KwaZulu-Natal celebrates US Independence Day with a focus on economic partnerships
Image: EDTEA KZN / Facebook
During the commemoration of the United States of America's 249th Independence Day, KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (EDTEA) MEC Reverend Musa Zondi emphasised the significant investments made by American businesses in South Africa, especially in KwaZulu-Natal.
On Tuesday evening, Zondi delivered a message of support on behalf of the KZN government at the commemoration event at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Durban.
'On behalf of the Honourable Premier of KwaZulu-Natal, Honourable Thami Ntuli, and the people of our province, I extend warm wishes of peace, prosperity, and enduring friendship to the government and people of the United States of America,' Zondi said.
He highlighted the significant investments made by American businesses in South Africa, particularly in KZN. These contributions, he noted, have fostered economic growth and aided families in a province struggling with high unemployment.
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
'Through AGOA, billions of Rands' worth of exports have found their way into American markets, creating a vital trade lifeline. From vehicles to agricultural goods, from our ports to your cities, the connection is real. And beyond commerce, there is the cultural influence - music, film, innovation, that continues to inspire,' Zondi said.
He also called for the reaffirmation of sub-national diplomacy, emphasising the importance of strengthening partnerships between provinces like KZN and US states and cities.
'In this regard, we support the revival of the Friendship City Agreement between Durban and Los Angeles. This partnership holds potential for renewed collaboration in port development, maritime education, creative industries, and green logistics. We also hope to expand US investments in key provincial sectors,' Zondi said.
US Consulate General in Durban, Consul General Rebecca E Gonzales, with Amajuba District Municipality Mayor Thembelihle Mthembu.
Image: Amajuba District Municipality / Facebook
Amajuba District Municipality Mayor Thembelihle Mthembu expressed his honour at the chance to participate in the celebration.
'As we celebrated the rich history and enduring spirit of independence that the United States embodies, it is important to reflect on the long-standing and fruitful relationship between our two countries,' Mthembu said.
'Over the decades, the United States has been a vital partner in global development, with its contributions in various sectors such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and governance positively impacting the lives of millions of people around the world, including here in South Africa.'
Mthembu said honouring the invitation was more than an expression of diplomacy but an important strategic opportunity for Amajuba.
'As the Amajuba District Municipality continues to focus on its sustainable development goals, it is essential to strengthen our ties with key international stakeholders and agencies who can contribute to our progress. The United States, with its wealth of resources and expertise, remains an invaluable partner for fostering growth, innovation, and prosperity within our region,' Mthembu said.
He also said the invitation represents an opportunity where they hope to forge stronger collaborations that can attract investment, improve skills development, and address key socio-economic challenges within Amajuba.
'We look forward to building on this gesture of goodwill and engaging with relevant partners to bring positive, lasting change to our community,' Mthembu said.
thobeka.ngema@inl.co.za
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
20 minutes ago
- The South African
How South Africa's fruit industry plans to deal with US trade tariffs
Earlier this month The South African reported on how American president Donald Trump, who had previously backed South African farmers, is now imposing tariffs that will affect their livelihoods. A 30% tariff on key exports, including citrus, wine, sugar cane, and beef, will take effect on 1 August. This will all but end the duty-free access South Africa enjoyed under the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA). While citrus exports may avoid major disruption this season, sectors like table grapes and stonefruit are facing a more immediate challenge. With their peak export seasons fast approaching, producers need to act swiftly to mitigate potential losses. South African fruit growers are hoping that late US talks might ease the trade tensions. In the meantime, exporters are being urged to diversify. 'We have to do everything we can to retain our position in the UK and Europe,' said Alwyn Dippenaar, Chairman of the South African Table Grape Industry. According to Fruitnet , markets in Asia and the Middle East are now also high on the radar. Despite recent difficulties in China for South African grape growers, renewed trade cooperation could offer a lifeline. China's move to expand free trade to 53 African countries, including South Africa, may provide much-needed relief and improved competitiveness for local fruit exporters. India, another key market, is also in focus. As such, a senior Indian delegation is expected to visit South Africa soon to fast-track a potential trade agreement. High import tariffs in India have so far hindered some product categories. In response, the local industry is rolling out awareness campaigns for South African apples, pears, citrus, and avocados in the sub-continent. A new campaign led by South African citrus growers meanwhile aims to reposition grapefruit as a vibrant summer fruit in Europe. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
US Justice Department's hardened efforts to denaturalise citizens is likely to violate constitutional rights
An aggressive new directive has millions of Americans who became legal citizens through the naturalisation process living in fear of having their citizenship revoked. The Trump administration wants to take away citizenship from naturalised Americans on a massive scale. Although a recent US Justice Department memo prioritises national security cases, it directs employees to 'maximally pursue denaturalisation proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence' across 10 broad priority categories. Denaturalisation is different from deportation, which removes non-citizens from the country. With civil denaturalisation, the government files a lawsuit to strip people's US citizenship after they have become citizens, turning them back into non-citizens who can then be deported. The government can only do this in specific situations. It must prove someone ' illegally procured ' citizenship by not meeting the requirements, or that they lied or hid important facts during the citizenship process. The Trump administration's 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, regardless of priority level or strength of evidence. As our earlier research documented, this has already led to cases like that of Baljinder Singh, whose citizenship was revoked based on a name discrepancy that could easily have resulted from a translator's error rather than intentional fraud. A brief history For most of American history, taking away citizenship has been rare. But it increased dramatically in the 1940s and 1950s during the Red Scare period characterised by intense suspicion of communism. The US government targeted people it thought were communists or Nazi supporters. Between 1907 and 1967, more than 22,000 Americans lost their citizenship this way. Everything changed in 1967 when the Supreme Court decided Afroyim v Rusk. The court said the government usually cannot take away citizenship without the person's consent. It left open only cases involving fraud during the citizenship process. After this decision, denaturalisation became extremely rare. From 1968 to 2013, fewer than 150 people lost their citizenship. They were mostly war criminals who had hidden their past. How the process works In criminal lawsuits, defendants get free lawyers if they can't afford one. They get jury trials. The government must prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' – the highest standard of proof. But in most denaturalisation cases, the government files a civil suit, in which none of these protections exists. People facing denaturalisation get no free lawyer, meaning poor defendants often face the government alone. There's no jury trial – just a judge deciding whether someone deserves to remain American. The burden of proof is lower – 'clear and convincing evidence' instead of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Most important, there's no time limit, so the government can go back decades to build cases. As law professors who study citizenship, we believe this system violates basic constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has called citizenship a fundamental right. Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958 described it as the ' right to have rights.' In our reading of the law, taking away such a fundamental right through civil procedures that lack basic constitutional protection – no right to counsel for those who can't afford it, no jury trial and a lower burden of proof – seems to violate the due process of law required by the constitution. The bigger problem is what citizenship-stripping policy does to democracy. When the government can strip citizenship from naturalised Americans for decades-old conduct through civil procedures with minimal due process protection – pursuing cases based on evidence that might not meet criminal standards – it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. This creates a system where naturalised citizens face vulnerability that can last their entire lives, potentially chilling their full participation in American democracy. The Justice Department memo establishes 10 priority categories for denaturalisation cases. They range from national security threats and war crimes to various forms of fraud, financial crimes and, most importantly, any other cases it deems 'sufficiently important to pursue'. This 'maximal enforcement' approach means pursuing not just clear cases of fraud, but also any case where evidence might support taking away citizenship, no matter how weak or old the evidence is. This creates fear throughout immigrant communities. About 20 million naturalised Americans now must worry that any mistake in their decades-old immigration paperwork could cost them their citizenship. A two-tier system This policy effectively creates two different types of American citizens. Native-born Americans never have to worry about losing their citizenship, no matter what they do. But naturalised Americans face vulnerability that can last their entire lives. This has already happened. A woman who became a naturalised citizen in 2007 helped her boss with paperwork that was later used in fraud. She cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was characterised by prosecutors as only a 'minimal participant', completed her sentence and still faced losing her citizenship decades later because she didn't report the crime on her citizenship application – even though she hadn't been charged at the time. The Justice Department's directive to 'maximally pursue' cases across 10 broad categories – combined with the first Trump administration's efforts to review more than 700,000 naturalisation files – represents an unprecedented expansion of denaturalisation efforts. The policy will almost certainly face legal challenges on constitutional grounds, but the damage may already be done. When naturalised citizens fear that their status could be revoked, it undermines the security and permanence that citizenship is supposed to provide. The Supreme Court, in Afroyim v Rusk, was focused on protecting existing citizens from losing their citizenship. The constitutional principle behind that decision – that citizenship is a fundamental right that can't be arbitrarily taken away by whoever happens to be in power – applies equally to how the government handles denaturalisation cases today. The Trump administration's directive, combined with court procedures that lack basic constitutional protections, risks creating a system that the Afroyim v Rusk decision sought to prevent – one where, as the Supreme Court said: 'A group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship.' DM First published by The Conversation. Cassandra Burke Robertson is professor of law and director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Irina D Manta is professor of law and director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York. This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
Eyewitness News
2 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show
At the American embassy in Budapest, the atmosphere has changed since US President Donald Trump was sworn in six months ago. "No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants his country to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit. Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule. In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship". - 'Open-air museum' - "Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP. "Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added. Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community. "Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," Enyedi said. "Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," the researcher added. US author Rod Dreher, who lives in Budapest and promotes the "Hungarian model" in the United States, praises the two leaders' common fight against the "ideological left". "It does matter a lot to ordinary Americans when their little children are being sent to schools and being taught about transgenderism," the 58-year-old told AFP. - 'Strongman' tactics - In a recent discussion hosted by the Hungarian-government-financed Danube Institute, where he works, Dreher cited the example of the University of Pennsylvania, which agreed to ban biological males from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint. "Pure Orban," Dreher says. "We would not have gotten that out of a normie Republican president. "When institutions that should be neutral are so far to the left, it takes a strongman like Trump just to try to bring them back to the centre." The Trump administration has threatened to cut funding to prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia, criticised federal judges who suspend its decisions and is in open conflict with major media outlets. By limiting access to certain journalists and replacing them with fringe media loyal to his cause, Trump is very similar to Orban, according to Enyedi. "Both make it clear that they are acting out of revenge," he said. This week, the CBS network announced the end of Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show", long a staple of late night US television, saying it was "purely a financial decision". It came days after the comedian blasted parent company Paramount's $16 million settlement with Trump as "a big fat bribe". But, for now, dissenting voices remain much stronger in the United States than in Hungary. While Orban has not yet been invited to the White House in Trump's current term, envoy Palladino foresees that a visit by the US president to Budapest is "hopefully not too far off". Such a "historic visit" would, he said, be "a reflection of real alignment between two sovereign nations that believe in tradition, strength, and identity. "But that moment won't happen on its own. It will require vision, effort, and commitment -- on both sides of the Atlantic."
