Category World News

In an escalation of a rift between his administration and Pretoria over a contentious land expropriation law intended to combat inequality brought on by apartheid, US President Donald Trump has frozen aid to South Africa.

Trump claimed in an executive order that the law “assayed disregard” for citizens’ rights and that it would permit the government to seize land from Afrikaners of ethnic minority groups without compensation.

The passage of the Expropriation Act, signed last month by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, followed “countless” policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity, as well as “hateful rhetoric” and government actions that have driven violence against “racially disfavored” landowners, Trump said in his order.

Trump said in the order that South Africa has “aggressive positions” taken toward the US and its allies, including a rise in diplomatic relations with Iran and accusations of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The US president stated in the order that “the country cannot support the government of South Africa’s commission of human rights violations in its country or its undermining American foreign policy, which threatens our nation, our allies, our African partners, and our interests.”

Trump’s order also said his administration would promote the resettlement of Afrikaners “escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination”.

Since Sunday, the US president has accused his counterpart’s administration of “confiscating land” and mistreating “certain classes of people” in an ever-increasing legal battle.

In response to the legislation and other “very bad things” happening in the nation, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared on Wednesday that he would not attend the upcoming Group of 20 (G20) talks in Johannesburg.

Ramaphosa argued that the law will provide “equitable and just” access to land and that it is not a “confiscation instrument” but a component of a “constitutionally mandated legal process.

Ramaphosa stated in an address to parliament on Thursday that it appeared to criticize Trump and that his nation would remain united as a result of a rise in “pursuit of narrow interests” and “the decline of common cause.”

“We will not be deterred. We are a resilient people. We will not be bullied”, he said.

The government may seize land without compensation under the expropriation law where it is deemed “just and equitable and in the public interest,” such as when it is being used and after negotiations with the owner are unsuccessful.

The legislation, according to Ramaphosa and his African National Congress, is necessary to reduce the gravest land-ownership gaps brought on by colonial expansion and subsequent racial segregation and white-minority rule.

According to the law, the government has not yet expropriated any land.

The Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s largest opposition party and a member of the ANC-led national unity government, has strongly criticised the law, casting it as a threat to property rights and much-needed foreign investment.

The DA, which has the majority of its supporters in white, Indian, and multiracial South Africans, has also expressed concern about Trump’s threats and refuted claims that the law permits land seized “arbitrarily”

Due to the legacy of apartheid, which lasted from 1948 to 1994, land ownership is a contentious topic in South Africa.

Despite accounting for over 80% of the country’s population, Black South Africans only own 4% of privately held farmland, according to a 2017 government audit.

White South Africans, who make up about 7 percent of the population and are divided between Afrikaans-speaking descendants of Dutch settlers and English-speaking descendants of British colonialists, hold about three-quarters of the land.

Trump’s campaign against South Africa coincides with his administration’s broadening crackdown on foreign aid, including by effectively destroying the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Through the conclusion of his most recent campaign, Noboa has remained neutral about the limits of his authority.

Ecuador’s constitution requires that public officials take a leave of absence to run for re-election.

Noboa, who is in a fight with his vice president Veronica Abad, did not opt to sign two executive orders to prevent her from transferring power. Just this week, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador declared both unconstitutional.

After the ruling, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), a powerful Indigenous rights coalition, blasted Noboa for treating the presidency like “a private hacienda”.

“No authoritarian manoeuvre can hide the truth: Noboa’s government is riddled with irregularities, abuses and contempt for democracy”, CONAIE wrote in a statement.

“We have never trusted this government”, the acting president of CONAIE, Zenaida Yasacama, told Al Jazeera. His treatment of his vice president hurts me as a woman, he said.

Still, Noboa has campaigned for a second, full term on the basis that he will declare war against “the old politics” of Ecuador.

On advertisements, Noboa stands in a white T-shirt against a purple background, next to slogans for “one single round” — an appeal to voters to make Sunday’s victory so massive, no run-off election is needed.

It’s a pointedly informal look, one designed to appeal to Ecuador’s younger generations. Noboa is a favorite of young voters, according to Garcia Nice. Some even carry cardboard cut-outs of the leader.

That demographic could give those with the highest voter ID, especially those who are 16-year-old teenagers, who are on average only 28 years old, a significant advantage in the polls.

Yet, Noboa’s charisma as a young leader will only take him so far, Hurtado warned.

If he wins a full four-year term this year, he won’t have the benefit of the doubt that comes with being a relative newcomer to politics.

Washington, DC – According to experts, Donald Trump has been credited with putting an end to the Gaza war. However, the president’s proposal to forcibly relocate the Palestinians in the area could undermine the agreement.

Trump called for the US to “take over” the Palestinian territory and for the Palestinians to be depopulated, calling for a campaign that rights groups claim would lead to ethnic cleansing this week.

Leaders from all over the world have warned that the Middle East would become unbalanced if Palestinians were to be removed from Gaza. More immediately, Trump’s comments could derail the push towards an enduring end to the fighting in the territory.

According to Josh Ruebner, a lecturer in Georgetown University’s Justice and Peace program, “President Trump’s completely outrageous and outrageous calls for the ethnic cleansing of more than two million Palestinian people from Gaza severely undermines the chances that the ceasefire will continue.”

“Of course, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was not in any ceasefire agreement, and by Trump putting that option on the table, he stands to wreck the very fragile process”.

The ceasefire was effective on January 19, the day before Trump’s second term began. However, the US president asserts that Steve Witkoff, the US president, was instrumental in securing the deal.

In his inaugural speech, Trump vowed to leave a “peacemaker and unifier” legacy by invoking the ceasefire.

We had no bearing in it, they claimed.

Days later, Trump suggested emptying Gaza of its inhabitants. Initially, it was easy to dismiss the comments as one of his off-the-cuff, hyperbolic pronouncements.

But he kept repeating them. While speaking at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he read prepared remarks that gave his proposal more depth.

“The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it”, Trump said.

Despite Trump’s comments, the ceasefire has continued to hold. Hamas plans to release three more Israeli captives in the coming days in exchange for 183 Palestinians held by Israel, but the guns remain silent.

However, the US president’s proposal raises questions about the later stages of the truce deal, which include discussions about the future of Gaza.

The first phase, which will result in the release of 33 Israeli prisoners, a significant increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza, and a partial Israeli withdrawal from the territory, is scheduled to end on March 1.

The second stage is supposed to result in the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the release of all Hamas’s prisoners. A five-year reconstruction plan for Gaza is included in the third stage.

Trump’s demand that Gazans leave the area completely seems to conflict with the agreement’s spirit.

And there are indications that the US administration is no longer fully committed to the brokering deal that it has been touting.

Washington’s envoy Witkoff suggested on Tuesday that the government would push for the release of all Israeli prisoners. But he seemed to renege on the third stage — rebuilding Gaza — saying that it “can’t go the way that agreement talks about, which is a five-year programme”.

Witkoff distanced the Trump team from the deal altogether, saying that it wasn’t “wonderful” from the start.

“We had nothing to do with it”, he said.

‘ It’s gone ‘

Trump’s comments have been criticized by US officials, with White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt claiming that residents of Gaza will be “temporarily relocated.”

Additionally, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the “interim” will be the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, and residents will be able to “move back in” following reconstruction.

However, the president has repeatedly stated this week that his intention is to occupy the Palestinians’ territory and give the US control of it.

Khalil Jahshan, the executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, said Trump’s proposal spells doom for the ceasefire.

“What we have heard from the White House this week, in my humble judgement, killed the ceasefire agreement totally. It’s gone”, Jahshan told Al Jazeera.

The ceasefire agreement was intended to be a solution for Gaza’s and its citizens’ lives, but it was undermined by it. What’s the point of proceeding if the people of Gaza are going to be moved ethnically from places like Albania or wherever?

Trump has suggested that the conflict may soon resume.

“The strikes could start tomorrow”, Trump said on Tuesday. “There’s not a lot left to strike”.

Since October 2023, Israel’s US-backed offensive in Gaza has killed nearly 62, 000 Palestinians, including thousands of missing people who are presumed dead.

But why did Trump vehemently deny that he intended to uphold a ceasefire?

“Donald Trump isn’t interested in the ceasefire for the wellbeing of Palestinians”, said Khaled Elgindy, a Middle East analyst.

“He’s interested in the headline of the ceasefire. He wants the credit. He wants to say, ‘ I won. I’m the guy who did it. ‘ He doesn’t care whether it’s implemented, disintegrated, or results in ethnic cleansing.

Netanyahu’s war goals

Elgindy claimed that achieving the second stage of the agreement, which would require a permanent ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli troops, will be crucial to halting the ethnic cleansing plan.

“There’s no question that the ceasefire, on its face, is totally incompatible with a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza”, Elgindy told Al Jazeera.

“This is why I think phase two is so critical. If we can get an agreement on phase two, and phase two is implemented, then I think the risk of actual ethnic cleansing is greatly diminished”.

Elgindy added that Netanyahu and the US president have their own decisions, and that it doesn’t help the ceasefire because Trump “is talking crazy” about the future of Gaza.

When Netanyahu was asked about the White House’s ceasefire this week, he said that he would continue to work toward three objectives: releasing the captives, destroying Hamas’s military and governing capacities, and ensuring that Gaza does not threaten Israel.

After the ceasefire, heavy-armed Hamas fighters spread across Gaza. Additionally, it appears that the group is still in charge of the territory’s civilian administration.

If Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who supports a reprise of the war, leaves the government, Netanyahu’s governing coalition could collapse.

“At this point, Netanyahu already knows whether or not he wants a ceasefire — a phase two — and Donald Trump already knows whether he’s going to go along with Netanyahu’s decision”, Elgindy told Al Jazeera.

For Jahshan, Netanyahu made his intentions known when he reiterated his desire to carry out the war’s goals.

Donald Trump has only been in the White House for less than three weeks, but the president of the United States has already launched what many people consider to be a concerted attack on refugees and migrants.

The Republican leader has sent migrants to the notorious detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pushed for more deportations, effectively banned asylum, and suspended the refugee resettlement programme.

Trump has also used tariffs to pressure his country’s neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to impose harsher restrictions on entry into the US from their respective borders to stop illegal immigration.

The Trump administration’s anti-immigrant policies are alarming to Canadian rights advocates, who have demanded that Canada stop sending the majority of asylum seekers seeking protection back to the US.

According to Wendy Ayotte, co-founder of Bridges Not Borders, a group that assists refugees and asylum seekers along the New York-Quebec border, “the United States government itself is becoming an agent of persecution of people within its borders.”

“When we return people to the United States as we are currently doing, … that makes us complicit with an anti-refugee regime”, Ayotte, who lives in the small Quebec town of Havelock, told Al Jazeera.

This leaves us complicit because it’s possible that this person will either languish in a deteriorating detention facility or be returned to their home country.

Canada-US border agreement

After making promises to improve border security, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced this week that the Trump administration had agreed to a 30-day freeze on planned tariffs for Canadian goods.

In a social media post, Trudeau stated that “nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working to protect the border.”

Trump stated on his Truth Social platform that “Canada has agreed to ensure we have a secure Northern Border.”

Trump had threatened to impose the tariffs at the beginning of the year when the Canadian government made an announcement to improve border security. That $910m (1.3bn-Canadian-dollar) scheme included investments in drones, helicopters and other surveillance equipment.

Additionally, strict regulations apply to immigration at the US-Canada border.

In 2023, the two countries expanded what’s known as the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA).

As per the pact, which became effective in 2024, asylum seekers are required to seek protection in either of the two nations they arrive in first. That means that if a person who is already living in the US meets certain conditions, they cannot seek asylum in Canada.

Prior to the signing of the agreement, asylum claims could only be heard on Canadian soil at official ports of entry, resulting in irregular immigration claims.

However, Trudeau and Joe Biden expanded the STCA to include all border crossings, including those between ports of entry, in March 2023. The Canadian asylum system is now even more difficult for those who can’t get in because of this.

Although there have been a few well-known cases of people trying to enter the US from Canada, the population is still very small in comparison to the border between the US and Mexico.

US Customs and Border Protection documented just under 200 000 encounters with people who tried to enter the country illegally from Canada in the fiscal year 2024. Over 2.1 million encounters were recorded along the US-Mexico border during this time.

President Trump just contacted me in a good way. Canada is implementing our $1.3 billion border plan — reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. &nbsp, Nearly…

The STCA is viewed by the Canadian government as “an important tool” for assisting both Canada and the US in managing refugee claims.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s spokesperson stated in an email that “Canada and the US continue to benefit from the STCA in managing asylum claims at our shared border.”

The spokesperson stated that “the Government of Canada strongly discourages irregular border crossings.”

“They are illegal, risky and dangerous. As part of our long-term, collaborative efforts and shared goals to keep our communities safe, we are continuing to work with our US counterparts to stop border crossings that are unlawful northbound and southbound.

However, rights advocates claimed that the agreement only encourages desperate asylum seekers to take riskier routes in search of safety because it does not stop illegal immigration.

The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), a group that is contesting the STCA in court, is co-executive director of Gauri Sreenivasan. The organization has for years argued that asylum seekers should not be in the US.

“Certainly, the series of executive orders and the actions that we are now seeing President Trump make]have made] the US dangerously more unsafe for those seeking protections”, Sreenivasan told Al Jazeera.

The STCA is in conflict with the rights to life, liberty, and security as well as the equal protection that are embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to CCR, Amnesty International Canada, and the Canadian Council of Churches.

In a 2023 decision, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled on the right to life argument, stating that the STCA contained sufficient safety measures to exempt people who might be in danger if they are returned.

However, the justices reversed the case to a lower federal court to decide whether or not the equal protection argument was valid. A hearing is expected this year, but no date has been set, Sreenivasan said.

However, she continued, Canada should wait for the courts to decide on the STCA.

According to Sreenivasan, “they should be able to assess what is happening right now under the series of]Trump] executive orders” and clearly identify that the US’s current conditions are no longer secure and that the US has no effective right to asylum.

‘ What do we stand for? ‘

Anne Dutton, senior counsel at the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS) at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, said it’s “a very concerning time for asylum” in the US.

She told Al Jazeera, “It’s obvious that the Trump administration has entered with an agenda of restricting rights and protections for migrants and asylum seekers.”

One of the plaintiffs in this week’s lawsuit is CGRS, which opposes the Trump administration’s effective ban on asylum claims. On January 20, the Republican president’s first day of office, one of his executive orders laid out the ban.

The order is being used “to shut the southern border to all migrants, including asylum seekers”, Dutton told Al Jazeera. It’s actually preventing asylum seekers from applying for it right away.

In light of that, Dutton also expressed doubt about the safety of asylum seekers in the US.

She remarked, “The fact that the US is completely removing access to the asylum process for people in need of protection is a very concerning sign that the United States is not actually the safe haven that the Safe Third Country Agreement imagines it to be,” she continued.

She added that there are also concerns that the Trump administration might impose stricter protections and restrictions on residents of the US.

According to Dutton, “we’ve just seen an overall increase in hostility toward asylum seekers and upholding our obligations to provide protection to those who need refuge.”

The second Trump administration, in my opinion, will not only keep that trajectory, but it will only make it worse.

Ayotte at Bridges Not Borders in Canada claimed that lawmakers north of the border have also used immigration as “political football” and that this is unlikely to change before the federal elections this year.

She did, however, claim that both Canadian politicians and voters are in for a moment.

“As Canadians we have to ask ourselves, do we want to be compliant with this? How far would we go to get in line with a racist and a bully who doesn’t care about people’s lives? she said, referring to Trump.