As President Cyril Ramaphosa prepares for a crucial meeting with former US President Donald Trump in Washington on Wednesday afternoon, concerns are mounting among South African farmers over the potential outcome of the talks.
Dr Theo de Jager, chairperson of the Southern African Agriculture Initiative (SAAI), noted growing anxiety within the farming community.
Many fear that the discussions between the two leaders and their respective teams may be deeply divided, particularly on sensitive issues such as land reform, rural safety, and racial tensions in South Africa.
The two administrations are believed to hold starkly different views on what constitutes terms like “genocide” and “land grabs,” especially in the context of South Africa’s controversial land reform policies.
Farmers worry that the American and South African delegations are not aligned on core values, including justice, freedom of speech, and human rights.
Relations between Pretoria and Washington have been tense, especially during Trump’s second term. The former US president was a vocal critic of South Africa’s land expropriation policy, accusing the government of enabling the unlawful seizure of white-owned farms, an accusation South African officials have consistently denied.
Further fuelling diplomatic strain was the US decision earlier this year to cut HIV and AIDS funding to South Africa. Washington also granted refugee status to 49 white South Africans on the basis of racial discrimination, a move that drew sharp rebuke from the South African government.
As the scheduled 12:45 p.m. (6:45 p.m. SAST) bilateral meeting draws near, it is expected that the South African delegation will argue that the country’s high murder rate affects all citizens and that killings of farmers are not racially motivated or disproportionate when considered within broader crime statistics.
De Jager, who previously served as president of the World Farmers Organisation, suggested that Trump may take a hard line during the meeting. The former US president is likely to invoke the international definition of genocide, highlighting public incitements of violence and hate speech , especially by figures such as Julius Malema and Andile Mngxitam, as examples of ethnic targeting without consequence.
The Constitutional Court’s refusal to hear cases brought by individuals affected by these inflammatory remarks has also drawn criticism, with some viewing it as a failure to uphold legal protections against hate speech.
Another point of contention is the signing of the Expropriation Act by President Ramaphosa. The legislation allows for land to be taken at below market value or without compensation under certain conditions.
Critics argue this violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and undermines property rights, a view that Trump is believed to share.
According to De Jager, the former US president may consider Ramaphosa’s endorsement of the Act sufficient grounds to distance himself from South Africa diplomatically or even take punitive measures in response.
De Jager had previously penned an open letter thanking Trump for extending special refugee provisions to Afrikaners while urging that similar support be extended to Black farmers.
His comments underscore the complex political terrain Ramaphosa faces as he attempts to reassure international partners while defending South Africa’s domestic policies.
