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.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
About 6.1 million couples tied the knot last year, down from 7.28 million in 2023 — a drop of more than 20 percent, data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs showed. That is more serious than the precipitous drop of 12.2 percent in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the saying goes, a single leaf reveals an entire autumn. The decline in marriages reveals problems in China’s economic development, painting a dismal picture of the nation’s future. A giant question mark hangs over economic data that Beijing releases due to a lack of clarity, freedom of the press
RSS