
What Trump's 30% tariffs could mean for South Africans: 'Reduced salaries, maybe job losses'
In a letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa, he cited that it was due to his strained relationship with the Trump government, which, Trump says, has been 'far from reciprocal'.
RELATED: Trump set to impose 30% tariff on all SA goods
So, what does this mean for South Africans?
Our biggest exports to the US are citrus, grapes, wine and nuts. Tariffs on these products are putting thousands of South African jobs at risk.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Defend Our Democracy weighs in on Mkhwanazi's allegations
JOHANNESBURG - Civil society group, Defend Our Democracy, says there have to be consequences if Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations are proven to be true. The organisation says a firm stance by the President Cyril Ramaphosa will send a positive message to South Africans. "We would ask the president to install and bring back integrity and ethical leadership in our governance. A lot of South Africans have little faith in our justice system and our criminal justice system. We need those institutions to be functional. They are tasked with upholding the law and protecting South Africans," says Naledi Kuali from Defend Our Democracy. She says "t won't be sustainable if people feel like they can't trust those institutions. That's unfair to South Africans and it's a serious betrayal of the trust invested and put in our leadership." All eyes are on President Ramaphosa as he prepares to address the nation this Sunday evening. The family meeting follows explosive allegations made by the KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner against Police Minister Senzo Mchunu.

IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Foundations and civil society rally to make national dialogue work
DESPITE clear challenges facing South Africa like rampant youth unemployment, deepening inequality, crime, and a failing economy, the government still insists on a multimillion rand national dialogue. The writer argues for foundations and civil society organisations' involvment Sthembiso Sithole FOUNDATIONS and civil society remain committed to making South Africa great. While there are mixed voices around the National Dialogue, that shouldn't discourage individuals or organisations from participating and making a meaningful contribution. To strengthen and deepen South Africa's constitutional democracy through inclusive and sustained dialogue, foundations and civil society continue to play a central role in the country and in preparation for the kick-off of the National Convention set to take place on 15 August 2025 ahead of the National Dialogue. On 30 April 2024, former president Thabo Mbeki called for 'a new and truly inclusive national dialogue.' He made this announcement during an event marking '30 Years of Democracy.' On 01 May 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the Cosatu May Day Rally and expressed his support for the call for a national dialogue. On 19 June 2024, Ramaphosa reiterated the call and support for the national dialogue. Since then, foundations, civil society organisations, and ordinary South Africans have come out in full support of the initiative, while others continue to raise concerns about the dialogue. Post-1994, despite the efforts made to improve lives and service delivery, the country is still faced with inequality, unemployment, poverty, violence, crime, and social discord, which affect the lives of millions of South Africans. Let's face it, the country stands at a critical juncture. This moment calls for all of us to critically reflect with honesty on the journey travelled and work together to come up with practical solutions to make South Africa a better place. The National Dialogue is a citizen-led nationwide initiative to respond to the country's democratic challenges supported by government, civil society, and foundations. It is expected to result in a shared national vision with an action plan. The National Dialogue is an opportunity for all South Africans from all demographics to address these challenges and help restore the country to a place of progress and development in the next 30 years. It's for that reason that the role of civil society and foundations should be supported. The dialogue is a perfect platform for South Africans to engage robustly and ensure that all voices are heard in shaping the future of the country. Government, foundations, civil society, and many other representative bodies can't do everything on their own. Citizens must play their part and participate fully and freely in the national dialogue. The criticism and dissenting voices around the national dialogue should be welcomed, as they help bring another perspective with the intention to contribute to the outcomes of the dialogue. Like Deputy President Paul Mashatile said, the national dialogue is not a party-political exercise, but it's for the people and by the people. Just like during the dark days under apartheid, civil society and foundations have organised themselves to play an active role in mobilising South Africans to participate in the national dialogue. This moment needs all of us to unite and work together as we navigate the next 30 years of South Africa. (Sithole is a PhD student, communications and social media specialist. His views don't reflect those of the Sunday Tribune or IOL)

The Star
8 hours ago
- The Star
There is no link between the name ‘Azania' and the indigenous people of South Africa
Kenneth Mokgatlhe | Published 22 minutes ago We should be asking ourselves where the word 'Azania' originates from, which language, and how it is related to the people of South Africa. There are no cultural, historical, linguistic, or political connections to the name, says the writer. Image: Picture: Henk Kruger/ Independent Newspapers The proposal of constitutional amendment by the African Transformation Movement (ATM) to change the name of South Africa to the 'Republic of Azania' is nonsensical, unnecessary, and irrelevant to the inhabitants of this place. We should be asking ourselves where the word 'Azania' originates from, which language, and how it is related to the people of South Africa. There are no cultural, historical, linguistic, or political connections to the name. It was during my time as a young and vibrant activist within the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) that I was firmly convinced that South Africa should be renamed 'Azania'. I had been persuaded by the existing argument that 'South' was merely a geographical direction and therefore did not have substantive cultural and historical connections befitting a nation's identity. However, I later realised that my comprehension of the term 'Azania' was very limited to its use within Pan Africanist and Black Consciousness discourses. Never mind my strong ideological conviction and commitment, I was unable to intellectually express a clear historical or cultural justification for the adoption of the name, nor could I trace its relevance in juxtaposition to the people, history, and identity of the country. It is important to note that the name 'Azania' has no historical or cultural connection to my people. It was never part of our vocabulary or identity. The term did not exist in our oral traditions or historical records, and my community had never encountered it before modern political movements began to invoke it. It is important to note that the pre-colonial South African society was home to various independent kingdoms and queendoms, each governed by its rulers. I descend from the Bahurutshe, one of the largest sub-groups of the Batswana people, who previously occupied the area now known as the Marico region or Zeerust. Our ancestors referred to their kingdom as Kaditshwene (a place of baboons) and Tshwenyane (a little baboon), an ancient twin-city settlement that thrived between 1300 to 1884. Like many other indigenous polities, it functioned as a sovereign polity, free from foreign or external domination. There was a dramatic shift in the geopolitical landscape after the Berlin Conference of 1884, where European powers gathered to partition Africa among themselves, which laid the foundation for the modern nation-states we recognise today. As a result, we — descendants of various kingdoms — were forced to adapt to these new political realities and form countries under Western-imposed frameworks. A country known as the Union of South Africa was established in 1910, led and governed by white minority rule. A referendum was held in 1960, where white South Africans decided to leave the Commonwealth, became independent, and referred to themselves as the Republic of South Africa on 31 May 1961. While the name 'South Africa' is descriptive of a geographic location, the name gives a strong cultural, political, and historical connection. It reminds us of different epochs in our history and how we interacted with other countries. The name South Africa is not unique in the world, as other countries have historically adopted names which are geographically descriptive of their land, such as South Sudan, Central African Republic (CAR), North and South Korea, North Macedonia, and East Timor. My discomfort at the term Azania was vindicated after I came across one of the compelling writings of South African freedom fighter and journalist Paul Trewhela, who is now based in the United Kingdom. Through his sharp historical analysis, he provides a well-substantiated account of the origins of the name 'Azania', demonstrating that it was a term imposed by slave traders/masters to demean the Black Africans in some parts of East Africa. Trewhela contends that the name 'Azania' does not bear any link to the indigenous peoples of South Africa and carries connotations or implications of oppression rather than liberation. His esteemed scholarship helped clarify that the name 'Azania' lacks authentic historical, cultural, political, or linguistic connections to South Africa and its people, reinforcing my earlier doubts about its relevance and appropriateness as a national name. 'The name 'Azania' celebrates the centuries of enslavement of black Africans by Islamist Arab imperialism down the east coast of Africa. It is a disgrace for reactionary ideologists to be using this concocted name to replace the name South Africa,' he remarked. This name, 'Azania,' is primarily used by individuals who identify themselves as revolutionaries or radicals within South Africa's academic, political, and social spheres. It is largely preferred by black radicals in academia and by political formations considered to be on the far left, such as the PAC, the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO), the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and trade unions affiliated with the National Council of Trade Union (NACTU), among others. Like I once did in the past, many of these individuals adopt the term 'Azania' as a symbolic rejection of apartheid and white supremacy. Their chief motivation emanates from a desire to eliminate any association with the apartheid regime, including the name 'South Africa', which they regard as a legacy of colonialism and racial oppression. Mokgatlhe is a political analyst and consultant.