Trump snubs Ramaphosa at G7 summit amid Iran-Israel conflict
Image: GCIS
US President Donald Trump snubbed President Cyril Ramaphosa at the G7 Summit in Canada, sparking speculation about the reason behind the snub.
Sources and experts suggest the snub was due to the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel, which started just days before the summit.
Iran is now part of BRICS of which South Africa plays a major role.
Ramaphosa, who was accompanied by International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola, was an invited guest at the summit as the only African leader.
The G7 consists of the largest advanced economies like Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US.
Ramaphosa met with all other leaders on the sidelines of the summit, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and others.
However, Trump left before meeting Ramaphosa who also concluded his working visit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada on Tuesday night.
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
The two leaders did not meet as expected while Ramaphosa was seeking answers, from Trump, on trade agreements, including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and US-SA tariffs.
Trump has been vocal about his stance on the Iran-Israel conflict, hinting at the possibility of US involvement and warning Iran to consider talks with Israel to de-escalate the conflict.
This stance may have contributed to the snub, as South Africa has been calling for de-escalation in the conflict, a source said.
Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said that Ramaphosa will continue to assert South Africa's calls for de-escalation in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere during his deliberations at the G7.
"For some time now, President Ramaphosa has been quite consistent in calling for the de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East," Magwenya said.
'Part of that call was to ensure that this conflict that we've seen in Gaza does not extend to the rest of the region and so one of Canada's priorities for this G7 is this threatening of peace and stability, where we are going to align with the position in so far as calling for a peaceful resolution of all conflicts, Russia and Ukraine, India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Now we will continue making that call that those conflicts have to stop,' Magwenya said.
However, Trump posted to social media hinting that the United States was considering involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran, with Trump even raising the possibility of violence against Iran's leadership.
Trump has been warning Iran that they should consider having talks with Israel to de-escalate the conflict.
The G7 Summit focused on global challenges and opportunities, including international peace and security, global economic stability and growth, and the digital transition. Ramaphosa participated in the G7 Outreach Session, where he put forward South Africa's objectives and interests.
"South Africa views the G7 as a strategic partner. We seek greater cooperation in areas such as investment, financing for development, international crime, climate change and just transitions, as well as inclusive global growth and development,' Ramaphosa said.
Political analyst Sandile Swana said Trump's snub of Ramaphosa was likely due to pressure on Ramaphosa to support the US position on the Iran-Israel conflict.
"Trump is definitely putting pressure on Ramaphosa and trying to squeeze and push Ramaphosa...so the snubbing was part of that," Swana said.
He said Trump could not afford to be friendly to Ramaphosa when hostilities were escalating around Israel including Gaza and Iran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
37 minutes ago
- The Star
Skewed editorial on Marikana Massacre
I refer to your leading article on the thirteenth anniversary of the Marikana Massacre ('Ramaphosa must face Marikana widows', The Star, August 19). No sane person would deny that the police reaction on that day was disproportionately lethal, and that some form of compensation should have been made by the platinum mining industry. What has to be disputed is how the editorial in question has been framed. In recent years, there has been a tendency among journalists to whitewash the events that led to the massacre. Those of us who read about this tragedy thirteen years ago, reported by some respected journalists and editors, will recall that the police were provoked, and that the miners were not innocent protesters. Visuals that were published then showed the miners carrying crude weapons that could inflict death. There were several people, including a police officer or two, killed in the days preceding the massacre. There were rituals performed on the koppie, probably some form of witchcraft to make the miners invulnerable in the event of a confrontation. None of this is even hinted at in the editorial, which portrays the miners as hapless victims. Even the Farlam Commission was wary of finding anyone guilty. Those not familiar with the events of August 16, 2012, would not have been served well by the skewed version in The Star's editorial. They would be better served by Wikipedia, even though academia may thumb its nose at this online 'encyclopedia'. Harry Sewlall Parkmore
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
If BEE goes, how do we address racialised inequality?
The past few months have seen an unprecedented attack on Black Economic Empowerment. Strangely, the voices that you would expect to defend it have been oddly muted. If we accept that BEE has too many problems to work properly, it is time for a proper national debate on what could replace it. As predicted several months ago, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is now under intense fire. This is partly because the ANC has been dramatically weakened, partly because the DA is now in government, and partly because of the Trump administration's attacks on it. Last week, even The Economist opined that it was time for our country to stop BEE. On Tuesday, Deputy President Paul Mashatile said in an answer to a parliamentary question that BEE was 'not discriminatory'. While he was trying to defend BEE, he clearly missed the point. BEE is absolutely discriminatory. That is why we have it. To reduce our racialised inequality. But, in a comment by Professor William Gumede that has been widely quoted, BEE has cost around R1-trillion and yet most black people have not benefited from it in any substantive way (this is likely to be hugely contested). BEE is intensely controversial. Not just because a small group of people have been made rich, but because of what it is: A deliberate attempt to empower one group of people at the expense of another group. No matter the moral legitimacy of such an aim, in any society, to take from one group to give to another leads to huge arguments. This is one of the reasons tax policy can be hugely controversial. The cost of scrapping As a starting point, it may be important to ask: if there is no BEE and no other measure of race-based redress, what would happen? The economy would probably grow a little more quickly than it is now. Companies could simply scrap all the measures they take to qualify for BEE points. This might make them, and their owners, richer. But there would be a huge cost. For example, some of the big banks insure the geysers of people they grant mortgages to (this is to protect the value of the property they are lending money against). As a BEE measure, they then use a long list of black-owned suppliers to repair those geysers if they break down. The big banks would probably find it much more efficient to use one big company to fix all these geysers. These suppliers, usually the first in their families to own a small business, would lose out dramatically. Most would probably have to close. The consequence of this is that all these people, and their extended families, who they support, would lose faith in the democratic project. This would be just one example of how inequality, both racialised inequality and general inequality, would be re-entrenched. That would lead to greater demands for political and economic change, and perhaps, more calls for some kind of radical, or even revolutionary change. The impact test The tools that the state has to really make a change for one group, but not for another, are essentially quite limited. And each tool would have to satisfy certain tests. The first is, would it work? In other words, does the policy really make a substantive difference for a large number of people? This is the test that BEE arguably fails. Another test is whether such a tool would be both legitimate and fair. Legitimacy is absolutely vital. It means you essentially have to convince white people that they must be treated differently from black people. It seems unlikely that even Siya Kolisi and Eben Etzebeth could convince most white people to accept this. There are alternatives to BEE, all of which have serious problems. Government could decide to radically change the tax system and essentially try to tax white people more than black people. One of the main arguments against that, apart from the fact that it would lead to intense debates about racial designations, is that there are obvious examples of some white people who were born into poorer homes than some black people. That would fail the fairness test. There could be other strategies. Government could decide that our geography, still defined by apartheid in so many ways, provides a proxy for race. Thus, as a deliberate strategy, the Basic Education Department could decide to spend more money per child in rural and township schools than on children in suburban schools. While this might seem unfair, the argument could be that communities in suburbs can just increase the contribution they already make to the education of their children (through what are often called 'Governing Body Teachers' – teachers paid by the parents, not government). Although that would be staggeringly unfair to black parents who have made huge sacrifices to get their children into these schools, and to keep them there. There are other problems, too. At least one would be that we would not know whether it had been effective for a full generation. Which might defeat the purpose, which is to show that there is a measure of race-based redress that actually works. From BEE to BIG? There are other ways to look at this problem. They could be controversial in themselves. It might be seen as legitimate by the vast majority of voters to remove the idea of race-based redress in favour of a different measure to help improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in our country. So, for example, BEE could be removed at the same time a substantive Basic Income Grant (BIG) is introduced. In other words, there would be a deal (sort of). Businesses would no longer have to comply with BEE, which would allow them to be more efficient and make more profit. Those profits would, in turn, help to fund a BIG that would make a real difference to the lives of millions of people. While there appears to be no public polling on this, it might be worth asking if the millions of people who receive the R370/month Social Relief of Distress Grant would prefer that money in their pockets to retaining the current model of BEE. Considering that these people clearly need more help than most of those who currently benefit from BEE, there may be a compelling moral argument in this direction. But that might be creating a false binary. And it would not satisfy the demand for race-based redress, although it would help to reduce inequality. The attacks on BEE will not stop. But the intensity of our inequality, as racialised as it still is, demands measures to address it. A window is now opening for a proper debate on what might be more effective. It's vital that we grab it. DM
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Malawi must uphold integrity of September election or risk spiralling into democratic decay
Without urgent and coordinated responses from domestic institutions and regional actors, Malawi risks descending into a cycle of contested legitimacy and democratic decay. Malawians will go to the polls on September 16 to vote for the president and Members of Parliament. At this juncture, Malawi finds itself in an unenviable environment with questions about the impartiality of its electoral commission, and the protection of rights critical for a credible, free and fair election, including freedom of expression, association and assembly. Echoes of Malawi's contentious 2019 election still reverberate. In a landmark judgment, Malawi's Constitutional Court nullified the 2019 presidential election due to widespread irregularities, becoming only the third African country to nullify a presidential election, after Côte d'Ivoire in 2010 and Kenya in 2017. The judgment, which was scathing of the conduct of the Malawi Electoral Commission (MEC) in its management of the election, was hailed as a triumph for democratic accountability and electoral justice. As things stand today, Malawi's electoral landscape presents a stark paradox: on one hand, the memory of judicial courage and reform following the 2019 annulled elections; on the other, a deepening crisis of confidence that threatens to reverse those very gains. The warning signs of voter apathy, political violence, contested electoral authority, unequal campaign conditions and biased media coverage are symptoms of a democratic system under strain. Malawi teeters on the brink of regression in terms of governance. Reports of politically motivated violence have surged. In one of the most brazen incidents, on 26 June 2025 the police stood by as weapon-wielding men attacked demonstrators calling for an independent audit of the voters' roll and the resignation of top electoral commission officials. Civil society groups and opposition parties allege that those behind the political violence have links to a youth militia aligned to the ruling Malawi Congress Party, though the party has denied such claims. In November 2024, opposition parties and civil society organisations had alleged that the governing party had organised the violent attack by masked men with weapons on a demonstration urging electoral reforms. At that time, as at the June 26 protests, witnesses said that law enforcement officers stood by while the masked men assaulted peaceful protesters. The police's apparent unwillingness to intervene to stop the violence – or to arrest those responsible, even when their identities were known – raises grave concerns about the government's ability to conduct the September general election in a fair and impartial manner. The authorities' muted response to attacks on civil liberties risks normalising impunity that could undermine the country's hard-won democratic gains. At the heart of the storm lies the national electoral commission. Civil society groups and opposition parties have raised alarm over the composition of the commission's secretariat and perceived political affiliations of its leadership. The commission's top management remains in the hands of people widely believed to have strong links to the governing party. This has proved detrimental to the credibility of the MEC as a fair and impartial arbiter. The commission's refusal to allow local organisations access to inspect the voters' rolls has raised concerns about the fairness of the process. And the commission's adoption of Smartmatic technology, intended to modernise the electoral process, has instead sparked concerns due to a lack of transparency. Voter registration figures are equally troubling. Of the estimated 10.9 million eligible voters, only 7.2 million have registered. This glaring gap may reflect inadequate civic education and raises concerns about voter apathy. Malawi's Political Parties Act of 2018 remains toothless, especially on campaign financing. The governing party has allegedly exploited state resources for campaign purposes, while opposition parties struggle with unequal access to public funds. Meanwhile, the governing party is perceived to have in effect captured the state-funded Malawi Broadcasting Corporation, evidenced by its skewed coverage and denying airtime to dissenting voices. In July, the Malawi Chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) and the Media Council of Malawi issued a joint statement reminding the MBC leadership to 'adhere to the Communications Act (2016) that mandates the outlet to be balanced and objective in its coverage of news, including political discourse'. The governing party's monopoly of the state media is not only incompatible with Malawi's laws, but also the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections, which call for 'equal opportunity for all political parties to access the state media' during the campaign period. Malawi's democratic story need not end in disappointment. The reforms initiated after 2019 proved that reform is possible. But for that momentum to continue, democracy-supporting institutions such as the judiciary, the police and the executive need to uphold the integrity of the elections. Political leaders should denounce violence in all forms. And the government needs to ensure the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, including for those seeking electoral justice. International and regional stakeholders should publicly press for elections that meet international standards before the entire process descends into disarray. Without urgent and coordinated responses from domestic institutions and regional actors, Malawi risks descending into a cycle of contested legitimacy and democratic decay. They should urgently call for an environment free of intimidation, harassment and violence. They should also urge the government of Malawi to observe its own laws, and to implement the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections and the African Union's African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. With sustained support, vigilant observation and a recommitment to electoral fairness, Malawi can reaffirm its place as a regional exemplar of democratic resilience. The time to act is now, while the promise of credible, peaceful and participatory elections can still be upheld. DM
