Trump’s promise to investigate EWC

South Africa must not take lightly the negative attention it has drawn to itself from the world, and from the United States in particular, as a result of the Expropriation Bill being signed into law, says the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

Misleading though it may have been, US President Donald Trump’s statement on social media platform Truth Social indicates that the policy choices of the South African government are being followed from across the Atlantic, and will likely have consequences, not least – but not only – in terms of US aid.

The IRR has long warned of the risk of antagonising key trading partners, or putting these relationships at risk, by stubbornly pressing ahead with policy that is hostile to property rights or the freedoms on which trade and investment – and the growth and jobs they generate – depend.

This is not the first time that Trump has expressed an opinion about South Africa. He said in 2018, when public consultations were ongoing around amending the property clause of the Constitution, that he would be monitoring “land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large-scale killing of farmers”.

This was followed in 2020 by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s statement at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in which he described expropriation without compensation as detrimental to the economy and to the South African people.

Says IRR Campaign Manager Makone Maja: “The US President is ill-advised insofar as he claims that land is currently being seized by the government, a narrative that must be corrected. However, while land is not actively being expropriated at present – and the law is not exclusively applicable to white property owners − the sweeping powers conferred by the Expropriation Act afford the state the ability to do so in future. In other words, the Act is a human rights violation in the making.”

Maja states that the government has seemed oblivious to the IRR’s warnings against risking economic ties with critical trading partners such as the United States, which is South Africa’s second largest trading partner.

“South Africa is also the biggest non-crude oil beneficiary of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act with a total cumulative value of $55.6 billion, which is nearly double that of the rest of the top five countries combined.”

The Expropriation Act could see South Africa breach one of the key AGOA criteria, which is the protection of property rights. Section 104 of the AGOA Act provides that the US President may authorise AGOA participation of a country if it is determined that the country “protects private property rights” and “minimises government interference in the economy through measures such as…government ownership of economic assets.”

Says Maja: “The Expropriation Act does violate these requirements. It makes it especially easier for the state to amass more property than it already has, instead of ensuring that title deeds are transferred at a greater rate, so that the millions of citizens who are economically marginalised can finally become property owners. This in itself is a travesty.

“South Africa needs growth and jobs, both of which the Expropriation Act threatens. Anything that stands in the way of ending poverty and ensuring that the country prospers economically, such as the Expropriation Act, should be abandoned.”

Maja concludes that Trump’s distortion of key facts relating to the policy is not helpful, as the Expropriation Act warrants strenuous opposition based on facts.

Live Free. Prosper.