Amidst the changing political tides in South Africa, shifting U.S. policy under the Trump administration exacerbates longstanding tensions. The withdrawal of crucial aid and contentious public statements have not only influenced domestic policies but threatened the stability of a nation striving for equitable governance.
Since the historic election of Nelson Mandela in 1994, the African National Congress (ANC) has been the linchpin of South African democracy, navigating the post-Apartheid transformation with a public commitment to fairness and equality. However, recent years have seen a seismic shift in the political landscape, marked by the ANC’s loss of parliamentary majority after 30 years in 2024. This political upheaval coincides with the United States cutting aid under President Trump. Under these challenges, ANC President, Cyril Ramaphosa, is struggling to craft a vision for the nation’s future amid growing instability.
The Migration Crisis
The ANC had long run on a platform of anti-discrimination. During its thirty years in majority power, the party affirmed a public commitment to unifying the country along its ethnic divides. However, the recent loss of parliamentary majority and the rise of opposition parties, most notably JK Zuma’s, South Africa’s ex-president, MK party, have driven emphasis away from this unification sparking the heavy xenophobic views the country once held before Mandela’s presidency. The elections have stigmatized migrants, and many citizens blame them for rising unemployment issues.
International aid for South Africa is a fundamental key to the prosperity of the nation. It has led to the country becoming the biggest economy in the continent and the African representative for major international governmental organizations like the G20. With this, the country has become an important home for migrants of other African countries.
Migrants are often pictured as escaping war-torn countries for Europe and North America. However, in today’s world, this is unlikely to be the case. European countries like Italy have signed legislation to curb the arrival of migrants into their borders. European countries have begun to shift to the right in immigration issues, restricting the flow of migrants to their countries.
The belief that most Middle Eastern and African migrants go to Europe is itself false. Most migrants go to neighboring countries, and this stigma pushed by European countries is a way for these countries to avoid the issue altogether. For example, 83% of Syrian refugees live in neighboring countries and only 17% live in Europe. In 2020, European leaders have turned, becoming increasingly right-wing in terms of the migration crisis. However data suggests most of these migrants do not attempt to go to Europe and instead try to find homes wherever they can. African migrants themselves only make up a total of 12.7% of the total migrant population in Europe, with 11 million migrants. 53% of migrant populations remain within the continent of Africa itself and move to countries like South Africa for better opportunities.
South Africa has risen as an important avenue for many African migrants to find opportunity. Its industrial opportunities have led to roughly 2.9 million migrants residing in the country. The country offers an important avenue to help curtail migration into Europe, and the continued development of the country could offer itself as a home for refugees across the continent.
However, with the aid restrictions from the US and the Trump administration, the migration issue will only get worse. The United States’ recent aid restrictions not only halt the development of a major economic hub, but also affect the stability of millions of these refugees in a continent where the migrant crisis is far from over with the recent catastrophes in the DRC. Moreover, the ANC’s loss of its majority in the parliament have begun to contribute to xenophobic views against foreigners coming into South Africa.
Land Ownership
Private land ownership has been a significant issue in South Africa. The ANC has recently attempted to redistribute private land equitably amongst the South African public. In 2024, Ramaphosa signed the highly controversial Land Expropriation Act.. The act grants the government the power to acquire private land for public use as a means to redistribute white colonial land. It is designed as a way to benefit black South Africans in a country where 73% of private land is white-owned despite white South Africans only making up 7% of the population.
With DNC losing its parliamentary majority, the act itself has been ridiculed and contested amongst opposition parties. One of these is the Democratic Alliance, the country’s second largest political party, which claims the act itself is unconstitutional. The Democratic Alliance argues that the act wrongly takes land away from land owners without offering compensation.
President Ramaphosa argues that the law is justified as a means of rectification from the years of segregation during Apartheid rule. Whether the land act is just or not is beside the point. It represents the bigger issues with post-Apartheid South Africa and the current issues with South African politics. While the ANC has long portrayed itself as a liberation movement to create a non-racist democratic society, the majority loss in parliament has significantly hindered this mission, affecting not just migration but fair land distribution.
US Infringement
In a severely fragile political landscape, the newly inaugurated American president Donald Trump only worsened the situation. In February he accused the ANC’s Land Expropriation Act of discriminating against white owned landowners. Both Trump and Elon Musk claimed the act was a genocide against white South Africans. In February, just two weeks after Ramaphosa signed the Land Expropriation Act, Trump signed an executive order halting all aid to South Africa. He froze funding to the country until an investigation into the Land Expropriation Act was complete.
Trump is directly interfering in South African politics by enforcing aid cuts because of a bill that the US is barely affected by. South African politics is far removed from the US, and Trump should not care nor be bothered by the Land Expropriation Act that Ramaphosa signed for his country. South Africa, as a sovereign country, has every right to sign this act without external influence from the Trump administration. Trump’s aid freeze is an effective form of blackmail in order to control the country itself.
Trump also recently suspended the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS program in South Africa. The US previously contributed more than 400 million dollars a year to, accounting for 17% of the total funding previously the biggest in the world. The country itself has 7.5 million people living with the disease. The suspension has left millions in South Africa without fundamental access to HIV medication. An estimate believes that the cuts to the program will lead to half a million people dying from the disease unnecessarily.
This is just one of the humanitarian relief programs affected by US government funding cuts. More programs are likely to receive significant cuts from the US government under the Trump administration, including much needed aid to countries like Sudan and Congo. The stripping of aid from the US exacerbates both local issues in South Africa and the migration crisis in the country.
Trump’s infringement on South African politics is detrimental to not only the country, but the continent. Trump claimed he would grant citizenship to white Afrikanners in the US rather than offering aid to the millions of refugees in the African continent.
The case is a microcosm of the threat that the restrictions of international aid bring to countries across the world. While the South African country has long been on its way to being a model of development in the African continent, the country needs further investment. Trump’s actions severely influence the local politics of South Africa, infringing on their sovereignty but also on local politics. These cuts take the ANC’s mission for South Africa further out of reach.
The withdrawal of U.S. aid to South Africa during a critical period of political and social transition highlights a broader issue of international influence on sovereign nations. The Trump administration’s decisions, framed as responses to domestic policy changes within South Africa, have not only threatened the country’s efforts to address historical injustices but have also undermined its role as a stabilizing force in the region. As South Africa grapples with these compounded challenges, the international community must consider the profound impact of foreign policies that prioritize geopolitical interests, over the humanitarian and developmental needs of a nation.
Featured Image Source: BizNews
Comments are closed.