ADVOCATE LAVAN GOPAUL

US PRESIDENT Donald Trump reignited global attention on South Africa by offering refugee status to the white minority Afrikaners, citing alleged “government sponsored persecution” linked to land reform policies. This move by Trump, while framed as humanitarian intervention, sparked a diplomatic crisis, economic uncertainty, and renewed debates about race, justice, and post-apartheid reconciliation.

While Trump’s executive order claims to address human rights violations, its foundations rest on misinformation, historical revisionism, and geopolitical posturing. The repercussions extend beyond symbolism, threatening SA’s economy, bilateral trade, and social cohesion. South Africa’s history is inextricably tied to colonialism and apartheid, where Black South Africans were dispossessed of 90% of land, confined to homelands, and denied political rights.

Today, white South Africans, counting about 7% of the population, still own approximately 70% of private farmland, a disparity rooted in this violent past.

Cyril Ramaphosa’s sponsored Expropriation Act, signed in January 2025, aims to redress these imbalances by allowing land redistribution “in the public interest” under strict conditions, such as unused or underutilised land. Contrary to Trump’s claims of “confiscation,” the law explicitly protects private property rights and prohibits arbitrary seizures. However, some Afrikaner groups like AfriForum reject Trump's view.

Trump’s narrative is amplified by Elon Musk, his South African-born adviser, who portrays Afrikaners as victims of “reverse apartheid,” a rank distortion that ignores their economic privilege and the systemic violence black South Africans still endure and chooses to ignore the rights afforded to all South Africans in the Constitution. Trump’s executive order imposes a dual blow: slashing aid and imposing trade tariffs that profoundly impact trade. The suspension of U.S. aid, particularly funds allocated for HIV/AIDS programs, poses significant challenges for South Africa's public health sector. The U.S. contributed $440 million annually to South Africa’s HIV/AIDS programs, covering 17% of its HIV budget. Cutting this aid jeopardises antiretroviral treatment for 5.5 million people, risking a public health catastrophe.

A 25% tariff on US steel imports from South Africa, which exported R9.5 billion ($500 million) in 2024, can potentially threaten jobs in the aluminium and automotive sectors. Economists warn that this could force producers to seek new markets, exacerbating unemployment (already at 32%). Trump's decision strains relations between the USA and South Africa. The cessation of aid and potential trade restrictions may push South Africa to strengthen ties with other global powers, such as China and Russia, altering geopolitical alliances. This shift could have long-term implications for regional stability and international trade patterns.

Moreover, the potential revocation of tariff access under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) could adversely affect South African exports, especially in agriculture and manufacturing. Such economic sanctions echo the punitive measures of the apartheid era, which sought to isolate South Africa economically to compel policy changes, granting South Africa duty-free access to U.S. markets for 1,800 products, faces termination. Losing AGOA would cripple exports, particularly vehicles, and deepen economic inequality.

Legal and diplomatic tensions

Trump’s order accuses SA of “race-based discrimination,” citing unsubstantiated claims of farm attacks and land seizures. Independent studies show farm murders (49 in 2023) align with national homicide rates, debunking genocide allegations. However, the DA is contesting the Expropriation Act in court, arguing it undermines property rights. SA Foreign Ministry condemned Trump’s “ironic” focus on Afrikaners while the U.S. deports vulnerable refugees.

The rift extends to foreign policy, given South Africa’s historic support for Palestine, Russia, and China, clashes with Trump’s “America First” agenda and, in particular, SA’s Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.

Elon Musk has been a vocal critic of South Africa’s leadership, weaponising his newfound US Government platform to echo Trump’s claims. Musk’s accusations of “antiwhite racism” and “genocide” against farmers are most likely rooted in his failed bid to launch Starlink due to Black empowerment laws, possibly reflecting a personal grievance framed as systemic oppression. This narrative resonates with far-right groups but ignores affirmative action’s role in addressing apartheid era exclusion.

Social impact: division and irony

Trump’s offer could have the potential to reignite racial tensions and reopen wounds, with some thinking that “we were in the process of healing… now we’re reliving the apartheid era”. Meanwhile, with significant representation, groups like AfriForum and Solidarity have rebuffed Trump’s offer, declaring, “We are not going anywhere”.

Donald Trump’s offer highlights a paradox while granting refugee status to a “privileged minority” while the U.S. deports asylum seekers from conflict zones. The SA Foreign Ministry noted that this “lacks moral coherence”.

From a legal standpoint, Trump's executive order raises questions about the criteria for refugee status. International law defines refugees as individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The classification of Afrikaners as a group has historically held economic and political power; it may, therefore, be incongruent to label them as refugees; this is unprecedented and challenges conventional interpretations of refugee status.

Furthermore, the executive order's framing of South Africa's land reform as "racially discriminatory property confiscation" overlooks the legal processes and constitutional provisions underpinning the policy. South Africa's government maintains that land expropriation is conducted lawfully, intending to redress historical injustices.

In conclusion, Trump’s refugee gambit is less about humanitarianism than consolidating his nationalist base ahead of the 2028 election. By weaponising South Africa’s complex history, he distracts from domestic failures and fuels culture wars. For South Africa and President Cyril Ramaphosa, the immediate task is mitigating economic damage while defending sovereignty.

While most Afrikaners rejected Trump’s offer, thousands of inquiries flooded the South African Chamber of Commerce in the U.S., raising a possible fear of a skills exodus in the agriculture and tech sectors. While groups like AfriForum confirm they are not going anywhere, some skilled citizens may move to the USA.

The broader lesson is clear: postcolonial justice cannot be outsourced to foreign demagogues. However contentious, all South Africans must navigate land reform together through dialogue, not decree.

Advocate Lavan Gopaul is the director of Merchant Afrika.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

THE POST