27-05-2025
Rhetoric vs reality — Trump touts himself as peacemaker, but actions against SA suggest otherwise
The highly anticipated, drama-packed bilateral meeting between presidents Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump at the White House on 21 May 2025 marked a critical juncture in the already deteriorating relations between South Africa and the US. Strained by a controversial executive order and differing views on violent crime, the meeting offered both leaders a chance to reset relations and find common ground. For Trump, it was also an opportunity to reinforce his image as a global peacemaker, though his confrontational approach raises doubts about this label.
Executive order: Confrontation over collaboration
On 7 February 2025, just 18 days into his second term, Trump signed the Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa executive order. Aimed at countering alleged human rights violations tied to South Africa's Expropriation Act, the order halts US aid, including Pepfar and USAID programmes, and promotes the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees fleeing 'racially motivated violence'. The US has already resettled 49 Afrikaners, with plans to accelerate and expand this initiative.
South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation issued a statement on 8 February 2025 condemning the executive order as historically tone deaf and factually unfounded. It accused the Trump administration of ignoring South Africa's efforts at what it deems racial reconciliation and undermining its domestic legal processes. With the executive order as the backdrop, the White House meeting was expected to be less a diplomatic routine than a high-stakes political confrontation.
Violent crime and divergent narratives
The meeting's focus was violent crime in South Africa, particularly against white farmers. One week prior to the meeting, Trump controversially labelled the violence 'a slow genocide'. In the Oval Office, he presented Ramaphosa with a compilation of news articles, and a video of EFF leader Julius Malema chanting 'kill the Boer'. This set the agenda for the meeting, and other issues that may seem important for a bilateral meeting at this high-level such as trade, investment, tariffs and the G20 were set aside. The White House posted the video to its official X account, captioned: 'JUST SHOWN IN THE OVAL OFFICE: Proof of Persecution in South Africa.'
Ramaphosa argued that crime is a national crisis affecting all South Africans, black and white alike, not a race-specific, state-sponsored campaign. The clash between the two leaders revealed not just disagreement over facts, but over the very lens through which crime, race and governance are interpreted.
Peacemaking or performance?
Trump used the meeting to reiterate his global peacemaking credentials, citing his mediation efforts in Ukraine and between India and Pakistan. When asked about his message to Africa ahead of Africa Day on 25 May, he shared a vision of 'peace, happiness and health', citing US mediation between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo as evidence of his commitment.
However, Trump's actions towards South Africa, such as suspending aid, amplifying racially charged narratives and promoting a shambolic refugee pipeline, deviates from traditional diplomatic peacemaking efforts. Rather than offering Ramaphosa tools for crime prevention or cooperative law enforcement assistance, Trump adopted a posture of exposure. 'You know the beauty of exposing it (farm murders) is it's like a cleansing action. When it gets exposed, it'll get fixed. That's when it'll get fixed. But people don't talk about it,' Trump said during the meeting in front of the media. Whether a popular approach or not, his intent was to address violent crime in South Africa, telling Ramaphosa: 'I want you to look good, I don't want you to look bad.'
Polarisation as strategy
Trump's approach aligns less with classic peacemaking than with coercive diplomacy, where pressure and public shaming are used to alter state behaviour. But such tactics carry the risk of deepening diplomatic estrangement. Ramaphosa, referencing Nelson Mandela's teachings, urged 'sitting around the table and talking about it', pointing to dialogue rather than denunciation as the path forward.
The question, then, is whether this highly public confrontation will serve as a catalyst for domestic reform or simply entrench existing polarities. There is a real danger that Trump's framing could polarise South African society and international observers alike.
The limits of performative peacemaking
The Trump-Ramaphosa meeting revealed both the fragility and potential of US-South Africa relations. While it succeeded in spotlighting violent crime as a serious issue, it failed to foster a collaborative framework for addressing it. Trump's rhetoric suggests a leader keen on global recognition as a problem solver, but his method of being confrontational, racially selective and domestically performative may undercut that ambition.
Whether South Africa receives this moment as a wake-up call or a provocation will depend on Ramaphosa's next move. If he chooses dialogue over defensiveness, there may yet be room for progress. But if Trump's brand of peacemaking continues to prioritise visibility over mutuality, the legacy may be one of polarisation rather than peace. DM
