Trump's lies rile SA: was Ramaphosa's rebuttal enough?

TimesLIVE

22-05-2025

Political analyst Khaya Sithole sees progress after the meeting but noticed the gaps, saying, 'The response to the white genocide claims was the difficult part because it is not anchored on facts, but what was important about the conversation is that until now we had no idea what formed the basis for Trump's statements and utterances. There were speculations,' he said.
'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.'