Social media has erupted in criticism after South Africa’s delegation to a meeting with US President Donald Trump was deemed largely ineffective, with key ministers—Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, Ronald Lamola, and Parks Tau—labelled as “useless” for their silence during a crucial discussion. The meeting, held at the White House on Wednesday, was attended by a mix of prominent political, business, and public figures, yet the murmurs of discontent are echoing far louder than any voices of reason.
At the heart of the critique was a heated discourse on land expropriation, a contentious issue in South Africa that has stirred significant debate both domestically and internationally. Trump took the opportunity to voice his disapproval of South Africa’s land policies, claiming, “You are taking people’s land away, and those people, in many cases, are being executed. They happen to be white, and most of them happen to be farmers.” This radical assertion was further accentuated by footage shown by Trump, depicting EFF leader Julius Malema making inflammatory remarks, a move that political analysts have characterised as an ‘orchestrated ambush’ against the South African delegation.
Amid this tense exchange, President Cyril Ramaphosa responded with composure, reaffirming that the South African Constitution safeguards land ownership while striving to right historical wrongs. “The South African Constitution protects land ownership,” Ramaphosa stated, a clear reiteration of the nation’s legal framework designed to mitigate past injustices. However, as he laid out South Africa’s position, ministers Ntshavheni, Lamola, and Tau reportedly sat in silence, trading glances and smiles rather than addressing the serious allegations being thrust into the global arena.
The absence of a verbal response from the trio has sparked outrage among social media users, who are questioning the effectiveness and preparedness of South Africa’s representation in front of one of the world’s most powerful leaders. Critics are pointing out the missed opportunity to counter allegations of a “white genocide” narrative perpetuated by Trump. Scholars have weighed in as well, with Professor Chris Landsberg from the University of Johannesburg commending Ramaphosa’s measured approach, while Professor Kwandiwe Kondlo suggested that the South African contingent arrived underprepared for the confrontation with Trump.
Meanwhile, Malema, despite not attending the meeting, managed to infiltrate the wider discussion. He lashed out at the group engaging in dialogue about him, calling them “old men who have gathered in Washington to gossip.” He vehemently dismissed Trump’s narrative, arguing that no “significant amount of intelligent evidence” supports claims of targeted violence against white farmers. “There will never be an agreement or compromise on the issue of land expropriation,” he asserted, reinforcing his party’s stance on the matter.
As debates surrounding the meeting continue to unfold, one thing is clear: South Africa’s approach to international dialogue, especially concerning sensitive historical issues, is under scrutiny. The next steps for ministers Ntshavheni, Lamola, and Tau may very well define the country’s diplomatic posture in the face of international criticism and expectation.