Using racial divisions in South Africa to undermine international justice and redress for grave crimes
The United States government, under the leadership of President Trump, is on a fast track to undermine the international legal order and impede accountability efforts for grave crimes, with the Executive Order (EO) issued against South Africa in response to the Expropriation Act, 2025 being just one of many such moves. Much has been said these past two weeks in various sectors across economic and human rights sectors in South Africa since United States President Trump issued an Executive Order specifically targeting South Africa for so-called “egregious human rights abuses” perpetrated against white Afrikaners. To be precise, this is not about what racial group the Trump Administration is prioritizing for immigration purposes. Rather, the concern is getting to the bottom of what precisely the EO is about and what they hope to achieve economically and politically. Considering that high-level US government officials decided to not attend the G20 Foreign Minister’s Summit held in Johannesburg from February 19 – 21, 2025, these questions are most pertinent.
Signed on February 7, and titled Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, the Executive Order requires the US to cease providing aid or assistance to South Africa; and to promote the resettlement of “Afrikaaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation”. Not only is it based on disinformation about the socio-economic condition of Afrikaaner white people in the country, but it also conveys absolute disregard for international law and the South African government’s programme aimed at addressing the most prominent legacies of colonialism and apartheid – forced removals of indigenous black people from their land. The only way to comprehend it is to place it in the category of foreign policy tactics motivated by white supremacist, anti-democracy, anti-liberation, anti-rights and pro-Zionist Israeli agenda and interests. What renders this EO particularly scandalous is the fact that is grounded in false and exaggerated reports and a direct interference in the domestic affairs and policy reform efforts of a democratic state governed by a Constitution with the most expansive and protective Bill of Rights in the world, including the right to private property under section 25. It seems, as stated in several reports, the EO is primarily a response to the South African government’s Genocide case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel, and instrumentalizing the generally high crime rate in the country to achieve this objective.
A quick look at reports of the brutal and inhumane treatment that black people are still subjected to by white farmers in post-apartheid South Africa should make one pause and consider seriously the basis for US action through this EO. For instance, in 2024 two black women fed to pigs by a white farmer; in 2016 a 27-year old black man black man assaulted and forced into a coffin by Theo Martins Jackson and Willem Oosthuizen. In any event, in addition to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s failure to deal with land restitution, there is extensive research dealing appropriately with reports of crimes against white farmers and the land question. Significantly, the question of land dispossession by the apartheid government most adequately addressed by Senior Counsel Thembeka Ngcukaitobi member of the legal team in South Africa’s Genocide Case in his book The Land is Ours. The reasons why land reform matters now more than ever is most eloquently articulated by Marthinus Van Staden in Colonialism and apartheid stripped black SA’s of land and labour rights in which he explains how colonial practices and apartheid laws disposed black people of their land, and argues for the corrective measures to address this historical injustice.
The absurdity of this Executive Order cannot be overstated. South African legal experts make clear two essential points: the Expropriation Act permits authorities to lawfully proceed expropriation of property for public purpose of it is in the public interest. The law is abundantly clear and provides that any person affected by said expropriation has, available to them, access to legal remedies to challenge the authorities for both the act and amount of compensation. Therefore, legal recourse is guaranteed. A case in point challenging the myth that white South Africans are targets of racism and land theft, and demonstrating access to courts guided by Constitutional values and principles, is the February 18 ruling by the Western Cape High Court dismissing an application by testators claiming “an impending genocide and every white Afrikaner needs to defend themselves against a coming race war.” The Judge found that a white genocide is clearly imagined and not real and further recognized the intention of the Boerelegioen (BL), a far right, white supremacist paramilitary group established contrary to public policy and to the common law. As other commentators have stated , South African courts, with independent judiciary and guided by the values, principles and provisions of the Constitution are more than well-equipped to deal with false narratives and disinformation fueling racial tensions in the country. It was therefore interesting to observe some white South African gathering at the U.S. Embassy under the banner “Make South Africa Great Again” to hand over a petition to President Trump to intervene in South Africa’s domestic affairs and attempts to right the wrongs of colonial and apartheid-era land policies and aid their resettlement in the United States. Those of us born and raised under the brutal apartheid regime of the Afrikaaner National Party Government and with parents and family members dealing with the inhumane impact of Forced Removals know exactly what it means when Afrikaaners chant that slogan.
Plausible Explanation for Trump’s Executive Order targeting South Africa
Section 1 of the Executive Order, which states, “In addition, South Africa has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice, and reinvigorating its relations with Iran to develop commercial, military, and nuclear arrangements” sets out the Purpose and makes it abundantly clear what this is about: instrumentalizing adoption of the Expropriation Act for a more sinister objective: to compel South Africa to withdraw its Genocide Case against Israel.
It is consistent with Trump’s bullying tactics and policy approach of undermining rules-based order and threatening the legitimacy of international law and institutions in service of Israeli interests. Attempting to bully South Africans to withdraw the Genocide case before the International Court of Justice is undoubtedly in line with the February 6 Executive Order Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in which it argues that there is no legitimate basis for the warrants of arrest issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.
As several commentators have already pointed out, this EO, highly problematic for many reasons, including the fact that it is based on the myth that white South Africans are the targets of land confiscations, interference in an independent and democratic country’s domestic affairs, it is not necessarily about the Afrikaaners or expropriation. What is at stake here is the South Africa v. Israel Genocide in the Gaza Strip case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging Israel’s violations of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which several countries have since joined, including Nicaragua, Colombia, Cuba, Libya, Mexico, Spain, Ireland, Belize, and Türkiye.
Noting the significant human rights impact of EOs issued since Trump took office, the intention is clear: 1)chill efforts to ensure Israeli accountability for the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and 2) to reassert white privilege and supremacy in a black majority country that refused to grant South African-born, white male Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service a license in South Africa as it does not meet affirmative action criteria. Perhaps enraged by the South African government’s refusal to grant him a license, Musk yearns for apartheid-era South Africa.
An informed understanding and appreciation of the politics makes it clear that this is not actually about the land or the Afrikaaners but rather because South Africa, a global South developing country dared to approach the ICJ to hold Israeli authorities accountable for the worst crime against humanity—one in which the United States is most complicit through its constant supply of weapons and vetoing every single ceasefire resolution before the United Nations Security Council for more than 16 months.
It is therefore with some relief that the first ever G20 Summit held on the African Continent was a success. Consistent with its foreign policy approach and agenda since the formal end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa’s theme for its Presidency of the Group of 20 is Solidarity among member nations and emphasizing mutual cooperation; Equality emphasizing non-discrimination on the basis of race and gender, the need to address systemic disparities and promote social justice and Sustainability focused on economic growth and environmental protection. Necessary to recall that the G20, a forum comprising nineteen countries of the world’s largest economies, including the two regional blocs European Union and, as of 2023, the African Union, held its first ever two-day summit focused on urgent geopolitical concerns on African soil, in Nasrec, Johannesburg. On all accounts, the G20 Summit was a success, despite the absence of United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who reportedly stated “My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism,” when deciding not to attend the Summit. Seemingly, the United States government maintains its non-engagement approach as US Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bessent also announced that he will not attend the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Cape Town from 24 – 27 February in Cape Town. We observe these proceedings with much interest.
President Cyril Ramaphosa noting in his State of the Nation Address, the rise of nationalism and protectionism and pursuit of narrow interests, reaffirmed South Africa’s commitment to international law, redress for harms suffered and accountability of perpetrators – whomever they may be. Delivered on February 6, Ramaphosa further states:
“We have always believed that the freedom we won – and the international solidarity from which we benefited – imposes a duty on us to support the struggles of those who continue to experience colonialism and oppression. South Africa continues to stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine, who, having endured decades of illegal occupation, are now experiencing indescribable suffering……We support the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states and peoples.”
The South African Government has not only made clear that it will not withdraw its Genocide case against Israel, but it has also gone further. In partnership with several Global South states it inaugurated the Hague Group on January 31, recognizing Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza and the remainder of occupied Palestinian territory. The Hague Group commits itself to, inter alia, support the requests of the International Criminal Court and comply with the warrants issued on 21 November 2024 on the Palestine Situation, and to implement the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in the genocide case against Israel. It also commits to prevent provision or transfer of arms, munitions and related equipment to Israel, in compliance with the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 calling for an end to Israel’s belligerent unlawful occupation of Palestine.
With the widespread threats to the international legal order, to human rights protections generally and attacks on institutions established specifically to ensure accountability of perpetrators and redress for victims of grave crimes, it is essential that more States intervene in the proceedings before the ICJ. Noteworthy that in Europe only the Republic of Ireland and Spain have filed intention to intervene in the Gaza Genocide case. If not in contentious proceedings, at a bare minimum, European governments should, interests of justice and respect for humanity, actively participate in the Advisory Proceedings before the ICJ concerning Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. If the African Union, with the most to lose in terms of aid and support can engage in these proceedings, then surely others can do so as well.