US welcomes Afrikaner refugees: Hypocrisy or humanitarian?
Afrikaner refugees from South Africa holding American flags arrive, Monday, May 12, 2025, at Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Va. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
The claim by the Trump administration that they are refugees is an abuse of the word
This content is restricted to
subscribers only
.
Join the M&G Community
Our commitment at the Mail & Guardian is to ensure every reader enjoys the finest experience. Join the M&G community and support us in delivering in-depth news to you consistently.
Subscription enables:
- M&G community membership
- independent journalism
- access to all premium articles & features
- a digital version of the weekly newspaper
- invites to subscriber-only events
- the opportunity to test new online features first
Already a subscriber?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Draft oil and gas regulations spark climate justice concerns
Seismic explorations for new oil and gas resources are going to escalate in the years to come. (Paul Botes/M&G) This is contained in a The Act is under review by the department, following its passage by parliament in April last year. The draft regulations are designed to implement the new law, which focuses on the orderly development of petroleum resources, equitable access and the sustainable development of the country's petroleum resources. The Green Connection said it formally endorsed a recent The regulations may fall short on several fronts, said Shahil Singh, a legal adviser at The Green Connection. 'We are most concerned about the issue of public participation. People may not be able to meaningfully engage with decisions that may affect their homes, livelihoods, and natural heritage if the terms that enable their participation are too restrictive,' Singh said. 'The definition of who qualifies as an 'interested and affected party' needs to be broadened to ensure that it does not silence those whose voices matter most — particularly small-scale fishers and coastal residents. 'Moreover, expecting communities to pay a non-refundable fee to appeal administrative decisions, could create obstacles to justice that marginalised communities should not have to endure. People should not have to pay to ensure that their voices are heard.' The global climate crisis necessitates an urgent and decisive transition away from fossil fuels, Singh wrote in the letter. 'The draft regulations, however, appear to promote the continued and expanded exploitation of oil and gas resources, directly contravening the country's national and international climate change commitments.' The Green Connection shared the 'profound concern'expressed in the joint submission that the promotion of gas as a transitional fuel, particularly for 'Methane emissions could potentially have a greater impact than those of carbon dioxide and may be up to eighty-two times more impactful over a 20-year period. 'We strongly support the joint submission's call for the draft regulations to explicitly define and incorporate critical terms such as 'greenhouse gas (GHG)', 'Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions', and 'sectoral emission targets'.' This is essential for alignment with the 'The failure of the draft regulations to mandate comprehensive lifecycle assessments that include quantification of all greenhouse gas emissions (including methane leaks and Scope 3 emissions) as well as the unquantified social cost of carbon, as highlighted by the joint submission, is a critical omission that undermines any claim of environmentally responsible development,' Singh said. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure without rigorous scrutiny of the possible environmental and social implications runs counter to the global imperative for decarbonisation and South Africa's own stated commitments to a just energy transition. 'The Green Connection believes that the concerns and detailed recommendations articulated in the joint submission … are fundamental to ensuring that the regulatory framework for upstream petroleum activities in South Africa upholds constitutional environmental rights, promotes genuine public participation, protects our invaluable marine ecosystems and the livelihoods they support, and aligns with our urgent climate change obligations,' said Singh. The country's marine and coastal ecosystems are invaluable national assets, ecologically sensitive and critical for biodiversity and livelihoods. 'The Green Connection is deeply concerned that the draft regulations, in their current form, may fail to provide adequate protection for these environments against the inherent risks of upstream petroleum activities.' It aligned itself with the joint submission's assertion that the Act and its draft regulations appear to facilitate an accelerated expansion of oil and gas activities without adequately addressing the possibility of severe environmental impacts, Singh said, noting that this is particularly alarming for offshore exploration and production. 'We endorse the call for mandatory lifecycle impact assessments for all petroleum projects, which must quantify cumulative impacts, including those specific to marine ecosystems such as seismic impacts on marine fauna, potential for oil spills, and disruption of marine ecological integrity,' he said. The 'current vague reference' to 'possible impact on the environment' in notice requirements is wholly insufficient, he argued. 'The inadequacy of consultation requirements for offshore developments, which may exclude those with a significant interest if not 'directly affected' or if the landowner/lawful occupier concept is inappropriately applied to marine spaces, is a critical flaw identified in the joint submission that we support rectifying.' Coastal communities, particularly small-scale fishers, depend intrinsically on healthy marine ecosystems for their livelihoods, food security and cultural heritage. Upstream petroleum activities may pose direct and significant threats to these communities through potential pollution, displacement from traditional fishing grounds and adverse impacts on marine resources. 'We particularly highlight the joint submission's critique of regulation 23(1)(g), which vaguely mentions 'provision for co-existence with fishermen, where applicable', within local content plans, deeming it so vague as to be almost meaningless. Such provisions must be substantive and genuinely protect fishing communities. The broader failure of the draft regulations to create any meaningful obligations on rights holders to address and mitigate the adverse socio-economic impacts of petroleum operations on affected local communities, including fishing communities, 'is a grave concern we share with the joint submission'. The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance said in its comments on the proposed regulations that there is no provision made for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 'There is also no plan for the transition to ensure a move from upstream fossil fuel developments to alternative sources as per the country's objectives.' The Climate Change Act aims to reduce carbon emissions and ensure the country moves from a carbon-intensive economy to a low-carbon intensive economy, however the draft regulations 'disregard this'. By disregarding the climate change question, these developments will result in more climate change-related disasters such as floods, droughts and runaways fires. Areas such as Durban that have been 'With South Africa having signed to commit to net zero by 2050, 25 years away (less than one term of a production right) this is a regressive piece of legislation,' it said.
The Herald
8 hours ago
- The Herald
Trump says he has no plans to speak to Musk as feud persists
The White House statements came one day after the two men battled openly in an extraordinary display of hostilities that marked a stark end to a close alliance. Tesla stock rose on Friday, clawing back some losses from Thursday's session, when it dropped 14% and lost $150bn (R2.6-trillion) in value, the largest single-day decline in the company's history. Musk's high-profile allies have largely stayed silent during the feud. But one, investor James Fishback, called on Musk to apologise. 'President Trump has shown grace and patience at a time when Elon's behaviour is disappointing and frankly downright disturbing,' Fishback said. Musk, the world's richest man, bankrolled a large part of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. Trump named Musk to head a controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending. Trump feted Musk at the White House a week ago as he wrapped up his role as head of the department of government efficiency. Musk cut only about half of 1% of total spending, far short of his brash plans to axe $2-trillion (R355-trillion) from the federal budget. Since then, Musk has denounced Trump's tax-cut and spending bill as a 'disgusting abomination'. His opposition is complicating efforts to pass the bill in Congress where Republicans hold a slim majority. Trump's bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month and is now before the Senate, where Republicans say they will make further changes. Non-partisan analysts say the measure would add $2.4-trillion (R42.6-trillion) in debt over 10 years. House speaker Mike Johnson said he has been texting with Musk and hopes the dispute is resolved quickly. 'I don't argue with him about how to build rockets and I wish he wouldn't argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it,' Johnson said on CNBC.
The Herald
8 hours ago
- The Herald
US mulls giving millions to controversial Gaza aid foundation, sources say
The US state department is weighing giving $500m (R8.8bn) to the new foundation providing aid to war-shattered Gaza, according to two knowledgeable sources and two former US officials, a move that would involve the US more deeply in a controversial aid effort that has been beset by violence and chaos. The sources and former US officials, all of whom requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that money for Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) would come from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is being folded into the US State Department. The plan has met resistance from some US officials concerned with the deadly shootings of Palestinians near aid distribution sites and the competence of the GHF, the two sources said. The GHF, which has been fiercely criticised by humanitarian organisations, including the UN, for an alleged lack of neutrality, began distributing aid last week amid warnings that most of Gaza's 2.3-million population is at risk of famine after an 11-week Israeli aid blockade, which was lifted on May 19 when limited deliveries were allowed to resume. The foundation has seen senior personnel quit and had to pause handouts twice this week after crowds overwhelmed its distribution hubs. The state department and GHF did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reuters has been unable to establish who is funding the GHF operations, which began in Gaza last week. The GHF uses private US security and logistics companies to transport aid into Gaza for distribution at so-called secure distribution sites. On Thursday, Reuters reported that a Chicago-based private equity firm, McNally Capital, has an 'economic interest' in the for-profit US contractor overseeing the logistics and security of GHF's aid distribution hubs in the enclave. While US President Donald Trump's administration and Israel say they don't finance the GHF operation, both have been pressing the UN and international aid groups to work with it. The US and Israel argue that aid distributed by a long-established UN aid network was diverted to Hamas. Hamas has denied that. USAID has been all but dismantled. Some 80% of its programmes have been cancelled and its staff face termination as part of Trump's drive to align US foreign policy with his 'America First' agenda. One source with knowledge of the matter and one former senior official said the proposal to give the $500m to GHF has been championed by acting deputy USAID administrator Ken Jackson, who has helped oversee the agency's dismemberment.
