US and SA Relations

Trump’s Stage, Ramaphosa’s Test

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House this week in an attempt to reinforce bilateral ties. But instead of progress, the South African delegation walked into a tightly choreographed performance — staged for a domestic U.S. audience, not international cooperation.

In the weeks leading up to the visit, Trump and his political allies intensified inflammatory rhetoric against South Africa, reviving a debunked narrative about a so-called “genocide of white farmers.” Though long discredited by South African crime data and human rights monitors, the story remains popular among Trump’s conservative base, making it a convenient tool in his political arsenal.

At the same time, Pretoria’s refusal to align with the West on Ukraine and its support for legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice drew Trump’s ire. In the binary worldview that defines Trump’s foreign policy — friend or foe, loyal or disloyal — South Africa’s insistence on a non-aligned, multipolar approach is unacceptable.

In this context, Ramaphosa entered the meeting under heavy pressure. South African business leaders and political advisers urged diplomatic caution to safeguard trade and investment flows. Trump, always attuned to theatrics, seized the opportunity to project dominance. He framed the visit as another leader “coming with a begging bowl,” a phrase meant to score points with his base — and to reinforce his image as a hard-nosed dealmaker.

It is essential to understand: Trump’s performance was never about South Africa. It was about America. His messaging — the “white farmer genocide,” the video ambush, the dismissive tone — was crafted to appeal to his supporters at home, to reaffirm his narrative of strength and nationalist defiance.

The South African delegation was not prepared for what came next. In a calculated and unannounced move, Trump dimmed the lights and played a provocative video. It featured footage of opposition leader Julius Malema chanting “Kill the Boer” and a montage of white crosses, implying a racialised massacre. The context was grossly distorted — Malema holds no government position, and the imagery originated from a general protest in 2020 unrelated to government policy.

Ramaphosa held his composure and rebutted the genocide claims. He clarified that crime in South Africa affects all racial groups, with the vast majority of victims being Black South Africans. He emphasised that the voices in the video did not reflect government policy.

But the ambush had already done its damage. Trump controlled the optics — and Ramaphosa was left to respond, not lead.

Only recently President Zelensky had also been ambushed and publicly offended during his visit at the White House by Trump’s dismissive and performative tactics. That incident should have served as a clear warning. The South African delegation ought to have anticipated a similar scenario and prepared accordingly, both strategically and symbolically. Instead, Ramaphosa’s team appeared under-briefed and reactive, missing the chance to assert a confident and coordinated message on South Africa’s terms.

Ramaphosa did bring prominent South Africans like Johann Rupert, John Steenhuisen, and golf stars Ernie Els and Retief Goosen to counter Trump’s narrative. Yet, Trump turned the gesture into his own display — letting them speak as if to validate his claims. The symbolism was hijacked.

Despite the confrontational nature of the encounter, both sides expressed willingness to maintain dialogue. Ramaphosa stressed the potential for cooperation in trade and infrastructure; Trump acknowledged South Africa’s strategic relevance. Yet, signs of deeper tension remain: the U.S. has recently granted asylum to 49 white Afrikaners and frozen key development aid programs.

With South Africa set to host the G20 — the first African nation to do so — this meeting could shape U.S. engagement with the summit. There are concerns that the U.S., set to assume the G20 presidency next, could disengage under Trump’s unpredictable leadership. South Africa does not want to be remembered as the chair under whose watch the U.S. walked away.

Who came out ahead?
Trump got what he wanted: headlines, theatrics, and a story of strength for his domestic audience. Ramaphosa resisted pressure, stood by principle, and reaffirmed South Africa’s commitment to multilateralism — but failed to control the narrative.

A lesson in principled engagement
This moment offers a crucial lesson for liberal democracies. In an era where strongmen thrive on performance and provocation, diplomacy must adapt. We must remain firm on values, anticipate confrontations, and avoid being used as props in someone else’s show. Quiet diplomacy has its place — but so does strategic assertiveness.

Because with populists like Trump, diplomacy isn’t just dialogue — it’s theatre. And if you’re not directing the scene, you’re part of the script.