Donald Trump, the president of the United States, recently denounced South Africa’s new Expropriation Act in an all-too-familiar display of ignorance, using the false pretense that it was an attack on the white minority. His remarks, steeped in misinformation, echo the rhetoric of far-right groups that have long sought to delegitimise South Africa’s efforts to correct centuries of land dispossession.
While Trump has no business interfering with a sovereign nation’s attempt to remedy historical injustice, he is well within his rights to withhold US aid, which South Africa neither relies on nor seeks. His inflammatory comments are not just misguided, they are dangerous. South Africa, a nation that came out of the brutal apartheid system only 30 years ago, is still deeply affected by racial and economic inequality. These unresolved wounds are rooted in the land issue, and reckless statements from the US president could stoke tensions in a society that is still striving for justice.
The US itself has expropriation laws under its Fifth Amendment, which is perhaps the greatest irony of all. Land can be used for public good, with or without compensation, and that is a fundamental principle of US property law. So why does Trump feign outrage when South Africa follows suit in the same vein?
This irony pales in comparison to Trump’s remarks about “taking over” Gaza and making it “ours” after Israel’s mass destruction and genocide in Palestine. While ethnic cleansing and annexing foreign land is one thing, it is another thing to do illegally in one’s own country.
To grasp why land reform is necessary, one must confront an uncomfortable truth: South Africa’s land was stolen. From colonial conquest to apartheid-era forced removals, Black South Africans were systematically dispossessed and relegated to overcrowded, barren “homelands”. The land grabs were codified by the Land Acts of 1913 and 1936, which reserved 87 percent of the land for the Black minority and crammed the Black majority into just 13 percent of the nation.
This is not ancient history. These laws still have profound effects today. Black South Africans only own a small percentage of agricultural land, despite accounting for 80% of the population, while white landowners, who account for less than 8% of the population, continue to be in charge of the majority of it. The result? Millions of Black South Africans live in informal settlements or overcrowded townships, and about 64 percent of them still lack land.
Successive post-apartheid governments have made efforts to correct this injustice, but they have made painfully slow progress. The “willing-buyer, willing-seller” model, introduced in the 1990s, placed the financial burden on the state to buy land at market rates. This approach, while politically cautious, has failed: land redistribution targets remain unmet, and economic disparities continue to widen.
The Expropriation Act aims to change that. In some circumstances, including when land is abandoned, left over, or acquired under racial privilege, it provides a legal framework for land being expropriated. Compensation – when required – is determined by considering factors such as historical acquisition, state subsidies, and public interest. In some cases, this means land can be taken without compensation.
This is not an attack on white farmers. The millions of people who lost both dignity and economic agency need to be reclaimed.
Trump’s comments did not emerge in a vacuum. They closely resemble the narrative being promoted by white nationalist organizations in South Africa, which have long argued that land reform poses an existential threat to white landowners. The “white genocide” myth, which falsely claims that white South Africans are being systematically targeted, has been thoroughly debunked. Yet it continues to resurface in right-wing circles, amplified by figures like Trump who thrive on stoking racial grievances.
The facts tell a different story. There is no widespread campaign to seize land arbitrarily, nor is the government engaged in racial persecution. The Expropriation Act simply aligns South Africa’s land reform strategy with the foundational values of justice and equity. It does not grant the state unchecked authority.
But beyond the inaccuracy of his claims, Trump’s interference is dangerous. South Africa is still navigating its postcolonial identity, balancing reconciliation with restitution. Real progress can be derailed by foreign leaders who recklessly veer into this process, especially those who have no knowledge of the country’s history.
The fact that the US has its own expropriation laws is perhaps Trump’s most glaring contradiction in his stance. Under the conditions of “just compensation,” the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to seize private property for public use. What constitutes “just” is often debated – just as it is in South Africa.
In fact, there are numerous instances of land seizures in the US that were much more aggressive than anything South African had proposed. Under the guise of expansionism, indigenous lands were taken without compensation. In order to promote urban development, eminent domain laws have been used to bulldoze exclusive communities, particularly poor and Black neighborhoods. Why is South Africa criticized for using expropriation for its own interests if the US does not see any contradiction in doing so?
Land seizures that have historically benefitted white populations are normalized, while Black South Africans are treated as a threat.
Beyond its historical necessity, land redistribution is crucial for South Africa’s economic future. Without land, millions of Black South Africans remain locked out of economic opportunities. The ability to farm, build homes, or access credit is directly tied to land ownership. However, the wealth of the nation is still largely concentrated in the hands of a select few in the current system.
The economic justification for land reform, which claims it will destabilize the agricultural sector or scare away investors, is a smokescreen. Countries that have successfully implemented land reform, such as South Korea and Japan, have demonstrated that redistribution, when done strategically, fosters economic growth. The real danger lies not in expropriation, but in upholding the status quo, where millions of people remain landless while a small elite hoards land.
Trump may threaten to cut US aid, but South Africa’s land policies are not up for foreign negotiation. A US president with a poor track record on racial justice cannot dictate the country’s hard-won sovereignty.
Land expropriation is not theft. It is not an attack on white South Africans. It is long overdue to bring about the justice that was done to the land, the dignity, and the economic future of Black South Africans. Trump’s remarks serve as a reminder that while the struggle for justice will always face opposition, South Africa’s legal system will not be predetermined by outsiders.
South Africans will decide South Africa’s future.
Source: Aljazeera
Leave a Reply