Former South African President Jacob Zuma has sharply criticised his successor President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent visit to the White House, arguing that the country should not seek American assistance to resolve domestic challenges.
Zuma, addressing supporters of his MK Party in KwaMaphumulo over the weekend, condemned the diplomatic mission as misguided. The remarks highlight deepening political divisions within South Africa over how to navigate increasingly strained relations with the United States.
“You can go to America for all we care but we refuse to have our problems fixed by Americans we don’t even know,” Zuma told the gathering in KwaZulu-Natal province. “We want to fix our own problems.”
The criticism targets President Ramaphosa’s 21 May meeting with President Donald Trump, which aimed to repair severely damaged bilateral relations between the two nations.
The White House encounter proved contentious, with President Trump confronting the South African delegation with unsubstantiated claims about violence against white farmers. The US president showed videos and news clippings alleging systematic persecution, which President Ramaphosa firmly rejected.
“There is just no genocide in South Africa,” President Ramaphosa responded during the meeting, emphasising that while crime affects all communities, the majority of victims are black South Africans.
Relations between Washington and Pretoria have deteriorated markedly since President Trump’s return to office. The US administration has criticised South Africa’s land reform policies and its support for the Palestinian case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
In February, President Trump suspended all aid to South Africa and accepted white South Africans as refugees, claiming they face persecution. This month, 59 white South Africans arrived in the US under the refugee programme.
The diplomatic tensions carry significant economic implications. The United States is South Africa’s second-largest trading partner, and the country benefits substantially from preferential trade arrangements that provide duty-free access to American markets.
Some US lawmakers have called for these benefits to be withdrawn when the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act comes up for review, potentially damaging South Africa’s agricultural exports.
Zuma’s intervention reflects his position as leader of the MK Party, which emerged as the official opposition following last year’s elections. His criticism of the Washington visit aligns with his broader opposition to President Ramaphosa’s leadership.
The former president, who was forced to resign in 2018 amid corruption allegations, has positioned himself as a champion of South African sovereignty against what he portrays as foreign interference.
Political analysts suggest Zuma’s comments may resonate with voters who view the Trump administration’s approach as disrespectful to South African democracy.
However, government officials argue that diplomatic engagement remains essential for protecting South Africa’s economic interests and international standing.
The dispute over land reform lies at the heart of US-South Africa tensions. Legislation signed by President Ramaphosa allows the government to expropriate land for public purposes, with compensation determined by various factors including historical injustices.
The policy aims to address inequalities stemming from apartheid-era dispossession, but has drawn criticism from the Trump administration and some white South African groups.
President Ramaphosa’s delegation included prominent white South Africans, including golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, apparently intended to counter claims of systematic persecution.
The president emphasised South Africa’s commitment to the rule of law and constitutional democracy, but acknowledged the country’s serious crime challenges affecting all communities.
The exchange reflects broader global tensions over how developing nations should balance sovereignty concerns with the need for international cooperation and investment.
For South Africa, managing this balance is particularly complex given its history of international isolation during apartheid and its subsequent reintegration into the global community.
Zuma’s criticism suggests these challenges will continue to generate domestic political debate as South Africa navigates an increasingly polarised international environment.
