US President Donald Trump recently announced that he would pause all US aid to South Africa following the signing of a Land Expropriation Act by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Jan. 22. On his Truth Social network, Trump falsely said that South Africa was confiscating land from “certain classes which are treated very badly.”
Presumably influenced by businessman Elon Musk and some right-wing South African groups, the US president went on to say: “America will not stand for this, we will act.”
That is a grave example of using aid, which is meant to help the most vulnerable, to meddle in the domestic policy of another country. And it has not gone down well in South Africa.
The fact is, South Africa has not expropriated any private land since the dawn of its democracy. The first arrival of Europeans in 1652 led to indigenous South Africans being dispossessed of their land. That large-scale confiscation without any compensation continued until apartheid ended in 1994. By then, white landowners who made up 7 percent of the population occupied 93 percent of the land.
Under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, a liberal constitution was negotiated that went to great lengths to protect individual and group rights. However, an obligation was also put on the state to correct the wrongs of the past. That included land ownership.
Given the country’s history, nothing would have been easier (and frankly more popular) than for the African National Congress (ANC) to have forcefully expropriated large tracts of land from white owners without compensation. Yet, it chose not to. For the past 30 years, the state bought land from landowners at (and even above) market values. Although progress has been made to correct the racial disparity, the process has been painstakingly slow and expensive. Today, about 25 percent of agricultural land is owned by black South Africans compared with 75 percent by whites who still constitute only about 7 percent of the population.
The new Expropriation of Land Act in no way deviates from the ANC’s commitment to being fair and just. The act aligns with section 25 of the South African constitution, which, while protecting private ownership, makes provision for land seizures under certain circumstances. It also puts an obligation on the state to ensure land reform. Helpfully, the act lays out the criteria for expropriation in general. And it further states that expropriation without compensation only applies in very limited circumstances, such as with state land and unused or abandoned land, and such intervention needs to be approved by a court of law. A dispute mechanism is entrenched and the right of the courts to arbitrate is explicitly mentioned.
The act closely resembles the laws of almost all countries around the world that allow for expropriation by a state in the public interest. Those include the US (where it falls under the principle of eminent domain), the EU and the UK.
So why all the fuss?
It is hard to believe that Trump — who during his first term was unsure of Africa’s location and described South Africa as a “hell hole” — cares about the country’s land reform. Instead, his utterances smack of racism toward African governments, suggesting that African countries cannot be trusted with the same laws that Europe and the US have had on their books for decades.
Trump suggests that the ANC government is treating white South Africans very badly. And Musk has claimed that “the government is openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa.” However, if any class is treated badly in South Africa it is the black population. Thirty years after democracy and the vast majority of the poor are black and the majority of land is still in white ownership.
In order for South Africa to remain a stable democracy and not spiral into the kind of racial violence seen in Zimbabwe in 2000, it is crucial for those issues to be addressed in a fair, just and legal manner.
Despite the urgency of the matter, Ramaphosa and his senior cabinet members understand that policy decisions such as irresponsible expropriation would have dramatic economic consequences. As was the case of Zimbabwe, markets would tumble, the currency would crash and inflation will spiral out of control. Thus, they have committed repeatedly that there would be no arbitrary expropriations and that land grabs would not be tolerated. In the past few days, South African Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure Dean McPherson assured investors that that would remain the case.
In response to Trump, Ramaphosa emphasized that South Africa gets relatively little aid from the US. The majority is directed toward HIV prevention and treatment, and has already been frozen. That funding constitutes about 15 percent of South Africa’s HIV program, and patients can be absorbed into the public clinics where HIV treatments are free. Ramaphosa nevertheless said that he looks forward to engaging with Trump on the issue, although he insisted that “we will not be doing so with a begging bowl.”
Right-wing groups in South Africa, such as Afriforum, have indicated that they would challenge the Expropriation Act in court. Given the country’s commitment to a democratic, constitutional state, that is generally welcomed; and when the independent, non-partisan judges rule on the matter, the government would abide by the ruling.
As a democracy, South Africa has the sovereign right to determine its domestic policies, without being threatened and punished by foreign heads of state — especially when such punishment is arbitrary and based on prejudiced falsehoods.
Melanie Verwoerd is a political analyst. She was formerly a member of South Africa’s Parliament for the African National Congress and served as South Africa’s ambassador to Ireland from 2001 to 2005.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS