Trump meets Ramaphosa: Did we all watch the same show?
If you were a consumer of international media, you would have wondered the next day if their reporters had seen the same Trump and Ramaphosa showdown.
Many sports lovers make a point of getting the papers – or logging onto their favourite news sites – the day after a game to reaffirm what they watched less than 12 hours before.
It's a bizarre phenomenon, but it's part of the burden that fans shoulder, including – for some – an obsessive desire to find out the minutiae of their sports stars' lives from their pre-match rituals to their innermost thoughts on anything from Covid to the Cup final.
Sometimes though, you'll pick up the paper the next day and wonder if the sports reporter watched the same game that you did.
There's a huge gulf between what we think we see – and what we think others see. But it's not just sport that gets this treatment.
Now that US President Donald Trump has rendered Oval Office meetings with visiting presidents into something like a spin-off series of The Apprentice, there would have been many South Africans who watched the Wednesday night televised meeting between Trump and President Cyril Ramaphosa to find out if their eyes had deceived them or not.
If you were a consumer of international media, you would have wondered the next day if their reporters had seen the same show.
If you had delved into the cesspits of social media, you would have been depressed, confused or strangely buoyed, depending on your algorithmic bias.
ALSO READ: SA must growl back at global bullies like Trump
South African media were more nuanced, as you would hope, with some a lot better than others.
It's a feat of modern communications – and says more than we need to know about the comprehension levels of our neighbours, friends and family – that, to mangle Winston Churchill, so much could be spun by so few.
There was very little middle ground; the meeting was declared a victory by the CR haters and a massive triumph by Cupcake lovers.
To be fair, the bar had been set low after the televised February mauling of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Our championship golfers lined up the realpolitik putts they needed to, while EFF leader Julius Malema's bête noir Johann Rupert chimed in with a contribution that was simultaneously fêted and condemned.
So, who won? As the great Springbok Boy Louw famously said: 'Looks (sic) at the scoreboard.' If we stay in Agoa and Trump makes it to the G20, there will be no question at all, but given what the pre-match predictions were before last Wednesday, even a draw would have counted as a win.
NOW READ: Why Cyril Ramaphosa failed in the US
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
How Ukraine's drone attacks jeopardise peace efforts with Russia
Since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. Image: Tetiana Dzhafarova / AFP IN a much-anticipated telephone call this week, US President Donald Trump was at pains explaining to his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, that Washington absolutely had nothing to do with Ukraine's astoundingly provocative drone attacks on five Russian airbases. The airbases, attacked simultaneously, house Russia's strategic bomber fleet. The attacks appear to put a spanner in the works for Trump's strenuous efforts to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv. The timing is also curious. The well-orchestrated drone attacks took place at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel was beginning to beam with brightness. Despite the deep-seated mistrust and tension between the two next-door neighbours who've been at war since February 2022, the latest round of rare face-to-face talks between the two nations has taken place in the Turkish capital, Istanbul. Trump had been visibly encouraged by their direct negotiations, which resulted in the mass exchange of prisoners of war. A leading German-based civil society organisation, the Schiller Institute, has been vehemently campaigning for an end to the war, actively supporting dialogue in an effort to give peace a chance. Responding to Ukraine's provocative attack on Russia on June 1, Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute wrote: 'Whether 40% or only 10% of Russia's airborne nuclear capability was destroyed in the attack is irrelevant; the fact is that whoever prepared, trained and gave the final green light for Kiev's drone operation was itching to unleash a nuclear-strategic conflict between the world's two greatest nuclear weapons superpowers.' Trump told Putin that the White House was not even given any prior warning about the attacks. Therefore, like most of the international community, Washington was caught off guard, totally taken by surprise. Now, since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. NATO has also been visible and loud in defence of Ukraine, supplying intelligence and weaponry to Kyiv, among others. All this support was provided on the back of the imposition of an unprecedented barrage of economic sanctions on Moscow. As things were, the entire script was written by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who had vowed that the West would support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. When Biden and his Democrats lost the elections last November, Trump's Republican Party was determined to end the war in Ukraine. 'This is a war that would never have started if I were in office,' Trump has said repeatedly. It is therefore no wonder that since assuming office at the beginning of 2025, Trump has prioritised peace in Ukraine. He came into office at a time of great antagonism and mistrust between Washington and Moscow. In the midst of it all, he managed to re-establish contact with the Kremlin, leading to the accentuation of bilateral diplomacy between the two nuclear powers. Through it all, some in Europe had not been too pleased about the looming brokering of peace between Ukraine and Russia. Key EU powers in the form of the UK, France and Germany have publicly displayed displeasure at Trump's approach and efforts. As Washington was pushing too hard to bring a reluctant Zelensky to the negotiating table, the three European powers stated above were actively mobilising for an 'alternative' approach. They birthed a curious idea labelled a 'Coalition of the Willing', a military force to be deployed to Ukraine in the event Trump succeeded with his peace mission. Their rationale is premised on their deep mistrust of Russia that borders on downright Russophobia. They claim that their mooted indefinite military presence inside Ukraine would deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again. The EU's biggest powers are trapped in the Joe Biden war-mongering era that has passed. They speak of no approach to peace, nor how they could engage with Russia at the negotiating table to reach an amicable settlement to the war. Of great interest, the pro-war EU states want Trump's US to guarantee what they call a back-stop, some military assurance that in an event of confrontation with Russia, whilst 'guarding' Ukraine, the US would jump in to defend their Coalition of the Willing. Of course, Trump has already disappointed most of the war-mongering European powers by expressing no taste for military activities inside Ukraine post-war. Trump's offer of a guarantee for the protection of Ukraine will instead come in the form of the economic deal between Kyiv and Washington that includes rare earth minerals. The minerals would contribute toward Ukraine repaying the US for the unconditional assistance Zelensky received during the tenure of Biden, which totalled several billions of dollars. Ukraine's audacious drone attacks of recent days beg for more questions. For instance, where does Zelensky get the guts to launch such a sensitive attack on Russia without informing the White House? As the Schiller Institute puts it: 'Who has the (usurped) power to launch an attack targeting the nuclear deterrent forces of the planet's leading nuclear weapons nation, without telling the of the United States?' Clearly, and surely, an attack of that kind and magnitude would inevitably and logically trigger a response? The Zelensky regime is not politically naive to be unaware of the consequential ramifications of their actions, but then, what is the end-game? The Schiller Institute's conclusion is rather ominous. It read: 'The world may have dodged the bullet of nuclear war — for the moment. But that gun is still loaded, and it is still being wielded by the British and American intelligence circles that are intent on driving a permanent wedge between Trump and Putin, and who are prepared to stage a coup d'état and even assassinate both heads of state, as well as launch another nuclear provocation.' I believe that the UK, France and Germany, that is now under the war-mongering Chancellor Friedrich Merz, need to be confronted by Washington to come out clean about their role in ordering or advising Kiev to attack Russia in this manner. Trump and Putin spoke by phone for one hour and 15 minutes in the aftermath of the attacks. Trump said afterwards: 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked aeroplanes, by Ukraine,' he posted on his Truth Social account on June 4, adding: 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' In my book, that's the scary part indeed!
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
Institute of Race Relations slams unclear expropriation law
The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) calls on Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson to disclose all state bodies empowered under the Expropriation Act. The Expropriation Act allows property to be seized below market value, raising concerns about property rights in South Africa. Makone Maja of the IRR says more than 400 state entities may already hold expropriation powers. ALSO READ: Ekurhuleni residents to face new tariff hikes IRR polling shows 68% of South Africans oppose the Expropriation Act. The IRR will this week write to Macpherson, seeking clarity on how many public entities have been granted the power to expropriate property under the recently enacted Expropriation Act. The act grants expropriating authorities broad powers to seize property, including land, homes, and business assets, potentially at below-market value. It provides limited legal recourse for owners to challenge such actions in court. The IRR has raised concerns over the lack of transparency about the number of government bodies authorised to carry out expropriations. Makone Maja, the IRR's strategic engagements manager, said the law is unpopular among South Africans and poses a significant threat to property rights. 'Our polling conducted in March and April shows that 68% of registered voters oppose the Expropriation Act,' said Maja. 'The act is so broadly worded that all forms of property – including savings and pensions – are now vulnerable.' According to the IRR, at least 426 public entities currently have the authority to expropriate property under the Act. However, the organisation believes the actual number may be closer to 1 000. ALSO READ: Issues plaguing Edenvale tackled in a heated meeting 'It is the height of policy recklessness for such vast powers to be granted to an unknown number of authorities,' said Maja. 'If the number is unclear, how can citizens have confidence that these powers will not be abused?' The IRR argues that uncertainty around expropriation powers could undermine investment, economic growth and food security. In its Blueprint for Growth policy series, the institute emphasises the importance of secure property rights as a foundation for economic empowerment. Maja added that South Africa's history of corruption and abuse of power makes the lack of oversight especially troubling. ALSO READ: Court orders the removal of illegal billboard on Gillooly's 'We have seen how state power can be misused,' she said. 'It is deeply irresponsible to empower a vast and unaccountable network of officials to take property without clear safeguards. 'The minister must urgently disclose which entities have been given this authority and explain how abuse will be prevented.' The IRR has called on the government to publish a full list of authorised expropriating entities and to provide clarity on how the act will be implemented to protect constitutional property rights. For more information, visit At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump says Musk has 'lost his mind' as feud fallout mounts
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump said that Elon Musk had "lost his mind" but insisted he wanted to move on from the fiery split with his billionaire former ally. The blistering public break-up between the world's richest person and the world's most powerful is fraught with political and economic risks all around. Trump had scrapped the idea of a call with Musk and was even thinking of ditching the red Tesla he bought at the height of their bromance, White House officials told AFP. "Honestly, I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk, I just wish him well," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to his New Jersey golf club late Friday. Earlier, Trump told US broadcasters that he now wanted to focus instead on passing his "big, beautiful" mega-bill before Congress -- Musk's harsh criticism of which had sparked their break-up. But the 78-year-old Republican could not stop himself from taking aim at his South African-born friend-turned-enemy. "You mean the man who has lost his mind?" Trump said in a call with ABC when asked about Musk, adding that he was "not particularly" interested in talking to the tycoon. Trump later told Fox News that Musk had "lost it." Just a week ago Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) after four months working there. While there had been reports of tensions, the sheer speed at which their relationship imploded stunned Washington. After Musk called Trump's spending bill an "abomination" on Tuesday, Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe on Thursday in which he said he was "very disappointed" by the entrepreneur. Trump's spending bill faces a difficult path through Congress as it will raise the US deficit, while critics say it will cut health care for millions of the poorest Americans. The row then went nuclear, with Musk slinging insults at Trump and accusing him without evidence of being in government files on disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump hit back with the power of the US government behind him, saying he could cancel the Space X boss's multi-billion-dollar rocket and satellite contracts. Trump struck a milder tone late Friday when asked how seriously he is considering cutting Musk's contracts. "It's a lot of money, it's a lot of subsidy, so we'll take a look -- only if it's fair. Only if it's to be fair for him and the country," he said. Musk apparently also tried to de-escalate social media hostilities. The right-wing tech baron rowed back on a threat to scrap his company's Dragon spacecraft -- vital for ferrying NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station. And on Friday the usually garrulous poster kept a low social media profile on his X social network. But the White House denied reports that they would talk.
