Online Reporter
Tendai Hildergarde Manzvanzvike
Correspondent
TWENTY-SEVEN years ago, the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and other Southern African Development Community (SADC) forces fought in what is now commonly referred to as the Second Congo War from 1998 to 2002.
This was a SADC mission.
There was a lot of hue and cry from the West that believed Zimbabwe was upsetting their economic interests in the mineral-rich country.
The war in the DRC started four years after Nelson Mandela’s presidency began in 1994 when Bill Clinton was President.
Zimbabwe has not completely recovered from the aftermath of the Congo war.
To add to the complexities of that era, in 2000 Zimbabwe embarked on one of its most ambitious policies — the irreversible Land Reform Programme that empowered previously marginalised people.
Conversely, George W. Bush was running for the US presidency, which he won.
The Bush administration saw Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme as unjustifiable, and it led the United States Congress to impose the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA) of 2001, which imposed illegal economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.
They have made several claims and counter claims, mainly that the land reform programme infringed on property rights. The United States was supported by its Western allies.
The disastrous sanctions have caused untold harm on Zimbabwe.
However, what seems lost to the United States and its allies is that it was for land and the rich mineral resources therein, that the colonised people took up arms to fight the evil colonial, neo-colonial and apartheid systems.
Twenty-seven years later, the Zimbabwean script is being rewritten in neighbouring South Africa.
Firstly, the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) has been in the eastern DRC as part of the SADC standby force and UN peace keeping mission since 2023.
The SANDF is not the only SADC standby force deployed in the conflict zone in the eastern DRC, but there are other forces from Malawi and the United Republic of Tanzania.
The conflict between the DRC and the M23 rebels escalated when 14 SANDF forces were killed, resulting in a war of words between Pretoria and Kigali.
SADC and the EAC have been trying to de-escalate tensions among South Africa, Rwanda and the DRC, making sure that they engage in constructive dialogue, and prioritise regional cooperation and integration in order to address the root causes of the conflict in eastern DRC.
The open disagreement and counter accusations between the two countries could further inflame tensions in the already volatile region. This could embolden armed groups, increase cross-border attacks, and lead to more direct confrontations.
The public spat between South Africa and Rwanda is unwarranted since it weakens and hinders coordinated efforts aimed at stabilising the region, facilitating dialogue, and lending support for long-term peace-building efforts.
On Tuesday the M23 rebel group declared a unilateral humanitarian “ceasefire” in the unstable Goma region, as SADC and EAC are due to hold a joint summit this weekend in the Republic of Tanzania.
The second incident which puts South Africa in the same league with Zimbabwe is the recent signing of the Expropriation Bill by President Ramaphosa. The Act is meant to address the land imbalances which have been in place since time immemorial.
As in Zimbabwe’s case, the international community (the West) led by their media have chosen to label the Act a vehicle for land seizures that is anti-property rights.
These claims are not only racist, but they have failed to put the Act in its proper context. The Bill had undergone “a five-year process of public consultation and parliamentary deliberation, aligning legislation on expropriation with the Constitution”.
If land rights in South Africa were not skewed in favour of the minority white population, there would not be any need to implement a land reform programme.
However, on Sunday, US President Donald Trump came out guns blazing accusing the South African government of “confiscating land, and (ill) treating certain classes of people.” He claimed that this was “very badly”.
Writing on his Truth Social (social media platform), Trump said this was “a massive human rights violation” and the “United States won’t stand for it, (but) will act”. He threatened to cut “off all future funding … until a full investigation of the situation has been completed”.
South African-born billionaire Elon Musk who is also Trump’s close ally accuses South Africa of having “openly racist ownership laws”. Is Musk living in a bubble? If he is one of Trump’s advisers on South Africa, then we are in for a big treat unless they capitulate and/or call Trump’s bluff like other sovereign states have done lately.
The Pretoria/Washington diplomacy played out on social media.
South Africans and other African nationals asserted that the US president was bullying and threatening South Africa since his accusations are one-sided, and all meant to appease and influence a minority group. They strongly argue that Trump based his claims on lies from the white minority community who have never wanted to see the majority black population own land.
The rhetoric surrounding land expropriation is dangerous, reckless and unethical and could heighten social tensions within South Africa, particularly between different racial groups.
Trump’s uninformed comments may exacerbate these tensions by framing the issue in a way that aligns with narratives of victim-hood among certain demographics while ignoring broader socio-economic contexts and historical injustices related to apartheid.
The past fortnight has shown that it is Trump against the whole world – from Canada, Greenland, Latin America, EU, China, Russia, the BRICS, the Middle East and now South Africa. He is basically fighting with everybody – home and away.
Judging by how some of the issues have been resolved, it is interesting to note that Trump could be holding all the cards and he is playing the long game. However, it turns out to be, it is important to note what Bill O’Reilly said: “Trump is a show man who seeks warm feedback. He never admits he is wrong and he never apologises … He plays the long game.”
Trump’s announcement has the potential to strain diplomatic relations between the United States and South Africa. The South African government has expressed that Trump’s understanding of their land policies is misguided as they are committed to addressing historical injustices without violating human rights.
This situation could lead to a diplomatic standoff, where both nations may engage in public disputes, affecting cooperation on various global issues such as trade and global security. Trump’s rhetoric may potentially lead to a more polarised international landscape.
President Ramaphosa said on Tuesday he had reached out to Elon Musk who has Trump’s ear, in order to ease tensions, but as already indicated, Musk accuses South Africa of having “openly racist ownership laws”.
It is a game of thrones and clearly shows that Musk sympathises with his kith and kin whom he thinks are the victims.
Trump’s threats to cut off aid is a blessing in disguise although at face value, it looks like it could have significant economic repercussions for South Africa since it is a major beneficiary of US aid, particularly through programmes like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which contributes around US$400 million annually to HIV and Aids initiatives. But so too are many sub-Saharan countries.
With Trump’s mantra – Make America Great Again (America first) and the ongoing objective to save money, the US agency for International Development (USAid), is currently being stripped of its overarching responsibilities.
It is no longer a standalone department but has been placed in the State Department. The uncertainty surrounding US relations may deter foreign investment, as investors often seek stable environments with predictable government policies, not just in South Africa but across board.
Finally, it is unfortunate that these spats have played out on social media – although digital diplomacy is now the norm. As international relations continue to adapt to technological advancements, embracing social media as a tool for diplomacy appears increasingly necessary but requires careful management. The downside is that social media can undermine diplomatic efforts, fuel tensions, and even incite violence through falsehoods and misinformation.
It would be interesting to see whether the United States will turn Africa’s largest economy into another Zimbabwe.
South Africa assumed the G20 Presidency last December. The group’s foreign ministers are due to meet this month, but the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has just snubbed the meeting writing on his X page: “South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property. Using G20 to promote ‘solidarity, equality, and sustainability.’ … My job is to advance America’s national interests, not waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.
This is the genesis of a very protracted struggle.
Meanwhile, the South African government has embarked on a major diplomatic offensive where they intend to invite the US President for a State visit together with Elon Musk and other top American officials. I won’t pour cold water on the initiative, but judging from Senator Ted Cruz’s post on X, it remains to be seen whether Trump will accept the invitation.
Cruz writes: “The South African government seems to be going out of their way to alienate the United States and our allies. Their timeline to expel our Taiwanese allies from Pretoria is deeply troubling, undermines the national security interests of America and our allies, and will deepen tensions between the US and South Africa.
“I intend to use my position as the chairman of the Africa subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate these and other concerning decisions by South Africa.” (@SenTedCruz) Is the United States about to turn Africa’s biggest economy into another Zimbabwe? Time will tell.
About the author: Tendai H. Manzvanzvike is an independent social commentator. She can be reached on [email protected]
