south

Pretoria says the visit is to ‘reset’ ties with Washington, after the US welcomed dozens of white Afrikaners as refugees.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa will meet United States President Donald Trump at the White House next week in an attempt to “reset” ties between the two countries, Pretoria has said.

The reported visit comes after the US welcomed dozens of white Afrikaners as refugees this week, following widely discredited allegations made by Trump that “genocide” is being committed against white farmers in the majority-Black country.

“President Ramaphosa will meet with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC to discuss bilateral, regional and global issues of interest,” South Africa’s presidency said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The president’s visit to the US provides a platform to reset the strategic relationship between the two countries,” it added, saying the trip will take place from Monday to Thursday and the two leaders will meet on Wednesday.

The White House had no immediate comment on the meeting, which would be Trump’s first with the leader of an African nation since he returned to office in January.

Relations between Pretoria and Washington have soured significantly since Trump returned to the White House.

Trump has criticised Ramaphosa’s government on multiple fronts. In February, he issued an executive order cutting all US funding to South Africa, citing disapproval of its land reform policy and its genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against US ally Israel.

‘Wrong end of the stick’

Trump’s order also offered to take in and resettle people from the minority Afrikaner community, whom he alleges are being persecuted and killed because of their race – claims that have been disproven by experts and South Africa’s government.

Afrikaners are descendants of mainly Dutch colonisers who led the apartheid regime for nearly five decades.

Pretoria maintains there is no evidence of persecution of white people in the country and Ramaphosa has said the US government “has got the wrong end of the stick”, as South Africa suffers overall with the problem of violent crime, regardless of race.

The US’s criticism also appears to focus on South Africa’s affirmative action laws that advance opportunities for the majority-Black population, who were oppressed and disenfranchised under apartheid.

A new land expropriation law gives the government power to take land in the public interest without compensation in exceptional circumstances. Although Pretoria says the law is not a confiscation tool and refers to unused land that can be redistributed for the public good, some Afrikaner groups say it could allow their land to be redistributed to some of the country’s Black majority.

According to data, white people, who make up about 7 percent of South Africa’s population, own more than 70 percent of the land and occupy most top management positions in the country.

Ramaphosa has spoken repeatedly of his desire to engage with Trump diplomatically and improve the relationship between the two countries.

The US is South Africa’s second-largest bilateral trading partner after China.

UNIFIL says incident first of its kind since Israel and Lebanese-armed group Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire last November.

Direct fire from the Israeli military hit the perimeter of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s (UNIFIL) peacekeeping positions in south Lebanon, the mission said.

In a statement on Wednesday, UNIFIL added that the incident on Tuesday was the first of its kind since Israel and Lebanese-armed group Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire last November.

UNIFIL said one of its bases in the village of Kfarchouba in southern Lebanon was hit. There was no immediate comment from the Israeli army.

“In recent days, UNIFIL has also observed other aggressive behaviour by the [Israeli military] towards peacekeepers performing operational activities in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1701,” it said in a post on X, referring to a UN resolution originally adopted in 2006 to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

UNIFIL is concerned by the recent aggressive posture of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) involving UNIFIL personnel and assets near the Blue Line, including yesterday’s incident in which a direct fire hit the perimeter of a UNIFIL position south of the village of Kfar Shouba.

— UNIFIL (@UNIFIL_) May 14, 2025

Tuesday’s incident occurred near the Blue Line, a UN-mapped demarcation separating Lebanon from Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, it added.

Any unauthorised crossing of the Blue Line by land or by air from any side constitutes a violation of Security Council Resolution 1701.

UNIFIL cited other alleged incidents it blamed on the Israeli army, including being targeted by lasers while it was performing a patrol with the Lebanese army in the southern border town of Maroun al-Ras on Tuesday.

“UNIFIL protests all such and we continue to remind all actors of their responsibility to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property and to respect the inviolability of UN assets and premises at all times,” it added.

Volatile ceasefire

Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s military said it killed a Hezbollah fighter in a strike on southern Lebanon.

“Earlier today [Wednesday], the [Israeli military] struck in the area of Qaaqaaiyet El Jisr in southern Lebanon, eliminating a Hezbollah terrorist who held the position of the commander of the Qabrikha area within the Hezbollah terrorist organisation,” a military statement said.

The November ceasefire ended a conflict in which Israel attacked Lebanon by air and invaded the country, devastating vast swaths of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah’s longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed in an Israeli attack in September.

The ceasefire terms require that neither Hezbollah nor any other armed group have weapons in areas near the border south of the Litani River, which flows into the Mediterranean some 20km (12 miles) north of the Israeli border.

They require Israel to withdraw troops from the south and the Lebanese army to deploy into the border region.

Although the truce officially ended hostilities, sporadic cross-border attacks have continued. Israel has regularly broken the truce and carried out air raids across southern Lebanon, also hitting neighbourhoods in Beirut’s southern suburbs, where Hezbollah retains strong support.

Israel still occupies five strategic hilltops along the border. While rockets have been fired into Israel from Lebanese territory on two separate occasions, Hezbollah has denied involvement.

Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem, has maintained that the group no longer keeps weapons in the border zone, in accordance with the truce.

The military confrontation India and Pakistan has ended. At least for now, there is no noticeable escalation, exchanges of fire, or use of artillery on the line of contact. The day before, President Donald Trump announced that India and Pakistan, with the mediation of the United States, had agreed to an immediate and complete ceasefire. “After a long night of negotiations, mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a complete and immediate ceasefire,” Donald Trump said. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had recently called both Pakistani and Indian officials, offering to mediate the talks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the British Foreign Secretary played a key role in reaching the ceasefire agreement. Secretary Rubio thanked the two prime ministers, Narendra Modi and Shahbaz Sharif, for their “statesmanship in choosing the path of peace.” According to the Indian Foreign Ministry, Pakistan’s chief of military operations called his Indian counterpart, and both sides agreed to cease air, land, and sea strikes.

However, it appears that the parties did not plan for a large-scale armed conflict. Donald Trump’s statements look more like an attempt to portray himself as a peacemaker. And Pakistan’s statements about the role of the British show London’s obvious support for Islamabad. Both India and Pakistan are huge countries. However, the balance of power in the region has been established and will be entrenched for many years to come. And within this balance, India is the largest, richest, and most powerful regional hegemon in South Asia. India is six times larger, its population is approaching 1.5 billion people (first place in the world), while Pakistan’s population is about 250 million (fifth place). India is significantly richer: by GDP – about ten times (over 17 trillion dollars, or 8.5% of world GDP versus 1.67 trillion, or 0.8% of world GDP for Pakistan); by GDP per capita – almost twice (12 thousand dollars versus 7 thousand for Pakistan).

India is among the top five world leaders in military spending, with more than 86 billion dollars in 2024, while for Pakistan, this figure is about 10 billion dollars. Moreover, India is only increasing its military spending, while for Pakistan, it fell by 5% in 2024. India and Pakistan have fought three times: in 1947-1948, 1965, and 1971. All these conflicts ended in victories for Delhi. India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, an operation called “Smiling Buddha”. Pakistan received nuclear weapons in 1998. India, under Narendra Modi rule, given its increased potential, strives to play a global role and claims the role of a great power. Pakistan is a power on a completely different scale.

However, nuclear weapons have not stopped the conflict between the two neighboring countries. But it is precisely they that have so far prevented a major war from breaking out in the region. Thus, it is possible to predict with a high degree of probability the results of any large-scale conflict between the two countries. At the same time, if the presence of nuclear weapons and different levels of economic development and military potential reduce the possibility of a large-scale conflict, tension on the border is quite possible and even inevitable.

One of the signs of the likelihood of a protracted confrontation is the extremely militant mood in the societies of both countries. “Justice strikes,” declared an editorial in one of India’s leading English-language newspapers, praising the “sharp” and “resolute” response to the killing of 26 Hindus. On May 10, the conflict between the two nuclear powers reached a new level when the Pakistani government announced a major military operation against India. Explosions were heard in northern India on the evening of May 9. India then launched missile strikes on three Pakistani air bases near Rawalpindi – Nur Khan, Murid and Shorkot. As the conflict escalated along the Line of Contact in Jammu and Kashmir and on the Indo-Pakistan international border, Pakistan’s armed forces made heavy use of some 300-400 drones, manufactured and supplied by Turkey. Of the nearly 400 drones sent by Pakistan, “Indian armed forces shot down a few of these drones through kinetic and non-kinetic means,” the government said. Initial evidence from the drone debris indicates that they were from Turkey’s Asisguard Songar. Turkey did not@ condemn the terror attack on civilians in Jammu and Kashmir or offer condolences to the families of Hindu tourists killed by the terrorists, and has fully supported Pakistan.

The growing alliance between Turkey and Pakistan could become a major factor in the regional balance. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed gratitude to Turkey for its “unwavering support” for Kashmir. Immediately after the Pahalgam attack, Turkey reportedly sent a huge amount of military equipment to Pakistan to help Islamabad stockpile against any Indian action. Six Turkish warplanes were reported to have arrived in Pakistan, allegedly carrying Turkish-made weapons and military equipment – ​​reports that were denied by Ankara. Turkey could not deny the presence of its C-130 warplane, as it was detected by global air surveillance systems, but denied that any weapons had been sent.

On May 7, India launched a military operation called Operation Sindoor against, as Delhi said, “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan in response to the attack. Pakistan responded by striking targets in India and claims to have shot down several Indian fighter jets. On April 22, Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists killed 26 Hindu tourists in the town of Pahalgam, in the Indian-administered region of Jammu and Kashmir. India called its military operation Operation Sindoor, a word referring to the red powder that married Hindu women traditionally apply to their faces. The name refers to the women who were left widowed after the Pahalgam attack.

At midnight on 6th April 2025, Indian forces launched attacks on multiple locations in Pakistan, including Shakargarh, Sialkot, Muridke, Bahawalpur, Kotli, and the Muzaffarabad area of Punjab and the Pakistani part of Kashmir, using standoff precision-guided munitions. The attacks occurred in the Muslims’ religious places, hydropower infrastructure, and commercial air routes, violating international law and human norms alike, and so far 26 civilian deaths have been reported. India has also challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and violated the international border in the darkness of night. India and Pakistan are the archrival two nuclear weapons states of the South Asia region. However, India’s attack indicates the aggressive posture of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s regime to target the unarmed civilian and innocent children. This is not merely a border skirmish; it is a calculated escalation with far-reaching strategic consequences for the entire South Asian region. Various media reports highlighted that in retaliation and for the defense of the state, Pakistani armed forces also hit all of the Indian fighter jets and drones from their own territory with PL-15.

The tension between India and Pakistan escalated when, on April 22, 2025, terror shattered the peace of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in Indian-administered Kashmir (IOJK) known as “Mini Switzerland.” Armed gunmen opened fire on civilians, resulting in 26 casualties. Instead of allowing a transparent investigation to determine the perpetrators, India hastily blamed Pakistan, offering no concrete evidence to back its claim. It was India’s security failure; before putting the finger on Pakistan, India needs to have a neutral investigation of the incident and should provide evidence of linkages of the Pakistani state to these attacks. However, India’s recent attack on Pakistan’s territory and targeting civilian population indicates that the Pahalgam attack was an orchestrated provocation. India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, launched this attack not in defense but for political theater—under the cover of night, on civilian infrastructure, without evidence or provocation. This isn’t an act of strength—it’s a display of desperation. And if this escalates, it won’t just make headlines; it will be etched in history as the moment ego led us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.

Pakistan has concluded the meeting of the National Security Committee under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and it has been decided that in consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard. India’s missile strikes inside Pakistan were reckless, unprovoked, and a clear violation of international law. India’s recent attacks have put the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region in serious jeopardy. At the moment the strikes occurred, 57 international commercial flights, including those operated by major Gulf and European airlines, were either within or approaching Pakistani airspace. This reckless action posed a direct danger to civilian air traffic, placing thousands of innocent lives at risk. It goes beyond a hostile move against Pakistan; it represents a clear threat to global peace and security. By heightening tensions in a nuclear-armed region, India has shown a disturbing disregard for international laws, aviation safety, and the value of human life.

By targeting civilian airspace and deliberately provoking conflict, India has revealed itself as a reckless and irresponsible actor on the global stage. Its actions undermine regional stability and pose a serious threat to international peace. The international community must look beyond India’s carefully crafted narratives and recognize the true source of aggression. This is a defining moment for global powers to uphold justice, demand accountability, and prevent further escalation. Without decisive diplomatic intervention, India’s adventurism could plunge South Asia and potentially the wider world into a dangerous and prolonged conflict. Several nations have already voiced serious concerns; Azerbaijan condemned the military strikes on Pakistan and urged restraint and dialogue; Turkey, through Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, expressed strong solidarity with Pakistan against India’s unprovoked aggression; and China described India’s military action as “regrettable,” calling for de-escalation and expressing concern over the unfolding situation.

To prevent the escalation between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, the international community must play a role to bring them to the negotiation table. Both states need an immediate ceasefire to avoid civilian deaths and triggering nuclear risks; they must also halt the cross-border military activities and refrain from provocative statements. There is also an immediate need to establish a neutral and impartial investigation mechanism under the supervision of the United Nations to determine the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. There must be restoration of military-to-military and diplomatic communication channels for conflict management. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the UN Secretary-General must actively intervene by appointing a special envoy to mediate between the two sides. Key international actors such as China, Turkey, the United States, the EU, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should support de-escalation through diplomatic engagement and pressure for dialogue. Track two diplomacy is vital in the time of crisis and addresses the root cause of the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of Kashmiri people by granting them the right of self-determination.

Last but not least, both states need to realize that war is not the only solution, but it is a diplomatic failure to de-escalate the tension in the South Asian region. In a nuclearized region of South Asia, its consequences would be catastrophic not only for India and Pakistan but also for regional and global security. The world cannot afford another conflict zone. The international community must rise to the occasion, play an impartial mediating role, and help both nations choose peace over provocation and dialogue over destruction.

Authors: Darynaufal Mulyaman and Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani*

In June 2025, South Korea will prepare to hold elections, and there is a figure who is in the political spotlight, namely Lee Jae-myung. He is the leading candidate of the Democratic Party in South Korea and represents a new direction of pragmatic progressivism based on the socio-economic reality of society and not an idealistic and rhetorical one. His views on inter-Korean relations, foreign policy, and his approach to the United States and China reflect an effort to balance national identity with geopolitical realities. If you look back at history, in the history of politics in South Korea, there are two big names that show or define progressivism, namely Kim Dae-jung and Moon Jae-in.

Both figures have left a legacy through diplomacy and careful engagement with North Korea. However, Lee Jae-myung comes with a different approach; he still brings the spirit of peace, but the style he carries is a more populist, more grounded style, and his commitment to inter-Korean peace has not diminished. With the presence of Lee Jae-myung as a candidate, it signals a return to building engagement with North Korea. Lee Jae-myung offers more policies, such as conditional sanctions relief, which is linked to verifiable denuclearization, where sanctions will be eased if North Korea shows real and verified steps in the denuclearization process. What Lee Jae-myung is doing is completely different from Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” which is more based on trust and reconciliation without harsh conditions.

At the same time, however, his economic initiatives, such as reviving joint tourism projects, show continuity with the Moon Jae-in era with thawed relations and cultural diplomacy. Economic projects such as joint tourism, cultural exchange, and cross-border cooperation still remain part of Lee Jae-myung’s vision. He believes that economic stability and social interaction can be a stepping stone to broader peace. However, what sets Lee Jae-myung apart is his distinctive voice in the broader geopolitical discourse and the most prominent aspect of Lee Jae-myung’s foreign policy, namely his vision to make South Korea a strategically autonomous country.

He argued that South Korea should not choose between Washington and Beijing. In a world that is now polarized between the United States and China, Lee Jae-myung offers a pragmatic, non-aligned approach, not as a passive neutral, but as an active position to balance South Korea’s national interests amid the pressures of the world’s two major powers. This is a bold vision because instead of choosing one of the camps to approach, Lee Jae-myung is pushing for policies that can better allow South Korea to maintain close relations with the United States, especially in the defense-security fields, such as through military alliances and defense system development. And at the same time, it continues to establish relations and economic cooperation with China, which is South Korea’s main trading partner. So this is a bold vision because it recognizes the strategic needs of the U.S. alliance and the gravity of China’s economy.

This approach is very different from conservative governments that are more inclined towards the United States as a whole or even from previous liberal strategies that were sometimes too soft on China. In Lee Jae-myung’s vision, diplomacy is a tool to maintain sovereignty in decisions and not a tool to fully conform to the will of foreign powers. In the midst of new tensions and a global realignment, Lee Jae-myung’s candidacy provides him with a sobering reminder that diplomacy works best not when chasing headlines, but when building trust done slowly. With this approach, Lee can also strengthen South Korea’s position at the regional level, especially through East Asia initiatives that encourage collaboration between countries on energy, technology, and climate change issues. In terms of rich communication, when compared to Moon Jae-in, who tends to be calm and diplomatic, Lee Jae-myung has a more aggressive and approachable communication style than Moon Jae-in. Then, compared to Kim Dae-jung, Lee Jae-myung is more grounded in working-class reality than Kim Dae-jung. Although their communication styles are different, their ambition to bring peace and dignity to the Korean Peninsula is clearly in line with theirs.

Although the style and approach brought are new, the ambition is seen in line with Lee Jae-myung, who does not necessarily reject the legacy of his predecessors to create peace on the Korean peninsula. From Kim Dae-jung, he has inherited the spirit of peace and the recognition that the problems facing Korea cannot be solved by violence. And through Moon Jae-in, Lee Jae-myung continues his efforts to include elements of cultural engagement and economic diplomacy as a tool to build greater trust.

Lee Jae-myung has realized that the South Korean people today are no longer satisfied with symbolism in politics. The South Korean people want real results, both in domestic affairs and foreign relations, especially between the Koreas. Therefore, Lee Jae-myung learns from their weaknesses. The idealism that exists in Kim Dae-jung is often used by North Korea without good faith to repay trust. And Moon Jae-in’s approach, which tends to be too diplomatic, is often criticized for being too slow and not pressuring the opponent enough. So, seeing from this, Lee Jae-myung is more of an approach that can be evaluated and measured, such as verified denuclearization, cross-border economic projects with success indicators, and diplomacy that is open but full of calculations. Therefore, his vision is not idealism, but a steady and deliberate movement towards peace.

Amid the ongoing turmoil and tensions on the Korean peninsula, the trade war between the two great powers, and the rising nationalism in many countries, the presence of figures such as Lee Jae-myung provides a more grounded alternative. Lee Jae-myung is not an idealistic hero but a technocrat who understands the importance of strategy and public communication; this style has made him beloved by many young voters and the working class. Lee Jae-myung’s vision does not dream of instant peace or dramatic reunification, but Lee offers a peace built gradually through small steps and careful calculations and based on trust that is built and tested consistently.

It is a pragmatic progressivism that sees the reality of what is happening in society and remains faithful to the principle that progress is only possible if the small people become the center of determining the direction of policy. In this context, Lee placed the people at the center to determine the direction of policy and did not place the elites or elite-centric ones who often ignored the needs and voices of ordinary citizens. Because, according to Lee, to achieve peace and especially security, it is not only about weapon systems such as missiles or soldiers but also about jobs in border areas and ensuring price stability for the South Korean people so that with development that leads to the economy, stability will be created.

This is what finally made Lee Jae-myung think about more often voicing policies of wealth redistribution, reducing inequality in society, and protection for vulnerable groups as part of achieving diplomacy and national security strategies. Therefore, pragmatic Progressivism is not trapped by moral rhetoric but is faithful to the principle that progress can be achieved or is possible if the people become the center to determine the direction of policy. And with the pragmatic progressivism carried by Lee Jae-myung, he can bring together the spirit of healthy change with a political vision that is not only ideal but also capable of being implemented in the complex realities that occur in today’s world.

*Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani is a researcher assistant of CEO Research. Research interests are around security issues and foreign relations.

A group of white South Africans granted refugee status have arrived in the US. The Trump administration says white South Africans suffer oppression. The welcome for white South Africans contrasts with an aggressive deportation policy for other ethnic groups.

SEOUL, May 13 (UPI) — Kim Moon-soo, the candidate from the conservative People Power Party in next month’s snap presidential election, said Tuesday that the party was not considering expelling impeached former President Yoon Suk Yeol.

“Whether former President Yoon decides to leave the party is entirely up to him,” Kim told reporters during a campaign stop in the southeastern city of Daegu.

“It’s not right for our party to tell a president to leave or not,” Kim said. “If we believe that Yoon did something wrong and demand that he leave, then the party shares responsibility too.”

Campaigning for the June 3 election opened Monday, with the PPP’s Kim set to face off against Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung, who leads by a sizable margin in opinion polls.

The race comes after months of turmoil following Yoon’s shocking martial law declaration and impeachment in December. He was finally removed from office last month by Seoul’s Constitutional Court, but the lengthy process deepened long-simmering political divisions in the country.

While some PPP primary candidates called for distancing the party from Yoon, Kim maintained his support for the president under whom he served as labor minister.

The 73-year-old was the sole cabinet member who refused to apologize for Yoon’s martial law attempt in a session at the National Assembly and won the strong backing of hardline loyalists who opposed impeachment.

On Monday, Kim offered his first public apology for the “suffering” caused by martial law.

“The public has had a difficult time since the martial law attempt,” Kim told broadcaster Channel A News. “The economy and domestic politics are difficult right now and so are exports and diplomacy.”

Calling it “one of the most extreme measures,” Kim said he did not attend the cabinet meeting where martial law was declared and would not have supported it at the time.

“If I become president in the future, I will not use martial law,” he said. “I will complete democracy through dialogue, persuasion and patience to resolve any issues between the ruling and opposition parties.”

Kim won the PPP nomination on May 3, but then faced a late push by party leadership to replace him with former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who some saw as a less polarizing figure with a better chance of defeating Lee. An all-member meeting on Saturday finally confirmed Kim as their candidate.

The Democratic Party’s Lee, who lost to Yoon in the 2022 presidential election by a razor-thin margin, has also faced barriers to his second bid for the presidency. He is facing a retrial on an election law violation charge that could have threatened his eligibility, but the Seoul High Court last week postponed a hearing until after the election.

May 12 (UPI) — The first set of 49 White South African “Afrikaners” granted refugee status by President Donald Trump arrived in the United States on Monday.

The group departed Johannesburg on Sunday night on a private flight paid for by the U.S. government.

They arrived Monday in Washington at Dulles airport before being expatriated to multiple states, including Texas, Minnesota, Nevada and Idaho, where they will be on a pathway to U.S. citizenship and eligible for government benefits.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau welcomed the first group of Afrikaners, the State Department said.

“This tremendous accomplishment, at the direction of Secretary Rubio, responds to President Trump’s call to prioritize U.S. refugee resettlement of this vulnerable group facing unjust racial discrimination,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

“No one should have to fear having their property seized without compensation or becoming the victim of violent attacks because of their ethnicity.”

Trump threatened in February to cut all U.S. funding to South Africa seemingly over its land expropriation law, which allows local, provincial and national authorities to confiscate land if it is in the public interest and in few specific cases without compensation.

The American president has claimed without evidence that South Africa is taking land from White Afrikaners, who Trump went on to claim were victims of “racial discrimination” and “large-scale killings.”

“Your case manager will pick you up from the airport and take you to housing that they have arranged for you,” read a document in part for the arriving South Africans. “This housing may be temporary (like a hotel) while a local organization helps you identify more long-term housing,” it added.

According to the South African government, it has not expropriated any land.

On Monday, South Africa Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said “there is no persecution of White Afrikaner South Africans,” adding how police reports debunked Trump’s false assertion.

The law states property cannot be expropriated arbitrarily and can only be seized if an agreement with the owner cannot be reached, subject to “just and equitable compensation” being paid.

Meanwhile, South Africa’s government said the Afrikaners, who are largely descended from Dutch settlers from the Netherlands in western Europe, wouldn’t be stopped from going, “albeit under a false narrative.”

“You are expected to support yourself quickly in finding work,” U.S. immigration documents said. “Adults are expected to accept entry-level employment in fields like warehousing, manufacturing, and customer service. You can work toward higher-level employment over time,” they were informed.

Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, has accused Ramaphosa’s government of “openly pushing for genocide of white people” despite any evidence.

In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S. Ebrahim Rasool for “race-baiting” following remarks accusing the United States of engaging in “supremacist” policies domestically and globally as South Africa has joined other nations in accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of committing acts of genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

“There’s no legal or any factual basis for the executive order sanctioning this action,” Vincent Magwenya, a spokesman for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, told NPR after learning of the granting of refugee status.

“None of the provisions of international law on the definition of refugees are applicable in this case,” he said, adding that South Africa’s sovereignty as a country was being “grossly undermined and violated” by the U.S. in a way that was “disturbing.”

According to the World Bank, inequality is among the world’s highest in South Africa, which had segregationist policies via “apartheid” that only began to fully unravel in the early 1990s.

A 2017 land audit report found that White South Africans own 72% of all farm and agricultural land, while Black South Africans owned 15%.

As of 2022, White South Africans account for less than 8% of its population of more than 63 million.

Scores of South African civilians, meanwhile, took to social media to post comedic memes and videos expressing doubt over the plight of the Afrikaners, joking how they will miss “privileged lives, domestic workers and beach holidays.”

Max du Preez, a white Afrikaner author, told BBC that the claims of persecution of white South Africans were a “total absurdity” and “based on nothing.”

A U.S. government employee, while not authorized to speak to reporters, told NPR what they considered this was “immigration fraud” after the Trump administration effectively suspended America’s refugee admission program.

Move comes as US administration largely closes refugee admissions from countries experiencing widespread violence and poverty.

A group of 59 white Afrikaners from South Africa has arrived in the United States as part of a refugee programme set up by the administration of US President Donald Trump to offer sanctuary from what Trump has depicted as racial discrimination against white people.

In a press conference on Monday, Trump mirrored the claims of a myth popular on the far right that white people in South Africa have been subjected to systematic violence since the end of white minority rule in that country.

“It’s a genocide that’s taking place,” Trump told reporters at the White House, a claim that has drawn criticism from government officials, news media, and even some Afrikaners themselves.

The move comes as the Trump administration blocks nearly all refugee admissions from non-white countries and leans into rhetoric about an “invasion” of immigrants from poor countries.

While people fleeing widespread violence and persecution in countries such as Haiti and Afghanistan have found a closed door, Al Jazeera correspondent Patty Culhane says that the Trump administration “has made a priority of getting these people [white South Africans] into the United States and paying for them to get here”.

‘Wrong end of the stick’

The South African government has called Trump’s claims that Afrikaners face persecution “completely false”, noting that they have remained among the richest and “most economically privileged” groups, even after the end of the apartheid system that upheld white minority control of the political, economic, and military resources of the country and denied basic rights to the Black South African majority.

South African whites still own about three-quarters of all private land in the country, and have about 20 times the wealth of the Black majority, according to the international academic journal the Review of Political Economy.

“We think that the American government has got the wrong end of the stick here, but we’ll continue talking to them,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, himself a veteran of the struggle to end apartheid, said on Monday.

Tensions between the Trump administration and the government of South Africa have been high, with the US expelling South Africa’s ambassador over previous criticism of Trump and at odds with the African nation’s prominent position in a case before the International Court of Justice accusing US ally Israel of genocide in Gaza.

The Trump administration offered in February to resettle Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch settlers in South Africa, stating that they face discrimination and violence against Afrikaner farmers.

“I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told the group of Afrikaners who arrived in the US on Monday. “We respect the long tradition of your people and what you have accomplished over the years.”

Bill Frelick, refugee policy director with Human Rights Watch, said the fast-track process of bringing Afrikaners into the US was unprecedented.

“These are people who were not living in refugee camps; who hadn’t fled their country. They were the group that was most associated with the oppression of the Black majority through apartheid,” said Frelick. “It’s not like these are among the most vulnerable refugees of the world.”

May 12 (UPI) — The first set of 49 w\White South African “Afrikaners” granted refugee status by President Donald Trump will arrive Monday to the United States.

The group departed Johannesburg on Sunday night on a private flight paid for by the U.S. government.

They will arrive Monday in Washington at Dulles Airport before being expatriated to multiple states, including Texas, Minnesota, Nevada and Idaho, where they will be on a pathway to U.S. citizenship and eligible for government benefits.

Trump threatened in February to cut all U.S. funding to South Africa seemingly over its land expropriation law, which allows local, provincial and national authorities to confiscate land if it is in the public interest and in few specific cases without compensation.

The American president has claimed without evidence that South Africa is taking land from White Afrikaners, who Trump went on to claim were victims of “racial discrimination” and “large-scale killings” of White South African farmers.

“Your case manager will pick you up from the airport and take you to housing that they have arranged for you,” read a document in part for the arriving South Africans. “This housing may be temporary (like a hotel) while a local organization helps you identify more long-term housing,” it added.

According to the South African government, it has not expropriated any land.

On Monday, South Africa Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said “there is no persecution of White Afrikaner South Africans,” adding how police reports debunked Trump’s false assertion.

The law states property cannot be expropriated arbitrarily and can only be seized if an agreement with the owner cannot be reached, subject to “just and equitable compensation” being paid.

Meanwhile, South Africa’s government said the Afrikaners, who are largely descended from Dutch settlers from the Netherlands in western Europe, wouldn’t be stopped from going, albeit under a false narrative.”

“You are expected to support yourself quickly in finding work,” U.S. immigration documents said. “Adults are expected to accept entry-level employment in fields like warehousing, manufacturing, and customer service. You can work toward higher-level employment over time,” they were informed.

Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, has accused Ramaphosa’s government of “openly pushing for genocide of white people” despite any evidence.

In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S. Ebrahim Rasool for “race-baiting” following remarks accusing the United States of engaging in “supremacist” policies domestically and globally as South Africa has joined other nations in accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of committing acts of genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

“There’s no legal or any factual basis for the executive order sanctioning this action,” Vincent Magwenya, a spokesman for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, told NPR after learning of the granting of refugee status.

“None of the provisions of international law on the definition of refugees are applicable in this case,” he said, adding that South Africa’s sovereignty as a country was being “grossly undermined and violated” by the U.S. in a way that was “disturbing.”

According to the World Bank, inequality is among the world’s highest in South Africa which had segregationist policies via “apartheid” that only began to fully unravel in the early 1990s.

A 2017 land audit report found that White South Africans own 72% of all farm and agricultural land, while Black South Africans owned 15%.

As of 2022, White South Africans account for less than 8% of its population of more than 63 million.

Scores of South African civilians, meanwhile, took to social media to post comedic memes and videos expressing doubt over the plight of the Afrikaners, joking how they will miss “privileged lives, domestic workers and beach holidays.”

Max du Preez, a white Afrikaner author, told BBC that the claims of persecution of white South Africans were a “total absurdity” and “based on nothing.”

A U.S. government employee, while not authorized to speak to reporters, told NPR what they considered this was “immigration fraud” after the Trump administration effectively suspended America’s refugee admission program.