Trump's lies rile SA: was Ramaphosa's rebuttal enough?
'What was really missing was a very clear denunciation of the genocide conversations by those that Trump takes more seriously than others; those would have been the golfers, John Steenhuisen and, as it turned out, Johann Rupert, but progress was made.'
Sanusha Naidu, from the Institute for Global Dialogue, praises Ramaphosa's strategic restraint. 'I think they were as effective as they could be given the context in which these claims were being made and the mindset of the person making the claims. Obviously, what was very difficult to do, was try to get the US president to accept that he could be wrong and that is not what anybody could achieve ... once President Trump is set on an idea and view, he doesn't back down,' she said.
'The SA Presidency, the delegation in particular, the president, handled it very well. He handled it with maturity, it was measured, it was understood what they were going to do.'
Business tycoon Rupert was part of the delegation. He told Trump crime in South Africa happened across the board — everyone is affected.
'It was a good playbook, the playbook was very critical because Ramaphosa knew you were never going to convince him [Trump] otherwise ... but you now created a doubt in his mind. President Ramaphosa knows how to play this game; it's the long waiting game and he can frustrate you because you're not getting a reaction out of him,' said Naidu.
Human rights lawyer Yasmin Sooka is less optimistic. 'It was quite a shock that we needed three white men to save us, none of whom rebutted the claims of persecution and genocide and it reminded me so much of the late president [FW] De Klerk who never said apartheid was a crime against humanity,' she said.
Sooka warns of global repercussions: 'I think we're being set up. Just as much as we've brought a case in the ICJ on genocide, don't be surprised if the American government doesn't file a case with the Israelis accusing South Africa of persecution, which is a crime against humanity, and genocide, because this is the narrative in the face of disinformation and falsehoods.'
Sooka believes only Ramaphosa and Cosatu's Zingiswa Losi 'really tried hard to rebut the misinformation'.
She cautioned about Trump's focus on EFF leader Julius Malema: 'They might find that the US uses global Magnitsky sanctions or 703C designations, which will mean travel bans for them and their families, so I am not sure if we've turned the tide.'
Sooka adds: 'States have an obligation if there is a basis for genocide and a crime against humanity, and so Trump's question to the president is quite loaded when he asks him what he is doing about Malema. It then becomes South Africa's failure to act when it had knowledge of the so-called genocide.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
19 minutes ago
- The Citizen
Ramaphosa-Mbeki feud reignites as foundations withdraw from National Dialogue
Analysts say the roots of the tension lie in ANC negotiations of the early 1990s, when Mbeki was replaced as chief negotiator by Ramaphosa. The renewed feud between President Cyril Ramaphosa and former president Thabo Mbeki dates back to before 1994 and their disagreement over preparations for the upcoming national convention has opened old wounds, experts say. Political analyst Sandile Swana and University of South Africa political scientist Prof Dirk Kotzé said the tension between the two leaders started during negotiations in 1990s for the new democratic dispensation. Foundations withdraw from dialogue preparations They were reacting to the decisions by six legacy foundations – the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation, FW de Klerk Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, Oliver & Adelaide Tambo Foundation and Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation – to withdraw from the National Dialogue preparations. The foundations said the convention has deviated from the plan to have the process led by civil society, or citizens. Instead, matters were being rushed without proper consultation by the government, which had centralised the process. Ramaphosa said this week's convention would go ahead as planned, implying it would move on without the foundations' participation. Roots of the rivalry in the 1990s negotiations The experts said the tension between Mbeki and Ramaphosa was exacerbated when Mbeki, as the ANC's first chief negotiator assisted by Jacob Zuma, were removed and replaced with Ramaphosa, who was assisted by Mohammed Valli Moosa. ANC insiders at the time saw this as a snub for Mbeki and Zuma and an embrace of Ramaphosa, whom they claimed emerged from nowhere into Nelson Mandela's inner circle after his release from jail. ALSO READ: National Dialogue will go ahead despite withdrawal of foundations, Ramaphosa says Ramaphosa was subsequently elected ANC secretary-general at the party's 48th national conference in 1991, succeeding Alfred Nzo. Mandela wanted Ramaphosa as his deputy and successor as president, but the ANC old guard wanted Mbeki, who was Oliver Tambo's right-hand man in exile. Mandela gave in to the majority within the party and was further convinced by Kenneth Kaunda and other Southern African Development Community leaders that Mbeki was the right candidate to succeed him, as that was part of Tambo's plan. Role of the ANC's left wing and SACP Kotzé said Mbeki's removal as ANC chief negotiator was engineered by the left within the ANC, especially Joe Slovo and other senior SA Communist Party (SACP) leaders. The left saw Mbeki as unreliable because, as a then SACP politburo member in exile, he acted against the party's position for a total insurrection against apartheid when he held secret talks with Afrikaner delegations for a negotiated settlement. Possible reasons for Mbeki's recent withdrawal Kotzé said Mbeki was fully involved in the dialogue with Afrikaners and the National Intelligence Service before 1990, but this was opposed by the SACP leadership, of which Mbeki was part. Subsequently, Mbeki did not continue his SACP membership. 'Because of that history, the SACP, particularly Joe Slovo, made it impossible for him to be the chief negotiator of the ANC. 'Instead, they got Ramaphosa in as ANC chief negotiator. From a Mbeki perspective, those things he would never forget. I don't want to suggest there is open hostility; at the same time, there is no close friendship,' he said. ALSO READ: National Dialogue must be place for 'women to raise their voices', Ramaphosa says Kotzé said, he could only speculate that Mbeki's decision to pull out of the National Dialogue process was because he saw himself as an initiator of it. 'He is almost a father figure of this. My impression is that the foundations were initially very prominent in the preparations and very recently, the government took over. 'This is exactly what the foundations, the Mbeki Foundation specifically or Mbeki himself, do not like.'
Eyewitness News
37 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
Brazil to unveil help for its companies hit by US tariffs
RIO DE JANEIRO - Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Tuesday announced aid worth some $5.5 billion for companies hit by Donald Trump's trade tariffs, as part of a package of economic relief measures. Last Wednesday the 50% tariffs imposed by Washington went into effect on many Brazilian products. The duties impact key sectors of Latin America's largest economy, notably including coffee and meat, although the US president excluded some strategic exports such as orange juice, civil aircraft and fertilizer. Lula will launch his contingency plan during a ceremony in the capital Brasilia on Wednesday. "Tomorrow I will sign a provisional measure creating a credit line of 30 billion reais for Brazilian companies that may suffer losses due to Trump's tariffs," Lula told a local radio station. According to Brasilia, the new duties affect 36% of Brazil's exports to the United States, equivalent to $14.5 billion in 2024. The leftist leader said much of the $5.5 billion worth of assistance will be directed to small businesses, because "large companies have greater resilience." "No one will be left helpless in the face of President Trump's taxes," he added. "We will ensure the survival of Brazilian companies." The government will also prioritize domestic products and sourcing in its purchases and encourage plans to find new markets for impacted companies. Lula said Brazil was also considering reciprocal measures against the United States. Washington slapped the tariffs on Brazil in part because of the prosecution of Trump's right-wing ally Jair Bolsonaro, whose trial on charges of planning a coup has been slammed by the US president as a "witch hunt." Brazil filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization last Wednesday to challenge the US tariffs, but Lula said in the radio interview he remains "ready to negotiate with the United States."
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Guardians or Gatekeepers: The Battle for the Heart and Soul of the National Dialogue
Despite the withdrawal of several prominent Legacy Foundations from the structures of the Preparatory Task Team (PTT) and the upcoming First National Convention of the National Dialogue scheduled for August 15, 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed that the Dialogue will proceed as planned. Image: Jairus Mmutle / GCIS Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The recent withdrawal of seven prominent South African legacy foundations from the much-publicised National Dialogue has sparked surprise. Their exit highlights not only logistical and financial issues but also deeper concerns about the dialogue's integrity, inclusivity, and moral authority. Yet, I will suggest that we consider six challenges to understand their withdrawal. The foundations, the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, FW de Klerk Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, Steve Biko Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, and Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, argue that the initiative shifted toward government control, undermining its independence and credibility. The idea of a National Dialogue dates back to the Mbeki era, advocated by the late Essop Pahad, who suggested that established foundations lead it. I critiqued this, questioning the legitimacy of these foundations as true representatives of the broader public. The legacy foundations criticised rushed planning and lack of financial transparency, warning the dialogue risked becoming superficial. They supported inclusive dialogue but called for a postponement beyond the planned August 15 date. Mbeki stated: 'The rushed timeline, constrained logistics, and limited design mean the proposed convention no longer offers a meaningful platform.' An insider revealed that a foundation complained to Ramaphosa about delayed funding, leading to limited logistical support. Yet, no approved budget and last-minute funds hindered preparation and raised Public Finance Management Act compliance concerns. Ramaphosa later confirmed the budget but offered little transparency on procurement. Withdrawal threats may signal dissatisfaction while keeping dialogue open, but actual withdrawal breaks trust, forfeiting influence, and questioning legitimacy. These foundations are often cast as custodians of South Africa's democratic legacy. Their withdrawal highlights fragile moral authority and raises a critical question: do they serve the public interest or their institutional survival? Despite their historical prestige, they represent a narrow, elite constituency disconnected from ordinary South Africans. They act more as custodians of political symbolism than authentic civil society voices, monopolising dialogue under the guise of legacy. What moral framework justified endorsing a Ramaphosa-led initiative? Did they assume Mbeki's association guaranteed control over themes, processes, and budgets? This suggests either a grave misjudgment or a prioritisation of institutional preservation over genuine national needs. 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 ✕ Six Challenges with the Legacy Foundations' Behaviour and Attitude 1. Appropriation of Civil Society Legacy foundations, sustained by elite networks and political legacies, claim to represent civil society yet exclude the grassroots organisations, unions, faith groups, and advocacy bodies that truly comprise it. This false equivalence narrows dialogue, silences diverse voices, and entrenches elite control over narratives. Civil society is inherently pluralistic, operating independently of state or elite interests to serve the public good. By positioning themselves as proxies, these foundations concentrate the national conversation within an exclusive circle, projecting the image of speaking for the masses while reflecting elite interests. What should be an open, citizen-led process becomes a managed exercise legitimising elite consensus, distorting public debate, and implying that an authentic public voice must pass through privileged channels. 2. Mbeki as Central Character Thabo Mbeki links the National Dialogue to his political legacy, wielding significant influence over its direction, especially amid President Ramaphosa's vulnerability. This positioning, while reinforcing his relevance, risks overshadowing inclusive dialogue and reflects a narrower view of 'civil society' that prioritises elite interests. Mbeki's continued involvement extends his political influence years after leaving office, suggesting both a desire to shape the national historical narrative and to reassert relevance. Yet this outsized role threatens to eclipse the diverse voices essential for genuine, transformative national healing. 3. Contest for Resources Another pivotal issue concerns budget and financial control. Initially, the legacy foundations proposed a budget of R853 million, which President Ramaphosa later reduced to R452 million. This budget assumed that the foundations would also participate in fundraising, raising significant questions around accountability and transparency in managing these funds. Given the foundations' elite connections and their distance from grassroots constituencies, concerns arise about potential conflicts of interest and a lack of proper oversight. Critical questions remain unanswered: Who exactly finances the dialogue? Will the identities of funders be publicly disclosed or kept confidential? What expectations do these contributors have for influence or returns? Without transparent frameworks ensuring public scrutiny and equitable resource allocation, accountability becomes uncertain. Legacy foundations frequently act more as custodians of political legacy brands than as vehicles of civic empowerment. They leverage symbolic capital to maintain influence over resources and narratives. 4. Erosion of Relevance and Generational Disconnect Anchored in 1990s transition-era symbolism, these foundations struggle to resonate with younger generations focused on inequality, unemployment, and corruption. Withdrawal may be as much about avoiding association with a discredited process as it is about procedural concerns. Their absence in the discourse on land ownership, yet their claim to speak for the disenfranchised, further reveals dissonance. Their rhetoric, steeped in liberation-era iconography, increasingly fails to connect with younger generations who confront contemporary challenges rather than apartheid's dismantling. This disconnect fosters what can be described as a generational legitimacy decay, whereby the symbolic authority these foundations once commanded, derived largely from historic struggles and lived experience, diminishes as the lived realities and priorities of newer cohorts diverge sharply. 5. Entitlement and Paternalism These institutions imply that without their guidance, the masses cannot shape the future. Such paternalism denies the poor's intellectual autonomy and silences authentic grassroots voices under the guise of stewardship. This stance diminishes ordinary citizens' agency, casting them as passive recipients rather than active agents of change. Their withdrawal sends a clear message: the dialogue cannot succeed without their involvement. Their relevance depends on sustaining the myth that the future must follow the blueprint of the past. In effect, these institutions claim a mandate to speak on behalf of communities they presume incapable of articulating their own experiences and aspirations, thereby silencing authentic voices and perpetuating structural disempowerment under the guise of benevolent stewardship. 6. Aristocratic Claims and Elite Dominance Drawing on Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony, these foundations operate as a political aristocracy, guarding ideological dominance and symbolic capital. Their withdrawal helps preserve elite status while sidelining ordinary South Africans. By portraying themselves as custodians of South Africa's liberation legacy, they cultivate a form of symbolic nobility, distancing themselves from the broader populace. This echoes Pierre Bourdieu's notion of symbolic capital, where prestige and historical legacy confer power, and Max Weber's concept of traditional authority, wherein legitimacy derives from established status rather than democratic mandate. Their role can be described as a 'political aristocracy,' where a minority claims exclusive influence, marginalising the majority while advocating the mandate to speak on behalf of the masses. Reclaiming Dialogue Through Grassroots Empowerment To overcome these challenges, South Africa needs dialogue models that centre historically marginalised voices. True engagement requires decentralised, community-based forums free from elite mediation. Citizen assemblies, deliberative polling, and consultative councils can link local voices to national policy-making. Such a shift demands political will to cede control and dismantle the monopoly of legacy foundations over national narratives. Only then can South Africa forge an authentic consensus, rebuild trust, and foster a democracy reflecting the aspirations of all its people. The legacy foundations' withdrawal reveals entrenched elitism, self-preservation, and a disconnect from grassroots realities. For South Africa to move beyond symbolic gestures, it must embrace participatory, justice-centred dialogue—one led by its people, not political relics or their branded institutions. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
