Why is Donald Trump fixated on South Africa?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
31 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump, send your deportees to Europe not Africa
On August 5, Rwanda announced it had agreed to accept 250 migrants under the Trump administration's expanding third-country deportation programme. Speaking from Kigali, government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said Rwanda would retain the right to decide which deportees to admit for 'resettlement'. Those accepted, she added, would receive training, healthcare, and housing to help them 'rebuild their lives'. The programme forms part of President Donald Trump's controversial pledge to carry out 'the largest deportation operation in American history.'It also marks the third deportation agreement of its kind on the African continent. On July 16, the US sent five convicted criminals from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen to Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. Described as 'barbaric and violent' and rejected by their countries of origin, they are confined to isolated units at the Matsapha Correctional Complex, near the capital Mbabane, pending eventual repatriation. Eleven days earlier, on July 5, eight men convicted of murder, sexual assault, and robbery were deported to South Sudan. Reports differ on whether any deportee was South Sudanese. The deportations have already provoked widespread outrage – from civil society groups in Eswatini, to lawyers in South Sudan, who denounce them as illegal. South Africa's government has even lodged a formal protest with Eswatini. Nigeria, meanwhile, has rebuffed US pressure to accept 300 Venezuelans, with Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar saying the country already has 'enough problems' and 'over 230 million people' to care for. These deals are unfair. The US is strong-arming others at the expense of vulnerable people. Trump's established brutality is horrifying. His family separations in 2019 left children terrified and alone, all in the name of policy. The US is now sending people to Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan – countries already struggling to care for their own citizens. This truth exposes Trump's Victorian view of Africa: a desolate, irredeemable continent unworthy of respect or equal partnership. His vision echoes a Western tradition, crystallised in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, where Africa is portrayed as 'dark' and 'primeval' – a land deemed oppressive and violent, its people cast as incapable of understanding, feeling, or compassion. That is not who we are. Yes, Africa has challenges. Nonetheless, we do not turn the marginalised into pawns, nor do we disguise exile as policy. Our humanity is unshakable and beyond reproach. Today, Uganda hosts about 1.7 million refugees, making it Africa's largest refugee-hosting country. This figure exceeds the combined refugee populations under UNHCR's mandate in the UK, France, and Belgium today. Europe must assume a far greater share of responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees. These third-country deportation deals are not credible policy. They are colonialism reborn. No self-respecting African leader should ever agree to participate in an organised atrocity – not when Africa still bleeds from the wounds inflicted by the West: Sudan's civil war, civic unrest in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, environmental devastation in Nigeria's Delta, and the continuing reach of French monetary imperialism through the CFA. 'Uncle Sam' now plans to send both convicted criminals and desperate asylum seekers to Africa's shores, instead of the warships of old. Both groups deserve support at home in the US, with extensive rehabilitation for offenders and safe sanctuary for the vulnerable. If not, Europe can be the only alternative. Let the architects of empire face the heat. Let the wealthy, politically obnoxious allies of Washington carry the burden for once. Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan are among the poorest nations in the world, with per capita incomes just a tiny fraction of their former colonial rulers in Europe. Expecting them to carry the burden of America's deportees is not only unjust – it is absurd. A May 2025 study, Unequal Exchange and North-South Relations, undertaken by Gaston Nievas and Thomas Piketty, analysed foreign wealth accumulation over more than two centuries. It shows that by 1914, European powers held net foreign assets approaching 140 percent of GDP, underscoring how colonial transfers, artificially low commodity prices, forced labour, and exploitation fuelled Europe's enrichment. From Juba to Kigali, colonial plunder still drives global inequality. A return to the systemic brutalities unleashed after the disastrous Berlin Conference of 1885, when European powers carved up Africa, cannot be accepted. No matter what officials in Rwanda, South Sudan, or Eswatini claim in public, sending America's cast-offs to Africa is colonial exploitation repackaged for today. This is not a new strategy. Beginning in the 19th century, many European colonies were reduced to offshore extraction centres and dumping grounds. France banished convicts and political exiles to territories such as present-day Gabon and Djibouti. Spain used Bioko Island in Equatorial Guinea as a penal settlement for deportees from Cuba. The US has revived that same imperial entitlement, delivering a fresh blow to both Africa and the Americas. Most irregular migrants in the US come from Venezuela, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Haiti – nations scarred by centuries of European colonialism and US imperial interference. These countries embody the ongoing impact of colonial legacies and geopolitical meddling that propel migration. Yet the West, and Europe above all, denies and disowns the consequences of its crimes, past and present. European nations have certainly prospered through centuries of colonial exploitation. The UK, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, for instance, boast robust welfare systems, public health networks, and prison rehabilitation programmes – magnificent structures built on centuries of colonial extraction. They have both the means and the institutions to absorb deportees. They also have the record. These same powers have eagerly joined the US in targeting and destabilising sovereign nations across Africa, as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya – in wars widely condemned as violations of international law. Every intervention has unleashed fresh waves of refugees and asylum seekers, hapless men, women, and children fleeing the very chaos Western armies engineered: powerless people whom the West openly ignores or despises. Africa, by contrast, plays by the rules and adheres to the UN Charter. We honour sovereignty, respect international law, and strive for peace, even while shackled by colonial debt designed to keep us dependent. Europe breaks the rules, Africa abides by them – yet Africa is asked to shoulder the burden. The hypocrisy is staggering. We will not bankroll, legitimise, or inherit the crimes of empire. After all, we barely control our own destinies. The IMF and World Bank dictate our economies. The UN Security Council enforces old hierarchies. The G7 protects the West's interests over us, Africans left impoverished and starving. Structural oppression allows the West to keep interfering in the lives of people across Africa and the Americas. But we will not be complicit. We will not be silent. Western policies and interventions drive poverty, displacement, and instability in the Global South. If the US insists on offloading its deportees, let it send them to those who built and still profit from this system of oppression. The West must reckon with its spoils. Leave Africa out of it. Send Trump's deportees to Europe. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
As UN looks to Kenya, could new global hub deepen inequality in Nairobi?
Nairobi, Kenya – In the shadow of gleaming glass towers in the upmarket neighbourhood of Gigiri – where manicured lawns meet the edge of Karura Forest and United Nations staff in air-conditioned vehicles glide past security checkpoints – lies a different reality just minutes away. In the cramped alleyways of Githogoro slum, just 2km (about a mile) from where Kenya's capital, Nairobi, may soon host more UN offices and staff, Agnes Karimi cuts meat on a wooden table under the scorching sun, watching her stock spoil in the heat because she has no electricity to power a refrigerator. While the UN complex boasts state-of-the-art conference facilities and reliable power, Karimi's meat spoils daily in her small butchery. The contrast could not be starker as Kenya readies for what local officials herald as a historic transformation. By 2026, major UN agencies including UNICEF, UNFPA, and UN Women may relocate their headquarters from high-cost Western cities to Nairobi, part of the UN80 reform agenda to decentralise operations to more cost-effective regions. For Nairobi – a bustling metropolis of 5 million people – the move promises to cement its status as one of four global UN hubs alongside New York, Geneva, and Vienna. 'Kenya will be leveraging on the UN's existing presence in the country and the opportunities presented by its operations in the greater horn, east and central Africa sub-regions,' Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi was quoted as saying in February, even though the UN said this month that the relocation decision has not been finalised. For Ambassador Ababu Namwamba, Kenya's permanent representative to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi boasts 'impressive capabilities' as a logistical and financial hub. 'As a key multilateral diplomatic hub and the environmental capital of the world, Nairobi has consistently provided top-tier services at third-tier cost,' he told Al Jazeera. For Nairobians, the proposed move has prompted a complex mix of hope, scepticism, and fear about who will actually benefit from this global spotlight. The city already grapples with a severe housing crisis that has left thousands living in informal settlements without basic services. With average monthly salaries hovering around $590-$640 for most Kenyans, the influx of an estimated 2,000 well-paid international staff by the end of 2026, earning substantially more, threatens to exacerbate existing inequalities in a city where nearly 60 percent of people live in informal settlements, covering just 5 percent of the land area. 'We do not have electricity here. My meat goes bad fast,' 36-year-old Karimi, who is a mother of four, said at her butchery, swatting flies in the humid air of Githogoro. Her struggles mirror those of thousands of informal business owners across Nairobi's sprawling slums, where access to electricity reaches only 23 percent of households, according to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). Nairobi's 'Beverly Hills' gearing up In Nairobi's upscale neighbourhoods, transformations are already visible. In Runda, Muthaiga, and Kitisuru – areas often dubbed the 'Beverly Hills of Nairobi' – tree-lined streets and gated communities are preparing for an influx of international staff. This includes fast-tracking construction of upscale housing units, as well as expanding restaurants, long-stay hotels and international school campuses. These leafy enclaves, where swimming pools glisten behind high walls and gardeners tend to manicured lawns, represent the Nairobi that most UN staff will call home. Meanwhile, the city's housing market is also anticipating a shift. According to Joachim Ombui, chairman of the Landlords and Tenants Association of Kenya, the UN's settlement in Nairobi is predicted to yield a 10 to 11 percent increase for long-term rentals. 'This is an international advantage for businesses and socioeconomic integration, positioning Nairobi as a global hub for investment, peace integration for African states, and a strategic location for tourism and business,' he told Al Jazeera. Ombui predicts a 10-15 percent rental price rise by 2026, 'as developers target UN staff with gated communities'. 'We're seeing a shift toward mixed-use developments in areas like Westlands, Kilimani, and Upper Hill, incorporating residential, commercial, and recreational spaces with sustainable, eco-friendly designs,' he told Al Jazeera. But he added that 'rising lease costs and rents, which could double, are a concern', saying that his association would petition authorities to implement rent control measures. The property market has already been experiencing changes, observers note. In Ruaka, a growing middle class residential hub near the UN headquarters, journalist Rwamba Njagi notes that some housing rentals that used to cost around $155 per month last year have now soared to over $380. This is being fuelled by improved infrastructure and the area's close proximity to key offices and amenities. For the last three years, Njagi said property costs have been rising rapidly in this district as investors and developers who recognised the untapped potential moved in. 'The majority of locals who inherited land sold to investors and left to become watchmen and caretakers,' she said. These price increases are occurring in a city where rental costs already consume 40 to 60 percent of middle-class incomes, according to local real estate reports. With average one-bedroom apartments in decent neighbourhoods costing $200-400 monthly – equivalent to an entire month's salary for many Kenyans – the prospect of further increases due to international demand has sparked genuine anxiety. John Mwati, executive director of the Transcending Africa Leadership Foundation and an economist, sees both opportunity and risk in the expansion. 'The UN moving its operations to Nairobi is a big deal for us. It could have a profoundly positive impact on Kenya's economic landscape, bringing more jobs and spending in sectors like real estate, hospitality, and services,' he explained. However, Mwati warns that 'smart government action is needed: Investing in affordable housing, regulating runaway property prices, and making sure the economic gains are felt across the board.' Repeated attempts by Al Jazeera to contact the government spokesperson Isaac Mwaura, the Principal Secretary for Labour and Skills Development Shadrack Mwadime, and the Head of Presidential Special Projects and Creative Economy Coordination Dennis Itumbi, were unanswered. Mixed feelings The UN General Assembly (UNGA) has already approved two construction projects at the UN Office at Nairobi (UNON) to the amount of nearly $340m, the largest investment the UN Secretariat has undertaken in Africa since its inception, besides peacekeeping. These enhancements could potentially allow Nairobi to host UNGA meetings – a diplomatic coup that would further cement Kenya's role as what officials call the 'multilateral capital of the Global South'. The Kenyan capital has long served as a UN hub. Since 1972, it has seen the number of UN staff it hosts surge from 300 to 6,500, along with their 11,000 family members and dependents. There are now 83 UN offices, the majority of which are in Gigiri. Yet, despite this strong UN presence, infrastructural upgrades have remained limited to specific parts of the capital. For 33-year-old Simon Awene, a father of two, any optimism about the proposed UN expansion has been exhausted by years of unfulfilled promises. 'The only time anyone helps us is when they are pushing for their agendas,' he said, lamenting that the improved services, education and work opportunities he expected have not materialised. However, according to Ambassador Ababu, Kenya 'is ready for more of the world'. He told Al Jazeera that 'elaborate plans have been implemented to ease logistics, including expansion of all access roads leading towards the UN, modernisation of the airport, sea and dryland ports in Mombasa, Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and Naivasha.' John Njuguna, a 24-year-old motorbike taxi driver, represents a younger generation cautiously hopeful about new opportunities. His clients are mostly casual labourers, and he believes an increase in international staff will create a ripple effect of employment. 'I have hopes of earning more with the coming of more foreigners because that will translate to more casual labourers working and commuting daily,' Njuguna said, revving his motorcycle at a busy Gigiri junction where matatus (shared taxis) jostle for passengers alongside diplomatic vehicles. However, Cledwyn Mamai, an events coordinator who resides near the affluent Runda area, suggests the effect of the changes may be limited to established wealthy neighbourhoods where 'a large proportion of residents own their homes.' Despite more international money coming in to Nairobi, he feels that those Kenyans with property available for leasing may be 'sceptical of the hikes in rents' because they doubt the middle-class Kenyan renters they serve will be able to afford them. Mamai notes that in districts like Githogoro, where residents like Karimi have watched international prosperity flourish next door while their basic needs remain unmet, a different effect will be felt. 'The expansion feels like another reminder of their exclusion from Kenya's growth story,' he warned. For Karimi, working in her small butchery in Githogoro, news of the proposed UN changes had not reached her. But when she was told, she became instantly hopeful that perhaps it could bring some relief. 'I only wish that the UN community could help us get electricity,' she said, dreaming of better days. 'I could buy a refrigerator to add to my stock and ensure I have fresh meat and food for my clients.' This piece was published in collaboration with Egab.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is the US sparing China, but not India, for importing Russian oil?
United States President Donald Trump has threatened to slap new sanctions on Russia and secondary sanctions on countries that buy Moscow's crude in efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war. While Trump imposed an additional 25 percent tariff earlier this month – to a total of 50 percent – on India's goods, citing its continued imports of Russian oil, he has not instigated similar punitive actions against China, the largest buyer of Russian energy. So, why has the Trump administration mounted pressure on India to stop purchasing Russian oil while taking little action against China? Who is buying Russia oil, and how does Trump want to prevent that? As the largest purchaser of Russian oil, China imported a record 109 million tonnes of this product last year, representing nearly 20 percent of its total energy imports, Chinese customs data showed. India, by contrast, imported 88 million tonnes of Russian oil in 2024. As such, China has arguably been Russia's key economic lifeline, leading to accusations that Beijing is indirectly helping Moscow in its war on Ukraine, now in its fourth year. It is understood that lawmakers from both main US political parties are pushing for a bill – the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 – that would target any country that buys Russian oil and natural gas. The bill would give Trump the authority to impose 500 percent tariffs against nations that are perceived to be helping Russia. US senators are reportedly waiting on Trump's OK to move the bill forward. What reasons has Trump cited for not imposing new tariffs on China? Asked by Fox News on August 15 if he was considering secondary sanctions on Beijing after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to agree on a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire in Alaska last week, Trump said, 'Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that.' 'Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now,' he said. Observers suspect Trump is buying time to allow negotiations on a broad trade deal that would include rare earth minerals. Rare earths are a group of 17 elements essential to numerous manufacturing industries, from auto parts to clean energy and military technology. China has long dominated the mining and processing of rare earth minerals. Because numerous US industries are heavily reliant on Chinese minerals, they remain a central issue in ongoing trade talks. Trump has other reasons for giving China an easier ride than India. In particular, he's keen to avoid a tariff spike just as US retailers stock up on inventories of Chinese goods ahead of December's Christmas holiday season. For his part, Trump has taken steps to reduce trade flashpoints in recent weeks. Earlier this month, the US eased some of its export restrictions on advanced semiconductors – a key demand from China. On August 11, Trump permitted US company Nvidia to sell advanced chips to China – even if the tech giant would have to pay 15 percent of its China sales to the federal government. Trump had previously barred the deal. Speaking to CNBC news on Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended Washington's decision not to impose secondary sanctions against China saying, Beijing purchased 13 percent of Russian oil before the Ukraine war, which has now increased to 16 percent. 'So China has a diversified input of their oil,' he said. He added that China had not engaged in the kind of 'arbitrage' done by India. But Bessent accused India of 'profiteering'. He pointed out that before the Ukraine war, India's import of Russian oil was less than 1 percent. But 'now, I believe, it's up to 42 percent,' he said. 'This is what I would call the Indian arbitrage – buying cheap Russian oil, reselling it as product,' he told CNBC. 'They've made $16bn in excess profits – some of the richest families in India.' On Monday, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro became the second senior Trump administration official to accuse India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine. Earlier this month, Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House, said that New Delhi's purchase of Russia crude was 'not acceptable'. What have other officials said? On August 12, US Vice President JD Vance declined to say whether Trump would move against Beijing as he did with New Delhi the previous week, when Washington announced an extra 25 percent tariff on India's imports over its continued purchase of Russian oil. 'The president said he's thinking about it, but he hasn't made any firm decisions … the China issue's a little bit more complicated because our relationship with China, it just, it affects a lot of other things that have nothing to do with the Russian situation,' Vance said. Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that energy prices could rise if the US imposes secondary sanctions on China for refining Russian oil. In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Rubio said, 'If you put secondary sanctions on a country – let's say you were to go after the oil sales of Russian oil to China. Well, China just refines that oil. That oil is then sold into the global marketplace, and anyone who's buying that oil would be paying more for it.' Meanwhile, Beijing's embassy in Washington said China's trade with Russia falls within the scope of international law. 'The international community, including China, has conducted normal cooperation with Russia within the framework of international law,' said Liu Pengyu, the embassy's spokesman, on July 6. How would heightened tariffs impact the US and Chinese economies? A ceasefire deal in Ukraine, with the resulting reduction of sanctions on Russia, would bring greater stability to the international system and a boon for China's economy, not least after the last subdued economic data in July. Last month, China's economy slowed as factory activity, investment and retail sales fell from June, suggesting that spillovers from Trump's tariffs are casting a pall over the world's number-two economy. Elsewhere, China's youth unemployment rate rose to its highest level in 11 months in July, as the urban jobless rate for the 16-24 age group, excluding students, rose to 17.8 percent – up from 14.5 percent in June. Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis in Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera that 'Cracks are starting to show [in the Chinese economy] and the overall picture is not great.' Still, she said that 'Chinese banks and firms have been preparing for the possibility of secondary sanctions for a long time already. They already started worrying about this under the [Joe] Biden administration.' In recent years, Beijing has stepped up its efforts to diversify trade routes and build greater numbers of strategic products at home, making China's economy 'harder to strangle through elevated or secondary sanctions', said Garcia Herrero. 'Clearly,' she said, 'given the high level of goods imports from China to the US, higher tariffs would also raise inflation for American consumers.' Last year, the US trade deficit with China was $295.4bn, marking a 5.8 percent rise from 2023. What is the current state of US-China trade? On August 12, the US and China extended a pre-existing tariff pause – and avoided an all-out trade war – for 90 days. With the extension, the imposition of higher US tariffs on China was suspended until November 10, with all other elements of the truce remaining in place. The two sides agreed to their first tariff pause on May 11. In April, China was slapped with a tariff of 145 percent while Beijing slapped a reciprocal tariff of 125 percent on the US – rates that amounted to a virtual trade embargo between the countries. High tariffs prompted the US trade deficit with China to fall to its narrowest level since 2004 in June, according to US Census Bureau data. The US trade gap with China fell by $22.2bn from March to August. That amounts to a 70 percent drop from one year earlier. But the tariff truce agreed to in May in Geneva, Switzerland, lowered the temperature by temporarily slashing US tariffs on Chinese imports to 30 percent, while Chinese levies on US exports fell to 10 percent. Beijing also agreed to resume some rare earth exports. 'I think there will be a [trade] deal of some sort soon,' Garcia Herrero said. 'Nothing dramatic, as the levels of trust on both sides are low. But the US and China both need some positive news, or they face hitting economic walls.'
