Ramaphosa, Trump Bilateral: Humiliation in the Shadow of White Capital
EFF leader Julius Malema and members of his party's top structure led a march to the Rupert-owned company Remgro in Stellenbosch on March 6, 2022 to hand over their memorandum of demands. As Afrikaner nationalists have historically aligned themselves with Zionist ideology, both claiming divine rights to land taken by force, they now rely on the same international structures to preserve their grip on power, says the writer.
Image: Phando Jikelo/African News Agency (ANA)
Sipho Singiswa
President Cyril Ramaphosa's meeting with Donald Trump last week, on the surface, may have appeared to be a standard diplomatic encounter. But for those observing from a Black revolutionary perspective, the moment carried the unmistakable weight of humiliation. It echoed the treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, another leader caught performing for Western approval rather than asserting the sovereignty of his people.
The meeting was framed around the latest fabricated crisis: the so-called genocide and land persecution of the Afrikaner minority in South Africa. This narrative, pushed by AfriForum and echoed by right-wing media and political networks in the United States, is not only baseless it is a calculated tactic to derail the project of land reform and restorative justice in South Africa. Ramaphosa, rather than challenging this fiction, found himself clarifying, appeasing, and ultimately exposing his begging bowl approach to the US.
The optics were painful. Ramaphosa did not stand as a servant of the landless majority, but as a custodian of the privileges bestowed upon him by white monopoly capital. His tone, his posture, his rhetoric all suggested a man more concerned with protecting foreign investments and elite economic interests than with pushing forward the Expropriation Act that he himself signed.
Trump's role in this spectacle was clear: to intimidate, to lecture, and to remind Ramaphosa who really holds power. It was easy to imagine Trump leaning over the desk, finger pointed, declaring: 'You cannot pursue genocide charges against Israel while you are accused of genocide against White South Africans. Remember we made you.'
The farcical nature of the AfriForum claims cannot be overstated. Afrikaners remain the dominant landowners in South Africa, controlling over 70% of mineral-rich land and vast sectors of the economy. They are overrepresented in the judiciary and other key institutions. And yet, it is this community that is being painted as persecuted, while the majority Black population continues to live under the economic consequences of historical dispossession.
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
This propaganda campaign is not isolated. It fits into a larger strategy reminiscent of CIA-backed efforts like the Orange Revolutions, aiming to destabilise countries in the Global South that challenge Western hegemony. The AfriForum narrative, like the denial of Israeli war crimes, serves to delegitimise real struggles for justice and redirect global attention toward manufactured grievances.
What is more, this campaign is being actively supported by a powerful media apparatus dominated by white interests, both locally and abroad. The timing of these accusations is no coincidence. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel to the International Criminal Court, and the backlash is coordinated. The intent is clear: discredit South Africa's moral standing by painting it as hypocritical, thereby neutralising its global advocacy for Palestine.
Meanwhile, US-based Zionist organisations and South African Jewish organisations have played an instrumental role in coordinating visits to Israel by leaders of South Africa's so-called Government of National Unity. These visits, supported by US funding and framed as educational or diplomatic, are part of a broader media and public relations war designed to shore up support for Israel and silence criticism.
These visits continue even as Palestinian children are buried under rubble and Israeli war crimes mount. They continue despite the South African government's official position. And yet, Ramaphosa says nothing.
Why?
Because the man who claims to lead a liberation party serves the empire that his forebears fought against. Ramaphosa was not made president to dismantle white capital. He was elevated to manage it, protect it, and lend it a black face. His paper billionaire status, built on deals brokered by the very same monopoly capital he now shields, makes him both a product and a prisoner of this system.
The hard irony is that the same forces that falsely claim genocide against Afrikaners are actively involved in genocide against Palestinians. The comparison is not just symbolic it is strategic. As Afrikaner nationalists have historically aligned themselves with Zionist ideology, both claiming divine rights to land taken by force, they now rely on the same international structures to preserve their grip on power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 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
3 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.
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
Protests spread across US despite Trump threats
LOS ANGELES - Protests against Donald Trump's harsh immigration policies spread Wednesday across the United States despite a military-backed crackdown in Los Angeles and a threat by the Republican president to use "heavy force." In Los Angeles, where the unrest began last Friday, the downtown area was calm but tense after an overnight curfew saw police make 25 arrests. Heavily armed officers patrolled near government buildings, and storekeepers boarded up windows to protect against vandalism. US Marines -- ordered by Trump to deploy in addition to more than 4,000 National Guard soldiers -- were expected to make their first appearance on the streets Wednesday. The mostly peaceful protests ignited over a sudden escalation in efforts to apprehend migrants who were in the country illegally. Pockets of violence -- including the burning of self-driving taxis and hurling stones at police -- triggered a massive response from authorities using tear gas and other non-lethal weapons. Trump won the election last year partly on promises to combat what he claims is an "invasion" by undocumented migrants. He is now seizing the opportunity to make political capital, ordering the California National Guard to deploy despite Governor Gavin Newsom's objections, the first time a US president has taken such action in decades. Trump then tested the constitutional limits of his power even further by ordering about 700 Marines -- a force designed primarily for combat in foreign wars -- to the scene. "If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now," Trump insisted on social media Wednesday. But in a televised address late Tuesday, Newsom said "democracy is under assault right before our eyes." "California may be first, but it clearly won't end here," the Democrat said. Trump has expressed support for a call by one of his top officials to arrest Newsom, who is seen as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, when Trump will be required by the constitution to step down. - Nationwide protests growing - AFP | Robyn Beck Despite Trump's threats to deploy the National Guard to other Democratic-run states over the objections of governors, protesters appear undeterred. Thousands marched in New York and Chicago late Tuesday. Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced he was deploying the state's National Guard to counter a protest announced for San Antonio on Wednesday. Demonstrations were also planned Wednesday in New York, Seattle and Las Vegas ahead of what organizers say will be a nationwide "No Kings" movement on Saturday, when Trump will attend a highly unusual military parade in the US capital. In a speech at an Army base on Tuesday, Trump warned that any protests during the Washington parade would face "very heavy force." The parade, featuring warplanes and tanks, has been organized to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army but also happens to be the day of Trump's 79th birthday. The last large parade in Washington was in 1991 after the first Gulf War. - Justified force? - AFP | Patrick T. Fallon The Trump administration is painting the protests as a violent threat to the nation, requiring military force to support regular immigration agents and police. Trump on Tuesday cited a "full-blown assault on peace, on public order and national sovereignty" from a "foreign enemy." Protesters and the beleagured Democratic opposition party say Trump is manufacturing a crisis that has little to do with expelling criminals in the US illegally. Newsom said Trump "inflamed" the situation and went "well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals. His agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses." In the Atlanta suburb of Brookhaven, dozens of demonstrators waved American and Mexican flags and held signs against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that has ramped up arrests and deportations of migrants under Trump. "You got people that are being arrested on the street by (immigration) agents that don't wear badges, wear masks... it makes me really angry," 26-year-old protester Brendon Terra told AFP. By Huw Griffith And Sarah Titterton
