I don't have answers but I'm adding nuance and complication to your article.
There may not be a genocide of white farmers, but there's a disproportional number of them (and their black staff) getting killed. The Bela Act will discriminate against Afrikaners.
The Afrikaner organisation called Afriforum did spur the USA, but does excellent community work.
Black tribal leaders have admired and want to mimic White Orania's model (and Orania is but a spot in size compared to Black Zululand).
The conservative and mostly Afrikaans FF+ may now have hit a wobble with the Whitish 'Liberal DA' (which controls the Western Cape), but have been working with them for a long time.
The DA (which is pro-US Democrats and Israel, and funded by Germany, and with a leader whose root is in George Soros' foundation), got a boost when the Apartheid Government's National Party members joined them. One of the most powerful people in the party was a commander in the Apartheid military.
The 'communist' ANC, 'radical blacks first' EFF, Afriforum, the FF+ and the secessionists were happy to allow DA corruption which makes sense when most became a unigovernment. The EFF were left out because fake opposition bad boys weren't needed with the formation of the MK Party under ex-President Jacob Zuma (and now all but one of the EFF's famous leaders have joined MK).
Additionally, it was the DA who were getting the USA to interfere with our 2024 elections and, if anything, the USA won our elections which makes the executive order either self-defeating or more about more leverage in return for something not mentioned.
Who controls South Africa is not what's on the surface, and we've long been the victim of deeply penetrating marketing schemes pretending to be a war of ideologies. There is racism, but related issues are murky e.g., black economic empowerment isn't about black economic empowerment, but rather about furthering inequality and bribing a President.
Regarding the secessionists, their intentions are more formulated at this website and, in relation to your article, this particular clarion call for the USA to partition South Africa in return for minerals - https://www.capeindependent.com/article/the-road-to-partition
But maybe I should have begun with Trump knows shit, and transparency would begin with who composes his directives.
Commenting as an American, I've sympathized with land reform to some extent, going back prior to 1994. I think 40-45% of white farmland should be reallocated for land reform purposes.
Would you consider a **reverse lottery** to be a more-or-less fair arrangement for redistribution? Every property could be assigned a ticket. Large farms could, perhaps, be parceled into segments roughly equal in area. An independent third party could even be assigned to perform the actual lottery and draw random tickets. Maybe representatives of the Argentine, or the Japanese, Embassy (??).
Owners who "win" the reverse lottery would forfeit some, or all, of their farmland. Those who "lose" could retain their property. For the sake of fairness, if the owner of a large farm forfeited one or more portions of his property, he / she could be allowed the option of exchanging forfeited internal portions for equal areas along the external boundaries of the property.
For what it is worth. If South Africa wants to engage the US diplomatically, then right now might not be the best time for this proposal. In case of a further decline in relations, or after the 2028 Presidential Election, then conditions might be more suitable for this proposal.
Actually, I disagree. The land issue is an emotive one, which sees black South Africans-- who have no desire to go into the agricultural sector-- requesting land reforms on the basis of addressing the historic injustice of land confiscations during both British colonial rule and subsequent Afrikaner-dominated apartheid rule.
-
Is it in the interest of the South African state to break up white-run large commercial farms that constitute the agricultural sector of the national economy and parcel them out as small units of land to blacks who would only use it for small-scale subsistence farming??
-
I think we know what the logical answer is. There is a good reason why ANC has been reluctant for decades to engage seriously with this matter. Looking at the disastrous Zimbabwe situation, the increasingly business-minded ANC doesn't want to upset the apple cart, but cannot bring itself to tell its emotional black voters that it cannot engage in action that will destroy the economy.
-
As an aside, it is well known that when he was President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki secretly advised his Zimbabwean counterpart, Robert Mugabe, not to carry out the Zimbabwean land reforms. Mugabe ignored the advice. As Thabo Mbeki predicted, the Zimbabwean land reforms was a disaster that got worsened by a massive US sanctions package imposed by the belligerent Bush Administration (2001-2009). Why did Mbeki give his advice in secret? Well, if he had done it out in the open, many black ANC voters within South Africa would have been up in arms. That is because many ANC voters already suspect that their beloved political party has no real interest in implementing land reforms within South Africa despite the promises and political rhetoric.
-
Now, circling back to the South African land reforms issue, there are complications. One complication is the fact that some commercial farmlands have exchanged hands several times since the end of the apartheid regime in 1994. There are cases where Person X (not necessarily white)--- with no connection whatsoever to colonial-era and apartheid-era land confiscations--- bought a commercial farm in year 1998 from a family that did indeed benefit from such land confiscations. Then in year 2012, Person X sells the farm to Person Y who also had no connection whatsoever to the original colonial-era and apartheid-era land confiscations. In such complex cases, a fair settlement of the land issue by the South African government becomes onerous as the current farm owner (Person Y) had actually bought the land with his own money.
-
My own proposal is simple. Levy a special tax on commercial farmers. Use the tax money collected from commercial farmers to financially compensate those black families that historically lost their lands to white settlers due to the action of British colonial authorities or the subsequent apartheid regime imposed by Afrikaners.
-
In fact, my proposal is not as radical as it seems. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, there has been a mechanism in place for black Africans to file claims on lands that were stolen from them either by British colonial authorities or the succeeding Afrikaner-run apartheid regime. In 92 percent of the settled land restitution cases, the blacks involved accepted financial compensation rather than a request the return of lands that could only be used for large-scale farming to ensure that the country's agricultural sector remained unharmed . If this statistic is anything to go by, it indicates that many blacks agitating for land restitution to correct historical wrongs have no real interest in becoming commercial farmers.
-
Only political cowardice prevents the ANC from persuading its voters to accept financial compensation in the interest of not disrupting the agricultural sector of their country's economy.
-
Funnily enough, the implementation of the disastrous land expropriations by the Mugabe regime has finally killed similar national debate over land reforms inside neighbouring Zimbabwe. In fact, Zimbabwean courts and the current Zimbabwean government have been busy handing back confiscated farmland back to white owners without any outcry from the black majority in the country. In Zimbabwe, there is barely a talk about how there needs to be land reforms to correct historical injustice because every Zimbabwean got to witness its disastrous consequences of trying to correct that injustice.
The beginning is to give government-owned land as compensation. Our country doesn't save, so my fear is that it will be sold at a discount, the money spent and inequality continue.
I don't believe Apartheid ended, or rather that it was simply a tool to make money, and the same people kept their assets and continued to make money in the post-Apartheid South Africa because democracy is an easy transaction to arrange.
Oppenheimer made his money from our racist country, and then became friends with Mandela e.g., as expressed earlier, nothing is what it seems.
Poetic justice if the white farmers implode because of sanctions by the orange rapists who only wants Norwegian and apartheidists migrants.
https://youtu.be/kqNHGXNp5m4
Nothing is what it seems.
What's the USA's goal for South Africa?
South Africans don't even know who controls them.
I don't have answers but I'm adding nuance and complication to your article.
There may not be a genocide of white farmers, but there's a disproportional number of them (and their black staff) getting killed. The Bela Act will discriminate against Afrikaners.
The Afrikaner organisation called Afriforum did spur the USA, but does excellent community work.
Black tribal leaders have admired and want to mimic White Orania's model (and Orania is but a spot in size compared to Black Zululand).
The conservative and mostly Afrikaans FF+ may now have hit a wobble with the Whitish 'Liberal DA' (which controls the Western Cape), but have been working with them for a long time.
The DA (which is pro-US Democrats and Israel, and funded by Germany, and with a leader whose root is in George Soros' foundation), got a boost when the Apartheid Government's National Party members joined them. One of the most powerful people in the party was a commander in the Apartheid military.
The 'communist' ANC, 'radical blacks first' EFF, Afriforum, the FF+ and the secessionists were happy to allow DA corruption which makes sense when most became a unigovernment. The EFF were left out because fake opposition bad boys weren't needed with the formation of the MK Party under ex-President Jacob Zuma (and now all but one of the EFF's famous leaders have joined MK).
Additionally, it was the DA who were getting the USA to interfere with our 2024 elections and, if anything, the USA won our elections which makes the executive order either self-defeating or more about more leverage in return for something not mentioned.
Who controls South Africa is not what's on the surface, and we've long been the victim of deeply penetrating marketing schemes pretending to be a war of ideologies. There is racism, but related issues are murky e.g., black economic empowerment isn't about black economic empowerment, but rather about furthering inequality and bribing a President.
Regarding the secessionists, their intentions are more formulated at this website and, in relation to your article, this particular clarion call for the USA to partition South Africa in return for minerals - https://www.capeindependent.com/article/the-road-to-partition
But maybe I should have begun with Trump knows shit, and transparency would begin with who composes his directives.
Commenting as an American, I've sympathized with land reform to some extent, going back prior to 1994. I think 40-45% of white farmland should be reallocated for land reform purposes.
Would you consider a **reverse lottery** to be a more-or-less fair arrangement for redistribution? Every property could be assigned a ticket. Large farms could, perhaps, be parceled into segments roughly equal in area. An independent third party could even be assigned to perform the actual lottery and draw random tickets. Maybe representatives of the Argentine, or the Japanese, Embassy (??).
Owners who "win" the reverse lottery would forfeit some, or all, of their farmland. Those who "lose" could retain their property. For the sake of fairness, if the owner of a large farm forfeited one or more portions of his property, he / she could be allowed the option of exchanging forfeited internal portions for equal areas along the external boundaries of the property.
For what it is worth. If South Africa wants to engage the US diplomatically, then right now might not be the best time for this proposal. In case of a further decline in relations, or after the 2028 Presidential Election, then conditions might be more suitable for this proposal.
Actually, I disagree. The land issue is an emotive one, which sees black South Africans-- who have no desire to go into the agricultural sector-- requesting land reforms on the basis of addressing the historic injustice of land confiscations during both British colonial rule and subsequent Afrikaner-dominated apartheid rule.
-
Is it in the interest of the South African state to break up white-run large commercial farms that constitute the agricultural sector of the national economy and parcel them out as small units of land to blacks who would only use it for small-scale subsistence farming??
-
I think we know what the logical answer is. There is a good reason why ANC has been reluctant for decades to engage seriously with this matter. Looking at the disastrous Zimbabwe situation, the increasingly business-minded ANC doesn't want to upset the apple cart, but cannot bring itself to tell its emotional black voters that it cannot engage in action that will destroy the economy.
-
As an aside, it is well known that when he was President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki secretly advised his Zimbabwean counterpart, Robert Mugabe, not to carry out the Zimbabwean land reforms. Mugabe ignored the advice. As Thabo Mbeki predicted, the Zimbabwean land reforms was a disaster that got worsened by a massive US sanctions package imposed by the belligerent Bush Administration (2001-2009). Why did Mbeki give his advice in secret? Well, if he had done it out in the open, many black ANC voters within South Africa would have been up in arms. That is because many ANC voters already suspect that their beloved political party has no real interest in implementing land reforms within South Africa despite the promises and political rhetoric.
-
Now, circling back to the South African land reforms issue, there are complications. One complication is the fact that some commercial farmlands have exchanged hands several times since the end of the apartheid regime in 1994. There are cases where Person X (not necessarily white)--- with no connection whatsoever to colonial-era and apartheid-era land confiscations--- bought a commercial farm in year 1998 from a family that did indeed benefit from such land confiscations. Then in year 2012, Person X sells the farm to Person Y who also had no connection whatsoever to the original colonial-era and apartheid-era land confiscations. In such complex cases, a fair settlement of the land issue by the South African government becomes onerous as the current farm owner (Person Y) had actually bought the land with his own money.
-
My own proposal is simple. Levy a special tax on commercial farmers. Use the tax money collected from commercial farmers to financially compensate those black families that historically lost their lands to white settlers due to the action of British colonial authorities or the subsequent apartheid regime imposed by Afrikaners.
-
In fact, my proposal is not as radical as it seems. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, there has been a mechanism in place for black Africans to file claims on lands that were stolen from them either by British colonial authorities or the succeeding Afrikaner-run apartheid regime. In 92 percent of the settled land restitution cases, the blacks involved accepted financial compensation rather than a request the return of lands that could only be used for large-scale farming to ensure that the country's agricultural sector remained unharmed . If this statistic is anything to go by, it indicates that many blacks agitating for land restitution to correct historical wrongs have no real interest in becoming commercial farmers.
-
Only political cowardice prevents the ANC from persuading its voters to accept financial compensation in the interest of not disrupting the agricultural sector of their country's economy.
-
Funnily enough, the implementation of the disastrous land expropriations by the Mugabe regime has finally killed similar national debate over land reforms inside neighbouring Zimbabwe. In fact, Zimbabwean courts and the current Zimbabwean government have been busy handing back confiscated farmland back to white owners without any outcry from the black majority in the country. In Zimbabwe, there is barely a talk about how there needs to be land reforms to correct historical injustice because every Zimbabwean got to witness its disastrous consequences of trying to correct that injustice.
The beginning is to give government-owned land as compensation. Our country doesn't save, so my fear is that it will be sold at a discount, the money spent and inequality continue.
I don't believe Apartheid ended, or rather that it was simply a tool to make money, and the same people kept their assets and continued to make money in the post-Apartheid South Africa because democracy is an easy transaction to arrange.
Oppenheimer made his money from our racist country, and then became friends with Mandela e.g., as expressed earlier, nothing is what it seems.
Good to have the contribution of an actual South African.
White citizens don't count, but white oligarchs do - ha ha.
Be well, Chima.