Is Rupert's place in US delegation double standards or just good for business?
'Imagine what would have happened if the president had taken the Guptas as part of his delegation.'
South African businessman and Chairman of Remgro, Johann Rupert speaks at the University of Pretoria in Pretoria, South Africa on 15 October 2008. Picture: Gallo Images/Foto24/Cornel van Heerden
President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to include controversial billionaire Johann Rupert on his negotiation team with the US government has been fiercely criticised by opposition parties and drawn questions from an expert.
Rupert has been seen as a controversial figure in local politics and has been criticised by leftist parties such as the EFF for gaining enormous wealth through racist policies that benefited white South Africans before 1994.
Rupert will enter the negotiations alongside South African golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen.
Ramaphosa will also be flanked by his core political team, which includes the Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, the International Relations Minister, Ronald Lamola, the Agriculture Minister, John Steenhuisen, and the Trade & Industry Minister, Parks Tau.
Rupert's influence over Ramaphosa
African Transformation Movement (ATM) spokesperson Zama Ntshona told The Citizen that the party is concerned with the inclusion of powerful 'white figures' in Ramaphosa's delegation.
'President Ramaphosa's decision to include predominantly white figures in this delegation may be perceived as an appeal to 'whiteness' in addressing complex economic challenges.
'This approach prioritises the interests of historically privileged groups and, in doing so, undermines the transformative goals of the post-apartheid era.
'Economic solutions must not come at the expense of inclusivity and should be rooted in equitable representation that acknowledges the historical injustices faced by the majority of South Africans,' he said.
It is a criticism echoed by the EFF, who suggested Ramaphosa may be controlled by big business.
'This can only be described as a capture and an exhibition of the undue influence of big business in an interaction between two nations premised on democracy and sovereignty.' EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said.
ALSO READ: Rupert in Ramaphosa delegation is 'spitting in face of democracy' – EFF
The party has threatened legal action if a reported 'workaround' to allow Trump-backer Elon Musk to bring his Starlink internet services into the country without abiding by local employment equity laws is achieved.
ALSO READ: Will Ramaphosa fall into the same trap as Zelensky? — Experts weigh in
Double standards?
Political analyst Professor Ntsikelelo Breakfast from Nelson Mandela University (NMU) told The Citizen that Ramaphosa likely brought Rupert along to represent the interests of big business in South Africa.
'Rupert's investments are wide and they cut across different sectors, so part of our government's mission is to pitch a proposal for business to the US administration.
'Ramaphosa also wants to show that the government of the day is supported by business in its endeavour to make a change in resetting South Africa's relationship with the U.S,' he said.
However, Breakfast said Rupert's inclusion also raises some questions about Ramaphosa's proximity to South Africa's white elite.
'Imagine what would have happened if the president had taken the Guptas as part of his delegation. People would have said state capture, but the same argument is not raised when it comes to Rupert,
'We have double standards when the Guptas had some influence over Jacob Zuma that was seen as state capture,' he said.
NOW READ: Is Ramaphosa in trouble? US Secretary of Marco Rubio calls out SA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Ramaphosa to have second meeting with Trump at G7 Summit in Canada
The President said he would also have meetings with the chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, and the prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney. President Cyril Ramaphosa says he will have a meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Canada at the weekend. Speaking to reporters in Pretoria on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said he would also have separate meetings with the chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, and the prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney. The G7 Summit will take place in Kananaskis, Canada, from 14 to 17 June. Canada, which holds the G7 presidency, invited Ramaphosa to the meeting. The President told reporters that attending the G7 was a 'great opportunity' from which Pretoria expected 'good outcomes'. 'I'm hoping that when we meet the various other leaders of various countries who are part of the G7, we'll be able to interact meaningfully with them.' He said the G7 Summit gave Pretoria the opportunity to 'propagate' its message about its G20 presidency and the 'great outcomes' it wanted to see in November. The US will take over the presidency of the G20 from SA after the summit. 'We're going to use it as a platform to begin to consolidate what we want to achieve in November when the leaders' summit takes place here [in Johannesburg],' Ramaphosa told reporters. — Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦 (@CyrilRamaphosa) June 10, 2025 Ramaphosa's second meeting with Trump will take place three weeks after he met the US president in the White House on 21 May. The meeting followed months of worsening diplomatic ties between Washington and Pretoria, and false claims from Trump about a white 'genocide' in South Africa. 'Our visit to the White House was a moment where South Africa set out to reset the relationship with the United States, and I do believe that we have achieved that. 'Many people were very critical of our going there, and some were even saying we were going cap in hand and what-have-you — we were not. Some were even suggesting that we were summoned. We were not summoned. In my telephone conversation with President Trump two weeks earlier, I said, 'I want to come and see you', and he immediately conceded to that and later gave us a date. So that is not summoning. It is us taking the initiative that we want to go and see him,' said Ramaphosa. He stressed that SA did not 'go kowtowing' to the White House, but went with the aims of resetting US-SA relations and beginning 'serious engagement' with the US, particularly regarding trade and its participation in SA's G20 processes. While in the US, Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau had proposed a wide-ranging trade deal to his counterpart, the US trade representative, spanning areas including gas, agriculture, automotive and minerals. Ramaphosa's spokesperson last week said that SA was awaiting a response to this proposal. 'Right now, there is engagement that is taking place between the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition and the Department of International Relations, so we've opened the way for us to engage seriously with the United States,' Ramaphosa told reporters. He added that the discussions on trade matters were 'now under way'. In his three-hour working visit with Trump, Ramaphosa had made the point that the US had been at the forefront of creating the G20, and so it would be important for Trump to be present when Ramaphosa handed over the G20 presidency to the US in November this year. 'Of course, the other [reason to go to the US] was to demonstrate the importance of President Trump coming to South Africa for the G20, and he immediately conceded that, yes, the G20 without the United States — who originated the G20 process — is not so effective as it is with the G7. He's going to the G7; I expect him to come to the G20 here. 'For us, it's important for us as a nation to reposition ourselves in the very turbulent geopolitical architecture or situation that we have, and that is why it was important to go to the United States,' he said. DM
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Trump has manufactured a national crisis that could come to define his presidency
Protests in Los Angeles over ICE actions are the lead national news story. So far, there is no prospect that the crisis is at an end. Meanwhile, the Trump administration decided on a show of military strength — but has no plans for an endgame to the crisis. 'Never let a good crisis go to waste' is a cynical view of politics attributed to Winston Churchill — and repeated by other politicians ever since. What we are now learning is that US President Donald Trump has added a far more cynical setup line: the best crises are the ones you create yourself to further your political purposes. The Trump administration essentially manufactured a national crisis over immigration — with ground zero in Los Angeles — and is now using the resulting protests to support his outrage and precipitate actions. To address a series of demonstrations in Los Angeles, he ordered the dispatch of a contingent of US Marines there and the call-up and federalising of some 4,000 National Guard personnel, wading into the ongoing crisis in Los Angeles and putatively setting up a way he could take the credit for stilling the demonstrations. For bonus points, this would set up the landscape for blaming California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — both Democrats — if events go off the rails before the crisis winds down. The Trump administration, of course, has had a long-running feud with Newsom over the handling of major forest fires and the distribution of crucial water resources, and with Los Angeles over its apparent inability to move quickly enough to save neighbourhoods destroyed by the fires. Some officials close to the president have muttered about arresting the California governor over his behaviour and words; meanwhile, the governor is suing the federal government and its chief executive for arrogating the state government's powers. It might — might not — be a coincidence, but Trump seems to see Newsom as a likely challenger for the Democrats in 2028's presidential election and damaging him would be good, albeit cynical, politics. The flood of illegal immigrants/undocumented aliens into the US and the presumably damaging impact on the economy, jobs and the general welfare was a key element of Trump's reelection campaign in 2020. Throughout that effort, he cited imaginary numbers of millions of immigrants (and those mythic Haitians eating pet puppies and kittens). Once in office, he has insisted upon more dramatic enforcement of arrests and mass deportations. This has reportedly included giving ICE — the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security — quotas of several thousand individuals a day to be rounded up. That led to vigorous efforts to round up suspects in factories and restaurant kitchens, or at the parking lots of big-box hardware stores where handymen, bricklayers, plumbers and electricians congregate, waiting for contractors to hire them early in the day. This, in turn, has led to increased fears among those whose papers were not in order. In the newest wrinkle, while not directly related to the ICE roundups, but contributing to the fear, the Trump administration has issued a total freeze on visas to enter the US for a range of nations. (The recent anti-Semitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, carried out by an Egyptian immigrant apparently served as a pretext for the move, although Egypt was not, curiously, on the list of affected nations.) Crowd control In Los Angeles, a rising number of people — immigrants, their family members, and supporters, including labour union leaders — rallied to protest against the ICE roundups. The protests initially centred on the part of the city that housed federal government office buildings, including a major courthouse. The Los Angeles police were called out in force to protect the buildings and exercise crowd control, but without ending the demonstrations. While the protests seemed rowdy, they were, at least initially, largely non-violent. As events moved on through the weekend, some in the crowd threw water bottles, stones and firecrackers at police, several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set alight, and there was some damage to fixed property. Not surprisingly, the protests received blanket coverage on news channels and in other media, and the potential of wider violence was presumably the precipitating cause for the Trump administration's thinking in seeing a path for action, even though city and state authorities — acting in close coordination — insisted they were well-practised in crowd control and had sufficient human resources to deal with the situation. The Trump administration seized the moment, however, and announced, without any collaboration with city and state authorities, that they would call up 2,000 National Guard troops. They then doubled that number. In addition, they deployed a substantial detachment of Marines to Los Angeles — even though using the Marines for law enforcement is illegal. For his part, Trump said these deployments were crucial lest the city be 'burning to the ground'. One surely must wonder why Trump did not move with the same alacrity in the insurrection in Washington, DC, at the Capitol Building in January 2021 in response to his false claim that he had been cheated of victory in the presidential election. One major problem in this was that the call-up of the National Guard was done without consultation with the state government, under which control of a state's National Guard units resides. The normal process is for a state governor to call upon units in times of major natural disasters or civil disorder, as with Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans a generation ago. Elements of the California National Guard were called to duty in the rioting that took place in 1992 in the wake of the police assault on Rodney King, but not precipitously at the whim of the president. 'Insurrection' As a final resort, if the need arises, a president can federalise National Guard units to call them to service in civil duties, especially in the event of an insurrection or foreign invasion, according to the law. (Trump has kept up the drumbeat of using the word 'insurrection', probably to provide backstopping of the federalising and mobilising of National Guard troops.) Historically, perhaps the most extraordinary version of such things took place in 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower federalised the Arkansas National Guard over the objections of the then governor to enforce the desegregation of that state's public schools, in accord with the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education. Arkansas had failed to heed the court's ruling, and its governor egged on increasingly violent anti-integration demonstrations. More generally, over the past several decades, National Guard and regular Army/Navy/Air Force reserve units have been integrated into the defence department's table of organisation. Such units have been called to serve abroad in military activities as partners to regular active duty forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is important to note that National Guard personnel have usually been well-trained in dealing with civil disorder, demonstrations and protests. Accordingly, making use of such personnel is not, in and of itself, a terrible choice. This writer enlisted in the Maryland National Guard back in the early 1970s in an infantry unit — to stay out of the military draft that would have certainly sent him to Vietnam. After basic and advanced infantry training, his training unit spent a full week rehearsing the ins and outs of anti-riot duty techniques not based on using lethal force. (We alternated in being riot control troops and rioting students — the verisimilitude was compelling.) Such training had been put into place for those in National Guard units as a consequence of the killings at Kent State University in 1970 by poorly trained Ohio National Guard troops who used live ammunition, as well as the killings of several other students at a college in South Carolina the same week. At the time of writing, it seems the demonstrations in Los Angeles have continued, but at a lower level of intensity. However, demonstrations in support of the protests in Los Angeles have been set for more than a dozen cities across the nation. This movement is not at an end. Disconcerting week All this has been taking place during a particularly disconcerting week for Trump's presidency. There was the raucous, wild, childlike breakup with his heretofore 'Dogester' partner, Elon Musk. Concurrently, there is growing dissatisfaction with the 'Big Beautiful Bill' of tax cuts and government spending, not least from Musk, who called it an 'abomination'. It has become increasingly clear that this Bill, if passed by the Senate after a narrow victory in the House of Representatives, would give major tax cuts to the rich and cuts in a range of social services to the less well-off, triggering a massive increase in the nation's debt. As a result, the president's push for this Bill is becoming more frenetic, yet less certain of results. Meanwhile, there is growing criticism of the plans Trump has pushed for a major military parade to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army. The massive parade is scheduled to take place in Washington, DC, on Saturday — which just happens to be Trump's 79th birthday. Moreover, those highly touted Trump initiatives to reach a chimerical, quick, easy solution to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the continuing ferocity of Israel's actions in Gaza, have left Trump with no victories to celebrate, despite his promises. As a result, looking bloody-minded on immigrants, with a tough, military-style crackdown on protests against ICE's round-ups of potential visa violators and other illegal immigrants, could be spun as a win for Trump, despite the rest of the depressing news. It could conceivably be touted as yet another campaign promise kept. Of course, the demonstrations across the US could mushroom instead. Casualties might mount, and increasing disapproval from civic leaders, some Republicans, judges, and many Democrats could be heard, along with a swathe of lawsuits against the president's policies. The crisis of the protests over immigration policy is not over, and if it goes badly it might come to define the Trump presidency. DM
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
R257bn for Eskom to meet minimum requirements, aims for 40% emissions reduction by 2030
The power utility said it planned to achieve a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 at the fleet level. Its preferred approach would cost R77bn in capital expenditure and R2.1bn in annual operational expenditure. Eskom CEO Dan Marokane says it will cost the South African taxpayer up to R257-billion for the utility to do the necessary upgrades for it to meet government-mandated minimum emission standards. Compliance, in this way, could translate into the equivalent of up to a 10% tariff increase. He and members of Eskom's executive were briefing Parliament's Select Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Mineral Resources on Tuesday, 10 June, in Cape Town. The briefing outlined the financial costs, the direct threat to the nation's power supply and the significant potential disruption to electricity supply that would come as a consequence of the legally mandated environmental regulations. Eskom's team put a figure of about R257-billion in capital expenditure (Capex) on what it would take to achieve full compliance with minimum emission standards across six of its major power stations, namely Medupi, Majuba, Matimba, Kendal, Lethabo and Tutuka. This would also incur R6.3-billion in annual operating costs (Opex). To date, Eskom has spent more than R3-billion on emission abatement projects, with an additional R15.6-billion allocated over the next five years. In March, Daily Maverick reported that Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George granted Eskom limited exemptions from minimum emission standards for eight of Eskom's coal-fired power stations. Two power stations, Duvha and Matla, were granted nine-year minimum emission standards exemptions until their planned decommissioning dates in 2034. Six other power stations were granted five-year minimum emission standards exemptions until 1 April 2030. These are Kendal, Lethabo, Majuba, Matimba, Medupi and Tutuka. Marokane said the implications of compliance with the emissions standards extended beyond the financial. Up to 22 gigawatts (GW) of the coal fleet's generating capacity is 'at risk' of being shut down if it cannot comply with the stringent post-2030 standards for sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions, which, while beneficial from an environmental perspective, could imperil the progress Eskom has made in taming load shedding should that capacity not be replaced accordingly. This risk materialises after that 1 April 2030 deadline, when the exemptions granted for several stations expire. Given that retrofitting the necessary Flue Gas Desulphurisation technology takes 7-10 years, decisions are needed now to avert this cliff-edge scenario. Eskom, Marokane told members of the committee, was of the view that its preferred approach was not full compliance but instead, it would focus on SO2 reduction at its newest plants, Kusile and Medupi, and complete particulate matter and nitrogen oxide upgrades at six stations. This path would cost R77-billion in Capex and R2.1-billion in annual Opex. However, as was noted by members of the committee, even this 'cheaper' option was severely underfunded, as mentioned above, with R15.6-billion allocated over the next five years. Moreover, Marokane explained, Eskom intends to expand its 'clean energy capacity' and 'optimise the existing coal fleet' to meet a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 at the 'fleet level'. This means that the coal station fleet in aggregate would see a 40% reduction in emissions, but this would be unevenly distributed from station to station because some of the newer stations may see their production ramp up to compensate for the shutdown of older stations. Health costs While Eskom's briefing touched on the socioeconomic consequences of plant shutdowns, such as the impact on 14,000 direct jobs, it did not provide an assessment of the direct health costs and mortality associated with its emissions. This gap was highlighted by a recent report titled Unmasking the Toll of Fine Particle Pollution in South Africa. That report by Greenpeace Africa and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) found that in 2023 alone, 42,000 South Africans died from exposure to fine particle pollution (PM2.5), including more than 1,300 children under five. It combined PM2.5 concentrations (sourced from satellite data, ground monitoring and atmospheric models) with population and health data from the Global Burden of Disease database to calculate health impacts. PM2.5 refers to airborne particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres, mainly formed by burning coal and fuel. Daily Maverick wrote that the report estimates that PM2.5 pollution cost the country more than R960-billion in 2023 – equivalent to 14% of GDP – through premature deaths, illness, lost productivity and overburdened health systems. These particles, as CREA analyst Lauri Myllyvirta previously explained to Daily Maverick, are 'small enough to pass from lungs to the bloodstream and wreak havoc on all our internal organs'. Communities in the Highveld region and Gauteng and Mpumalanga, which are home to the country's largest coal-fired power plants and industrial zones, are hardest hit. Briefing the committee on Tuesday, Deidre Herbst, senior manager for environmental management in Eskom's Generation Division, confirmed particulate matter's deleterious impact. While sulphur dioxide was the 'biggest challenge', particulate matter caused the most harmful health impacts, she explained. DM DM
