historically disadvantaged” groups.

Bridgman said South Africa’s foreign policy choices “have riled the US enough to crack down with an end to all foreign aid to Pretoria. Perhaps the Trump administration did not include its qualms over SA-Russian ties in this EO in light of efforts to bring Putin to the negotiating table to end the war with Ukraine, per campaign promises.”

Firsing noted that Trump has a disproportionate number of influential and wealthy South African born people in his inner circle, including Musk, David Sacks, and others, who are skewing his limited perspectives on South Africa.

Trump’s 2 February post on Truth Social lit the spark, but few suspected it would translate into US government policy to axe aid to South Africa and welcome supposedly persecuted Afrikaners.

Said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), “The recently adopted Expropriation Act isn’t a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the Constitution.” There is neither arbitrary expropriations happening in South Africa, nor persecution of Afrikaners, so Trump’s policy is built on false information, which made Pretoria indignant. DIRCO continually called for dialogue to explain its positions. There is clearly a major misunderstanding.

A subsequent tweet by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio alleging land confiscation and stating that he would not attend the G20 in Johannesburg – slated for November – elicited a similar government response. Is Washington trying to derail the G20 to punish Pretoria?

On 8 February, DIRCO said the EO “lacks factual accuracy and fails to recognise South Africa’s profound and painful history of colonialism and apartheid. We are concerned by what seems to be a campaign of misinformation and propaganda aimed at misrepresenting our great nation.” It regrets that such views have gained traction in Washington, and notes the irony of granting refugee status to well-off Afrikaners “while vulnerable people in the US from other parts of the world are being deported and denied asylum despite real hardship”. DIRCO once again calls for diplomacy.

The EO may have the exact opposite effect, driving South Africa further into the embrace of China, Iran, and Russia rather than it shifting away from these states.

South Africa is sending senior officials on yet another damage control trip to Washington to explain Pretoria’s position and dispel the myth of lawlessness and land grabs.

There can seldom have been such an important diplomatic mission.