South Africa's tourism sector unites to address safety concerns during Ramaphosa-Trump talks
President Cyril Ramaphosa and President Donald Trump during talks at the White House.
The tides of misinformation swirling around South Africa's safety have been met with an unwavering wave of support from the nation's tourism bodies, rallying behind President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation following recent discussions at the White House with President Donald Trump.
This diplomatic dialogue, aimed at mending the strain in South Africa-US relations, revolved significantly around perceptions of violence and crime in the country, particularly the contentious narrative of an alleged ongoing white genocide.
At the heart of this discourse was South African billionaire Johann Rupert, who, during the conversation with Trump, candidly spoke about crime levels, saying: 'The crime is terrible, sir, but Mr Steenhuisen won't admit to it; he runs the Western Cape where I live. The highest murder rate is in the Cape Flats.'
Rupert's comments cast a spotlight on the complexities of crime in South Africa, setting the stage for broader reflections from the tourism industry.
The Southern Africa Tourism Services Association (Satsa) swiftly responded to the dialogue, declaring that much of the media coverage around these issues had leaned toward sensationalism, overshadowing the real experiences of travellers.
'South Africa isn't perfect. Like every country, we face challenges. But what we don't have is a crisis that justifies global panic or distorted narratives,' said Satsa CEO David Frost.
He continued, 'What we do have is millions of tourists arriving safely every year and leaving with stories that have nothing to do with fear and everything to do with awe.'
For travellers, incidents of violence remain exceedingly rare, and Frost's assertions are backed by statistical data showing that despite crime concerns, visitor satisfaction levels are notably high across key source markets.
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 ✕
Ad Loading
US arrivals surged to 372 362 in 2024, recovering to 100% of 2019 levels amidst a backdrop of continuous and strong travel demand from North America.
To further bolster confidence, major tourism destinations in South Africa continue to operate smoothly, supported by robust public-private safety initiatives.
'We don't pretend crime doesn't exist,' Frost clarified. 'But context matters. The suggestion that tourists are at significant risk is dangerous misinformation that serves political agendas rather than public interest.'
Recognising the delicate narrative surrounding safety and tourism, Satsa urged international media outlets and global officials to engage responsibly when discussing intricate issues like land reform and national crime rates.
'This sector employs hundreds of thousands,' emphasised Frost.
'It puts food on tables from Soweto guesthouses right through to safari camps in Limpopo. And in South Africa, one tourism job typically supports up to seven people, meaning a single traveller's decision has a ripple effect across entire households.'
The Federated Hospitality Association of South Africa (Fedhasa) echoed these sentiments, reinforcing that the nation's accommodations, restaurants, and hospitality venues consistently provide safe, welcoming environments for both domestic and international guests.
'Our hospitality industry upholds some of the highest service and security standards globally. From boutique guesthouses to international hotel brands, our members implement comprehensive security protocols that allow guests to relax and enjoy South Africa's legendary hospitality with peace of mind,' stated Rosemary Anderson, Fedhasa's National Chairperson.
While crime is certainly acknowledged as a national challenge, particularly in the context of global tourism, Anderson highlighted the efforts made by the hospitality industry: 'We've built professionalism into every layer, from concierge desks knowing how to escalate concerns swiftly right through to housekeeping staff trained on guest wellbeing.'
As South Africa navigates its complex history en route to a shared future, the collective voices from the tourism sector advocate diligently for a nuanced understanding of the nation's safety realities.
They call for personal experience to guide perceptions: 'If you want honest answers about what travel here looks like today,' Frost encouraged, 'ask someone who's actually been, or better yet, come and see for yourself.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
National Dialogue — Promising concept or an illusion of progress for SA?
President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement on Tuesday night of a National Convention to start a National Dialogue is clearly meant to get South Africans talking to each other about solving our problems. Be careful what you wish for. At face value the concept of a national dialogue has much to recommend it. We are clearly in deep trouble, and many of our problems appear to be getting worse. The national coalition government appears to have made little progress, our economy is barely stuttering, and the number of people who are unemployed, or under-employed, continues to rise no matter how you define it. And of course, as President Cyril Ramaphosa pointed out, there is our history of a negotiated settlement that ended apartheid. A settlement that is still blamed today for some of our serious problems. All of that said, there are some important questions to ask about the wisdom of this idea. Firstly, very few leaders give up any power voluntarily. Ramaphosa, as leader of the ANC, is appearing to give the impression that the ANC will accept whatever settlement is reached through this process. But at the same time, the ANC will not, easily at least, be able to veto any settlement. This is hugely significant. For the conspiratorially minded, it may even suggest that he has accepted that the ANC will never actually have a large amount of state power again. For some, it could even suggest he has very little faith in whoever will replace him as leader of the ANC. And it certainly reminds us that he has failed to enact a new 'social compact', something he has promised since before he was even elected leader of the ANC. Different agenda However, Ramaphosa might actually have a slightly different agenda. Calls for this national dialogue have been growing for several years. For a long time people called for an 'Economic Codesa', to allow different role players in the economy to sit down and work out how to grow our economy. The person who has been the loudest in his calls for this event is former president Thabo Mbeki. It is interesting then that his foundation, and the foundations of other former presidents, have not been included in the list of people who are supposed to be guiding the process. It must be said that including Mbeki, in any form, is unlikely to be constructive. He has shown that he appears focused on protecting his own legacy. His conduct in the case of the Cradock Four families, in which he opposed an inquiry into the non-prosecution of those denied amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, suggests a very personal motivation. To claim that his character is ' priceless ' in the face of questions from the families about why the government he led did not prosecute those who killed their fathers and husbands appears to defy rationality. The sheer number of people involved is also interesting. Thirty-one people are included on Ramaphosa's Eminent Persons Group from the most incredibly diverse role is to guide and champion the National Dialogue. While there are business leaders and unionists (none of them are current, but they include Bobby Godsell and Bheki Ntshalintshali) there is also a rugby captain (you know the one), a mountaineer (Sibusiso Vilane), a rocket scientist, a storyteller, the chair of the National Planning Commission (Professor Tinyiko Maluleke), both Bishop Barnabas Lekganyane and Bishop Engenas Lekganyane (representing different strands of the Zion Christian Church), one Anglican Archbishop, an actor (John Kani), a football coach (Desiree Ellis) a former Constitutional Court Judge (Edwin Cameron) and Miss South Africa (Mia le Roux may in fact be there not to represent beauty pageant winners, but as a person who grew up deaf, representing people living with disabilities). While there is much wisdom on this list, it is also not clear what value some others may bring. Impossible position And they have now been placed in an impossible position. It would be hard to say no to the Presidency, and yet now they are going to be asked questions about their views on our politics. Someone like Siya Kolisi, almost universally respected, may find this hugely uncomfortable. Like singers and actors who have made political comments, he has no experience in making trade-offs and has no constituency to protect. Now they will be thrust into the harsh glare of our political spotlight. But this list is also curious because of who is left out. Some ancient schisms, such as that in the Zion Christian Church, are recognised, while others, such as that in the Christian church, are not. There is an Anglican representative but not a Catholic one. Perhaps more importantly, no one appears to represent that most under-represented group in our politics, those who have no job and no income. This gets to the heart of one of our economic problems: organised groups that represent people who are unemployed, such as the Unemployed Peoples Movement, are often left out of the conversation and thus they have very little voice in our society. Huge omission That said, it is a huge omission. It should also be noted that the sheer size of this committee may in fact be an attempt to make sure that nothing is done, that no agreement is reached on anything. This might well be the ruse of an experienced politician, who knows that putting so many people in a room, from so many different parts of our society, will simply result in endless arguments. Technically, this is supposed to result in a bottom-up approach, where people will be given the chance to speak in different parts of the country. On paper, this is inherently democratic. In practice, it can lead to undemocratic outcomes, as the most organised and the loudest voices can overwhelm the debate. And our institutions have shown time and time again that public consultation can be ignored. For years energy regulator Nersa has held public hearings before deciding whether to increase electricity prices. Despite so many people publicly opposing tariff increases, power prices have risen by more than 653% since 2007 (inflation during that time was 129%). Economic reality The reason Nersa did that, despite hearing from so many people who opposed it, was because of economic reality. Eskom needed the money. Public consultation is very often about hearing what people want. Making decisions is about what is possible. Nersa has understood that (Eskom has often complained it has not increased prices enough) and thus had to ignore the public comments. This is why bodies like Nersa are given legal authority to make decisions. They can force people to accept the outcome. This process will have nothing like that. It is also a fallacy to think that getting people in a room together will result in them getting closer. Yes, it can happen. But it can also lead to heightened tensions. During the Codesa talks, the stakes were so incredibly high that very few people were prepared to use violence. The one group that was, the right-wing AWB, eventually used an armoured car to disrupt the talks. But their support was tiny and measured in the hundreds. There are now people in our society who publicly oppose our Constitution and have used violence in the past. One of them, Jacob Zuma, won the support of nearly 2.3 million people in last year's election. He will surely demand to be a part of this process. Incentive Also, before 1994 all of the parties involved knew there would be an election after the process. As a result there was an incentive to appear to be constructive. No such incentive will be present in this situation. Currently, one of the great divides in our politics is between parties and constituencies that support the Constitution, and parties and constituencies that don't. This process of a National Dialogue risks giving those who oppose the Constitution, in all sorts of ways, a much louder voice. Imagine, for example, the separatist voices in our society, those who want independence for the Zulu Kingdom, or those who identify as Afrikaners, or who believe the Western Cape really is different to Mzansi, working together to dominate the process. Also, considering how our politics is in the process of fracturing, creating more parties representing more diverse constituencies, the result could just be a cacophony of voices, making it difficult to come to any conclusion at all. It is true that South Africa is in a difficult, and sometimes dangerous position. As Ramaphosa himself said, in his eulogy for Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in 2018: 'We must acknowledge that we are a society that is hurting, damaged by our past, numbed by our present and hesitant about our future.' He was entirely correct. The history of South Africa, so violent and oppressive, has created deep scars. And thus deep tensions. Sometimes our society can almost look like the most complicated knot of different types of string. When you pull it, you might be able to make sense of it all. Maybe.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Loaded for Bear: African Parks has disgracefully sent more SA rhinos to repressive Rwanda
Much of Africa's wildlife lies within the borders of states with questionable governance or human rights records. But some lines can be drawn in the sand. The Kigali regime stands out for the sheer scale of its repression and the regional instability it has unleashed. Many conservation groups in Africa have a human rights problem. Pointedly, they often stand accused of being more concerned about the plight of Africa's animals than that of its people. This perception has been further entrenched by African Parks' announcement this week that it has just translocated another 70 white rhinos from South Africa to Rwanda – a sinister state that has been credibly linked to the killing of dissidents on South African soil. When African Parks, a Johannesburg-based NGO, announced in 2021 that it had relocated 30 white rhinos to Rwanda's Akagera National Park, I criticised it at the time in this publication, noting that those rhinos would be safer than the country's dissidents. That observation still holds and, if anything, Rwanda under the autocratic rule of Paul Kagame has become even more of a pariah state with its documented support for the M23 rebels in neighbouring DRC. The diabolical nature of the Rwandan regime under Kagame has been clinically dissected in veteran journalist Michela Wrong's troubling 2021 book, Do Not Disturb: The Story of a Political Murder and an African Regime Gone Bad. 'Do Not Disturb' was the sign placed on the room door at the posh Sandton Hotel where Patrick Karegeya, once Rwanda's head of external intelligence, was found murdered more than a decade ago. But what's the murder of a dissident or two or three – or a dozen for that matter – between friends? African Parks sees no issue with shaking hands with the devil if it advances its conservation agenda – which is disturbing. 'In 2021, African Parks moved 30 southern white rhinos to Akagera National Park. This initial population has increased to 41 animals today. Building on this success, the additional 70 animals will now play a crucial role in ensuring the presence of meta-populations across the continent, presenting opportunities for future range expansion,' African Parks said. It's all about the animals! It's like African Parks is living in a bubble, completely disconnected from the odious nature of the state it has chosen as a conservation partner. But that's perhaps not surprising, given the NGO's track record elsewhere in Africa. Last month it acknowledged that some of its eco-rangers had committed human rights abuses against the Baka community in Odzala-Kokoua National Park, Republic of Congo, based on the findings of an independent investigation it had commissioned to probe the allegations. 'African Parks acknowledges that, in some incidents, human rights abuses have occurred, and we deeply regret the pain and suffering caused to the victims. There is no place for any form of abuse in the name of conservation,' it said. There may be 'no place' for this kind of abuse 'in the name of conservation'. But if the state you have chosen to host a rhino conservation project is a serial human rights abuser, there is nothing to see here, folks. The rhinos will be fine! What will grab the headlines is that this is the largest translocation of its kind. African Parks has also been involved in a previous megafauna translocation which was billed as the 'largest of its kind'. In July 2022, 263 elephants were moved from Liwonde National Park in southern Malawi to Kasungu National Park, which borders Zambia along a frontier which has no fence. African Parks has since distanced itself from this project, but it certainly claimed some of the credit at the time. As I reported from the Zambian side of the park in 2024, this misconceived translocation has transformed the landscape into one of fear and loathing for the poor rural people who live there. Human-wildlife conflict is raging there, with a mounting death toll among both people and elephants. The big critters that have just been moved to Rwanda come from the 2,000-strong herd that African Parks bought in 2023 from rhino tycoon John Hume. Largely because of the efforts of the private sector, South Africa has enough rhinos for 'rewilding' efforts elsewhere, which broadly aim to restore wildlife populations to former ranges. Rwanda, by the way, is not a former white rhino range state. It is indeed the case that much of Africa's wildlife lies within the borders of states with questionable governance or human rights records. I recently covered first-hand the translocation of South African cheetahs to Mozambique, where last year's elections were hotly disputed, sparking nationwide protests. And let's face it, the ruling Frelimo party has followed other African liberation movements down the well-trodden path of corruption and misrule. But some lines can be drawn in the sand. Mountain gorillas, for example, are only found in Rwanda and neighbouring Uganda and the DRC, and so conservation efforts for this species need to be focused in those countries, regardless of the governments in power. That is not the case with white rhinos. There are plenty of other African countries where they can be translocated to and protected. The Kigali government stands out for the sheer scale of its repression and the regional instability it has unleashed. And Kagame has an instinctive understanding of what is important to the West. The rhino project comes with the prestige he craves, adding another layer of legitimacy to his regime – which does keep the streets of Kigali clean. Kagame got 99% of the vote in Rwanda's 2024 elections and unlike in Mozambique, no one was going to raise an eyebrow about that result, let alone lead a protest in the streets.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Does Russia intend to restart Ukraine's occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant?
Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant is in cold shutdown; however, Russian officials openly speak of their plans to restart it. This is despite urgent safety concerns. Many of us have a false impression that international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are responsible for ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants. However, this is a misconception. The IAEA does not have enforcement powers or direct responsibility for nuclear safety. Instead, the IAEA provides guidance, conducts peer reviews and issues recommendations, but it is ultimately up to each national government to ensure that nuclear facilities within its territory are operated safely. So, in the case of South Africa's Koeberg, the IAEA can assess the site and provide expert opinions or recommendations, but the South African government — through the National Nuclear Regulator and other relevant authorities — retains full responsibility for determining what is considered safe, based on their own regulatory frameworks and risk assessments. At the same time, nuclear accidents know no borders. Incidents such as Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima in Japan (2011) demonstrate that radioactive contamination can spread through atmospheric and oceanic pathways far beyond the site of the disaster, with far-reaching global implications. A decision taken by a single government can affect not only its neighbouring countries, but also dozens of others, even those located on other continents. Zaporizhzhia The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has created a set of unprecedented challenges for nuclear experts — most notably, the military occupation of a fully operational nuclear power plant in the Zaporizhzhia region. While the city of Zaporizhzhia itself is not occupied, Enerhodar — where the nuclear power plant is located — has been under Russian occupation since March 2022 and remains on the frontline between Russian and Ukrainian forces. The IAEA has shown leadership in its efforts to ensure the safety of the occupied facility; however, it faces several limitations. First, the IAEA may only monitor the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and has access only to the areas that the Russian government has approved. Thus, some parts of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, where military forces or military equipment are held, might not be available for monitoring. Second, the IAEA's Fundamental Safety Principles, approved in 2006, set out the core standards for nuclear safety. The IAEA monitoring mission has documented violations of all these principles at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. In response to the ongoing risks, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi proposed five concrete principles in May 2023, aimed at safeguarding nuclear safety and security during armed conflict. However, the incident on 14 February 2025 — when a Russian drone strike punctured the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's roof and triggered a fire that took three weeks to extinguish — underscores that the threat of attack on nuclear installations remains persistent. Crucially, there is still no enforcement mechanism in place to ensure these principles are upheld. The occupying government holds full responsibility for all nuclear risks that might occur at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, but the impact might be global again. It is one of the 10 largest nuclear power plants in the world. Currently, it is in cold shutdown; however, Russian officials are constantly openly speaking of their plans to restart the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Restarting the plant Alexei Likhachev, head of Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom, declared in 2023 that they are working on restarting the station. Just a few days ago, another official asked 'for the fastest possible launch of all six units of the station'. This is despite urgent safety concerns surrounding the plant, even in its current cold shutdown, non-operational mode. A recent Greenpeace report suggests that Russia is building new power lines in occupied Ukrainian territory to link the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to the Russian grid. Despite the urgent and ongoing safety concerns, Greenpeace's investigation demonstrates that Russia's plans are more than just wishful thinking and empty words. Since February this year, Russia has constructed 90km of an electricity grid line and pylons in occupied Ukrainian territory between Mariupol and Berdiansk. The direction of construction indicates that the new electricity line will be connected to a substation in the occupied city of Melitopol and to another in Mariupol to the east. Ultimately, this development confirms Russia's plans to connect the nuclear plant to Russia's electricity grid so that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant can supply electricity to Russia. Torture Beyond this, research released by Ukrainian human rights organisation Truth Hounds in 2023 showed a pattern of the systematic torture of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant employees by the Russian occupying administration. A new report planned for release by the organisation in July 2025 will further elaborate on these findings, including new evidence of widespread, systematic torture. Truth Hound's findings indicate that a Russian nuclear company, Rosatom, is complicit in the abuse of civilians and the plant's employees, which often occurs within the plant itself and has resulted in at least six people being tortured to death. Another report by RUSI suggests that, while there is no evidence that Rosatom staff have performed the torture themselves, 'staff seem to have played a critical role in the process by identifying uncooperative Ukrainian personnel to the FSB' (Russia's Federal Security Service). Kakhovka Dam Importantly, following Russia's reckless destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023, the nuclear plant was effectively cut off from its water source, which is essential for cooling processes and the plant's overall safety. Russia has also placed landmines in the vicinity of the plant. The plant has additionally suffered from qualified personnel shortages since Russia's occupation, and general degradation of its equipment due to a lack of maintenance. After more than three years of full-scale war, international norms continue to be violated at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and the nuclear risks that governments are willing to tolerate are placing all of us in danger. Regulatory violations and staff abuses at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant have been well documented and must be acknowledged by those who plan future nuclear procurement. It remains up to individual governments to decide who best to cooperate with. But can anyone truly remain non-aligned when it comes to compromising on nuclear safety? DM Dzvinka Kachur is a research fellow at the Centre for Sustainability Transitions at Stellenbosch University and co-founder of the NPO, Ukrainian Association of South Africa. Isabel Bosman is a researcher in the African Governance and Diplomacy Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA). Oksana Pokalchuk is the executive director of Ukrainian-based international human rights NGO Truth Hounds.
