The curtains of the White House were drawn closed this past week where a conversation between Former President Trump and the incumbent of South Africa, President Ramaphosa, unfolded. What started as a seemingly diplomatic endeavor soon escalated as Trump presented a video, featuring an extensive sequence of white crosses lining a rural road. The former President pointedly stated that these marked the graves of over a thousand white farmers, murdered on South African soil.
The narrative spun by Trump however, was fundamentally flawed. It was later revealed that the crosses depicted in the video were not marking the graves of tragically murdered farmers, but were indeed part of a protest staged regarding the death of two individuals on their farm, whose culprits had been arrested and duly prosecuted.
This misrepresentation however didn’t deter the Trump administration from making claims about an alleged genocide against white farmers in the South African region. The source of this erroneous belief was a staunchly conservative, right-wing Afrikaner group, landing far from the mainstream understanding of the situation.
The narrative spun by the Trump White House blatantly disregarded the realities of land ownership in South Africa. For context, the post-Apartheid South Africa has white citizens making up a mere 7% of its populace, yet they own a disproportionately large amount of commercial farming land.
The claims of land seizure from white South Africans by the government were equally inaccurate. Although a contentious law was passed in January permitting the potential expropriation of land without recompense in certain scenarios, no instances of actual land seizures were reported.
Despite these inaccuracies, the Trump administration rendered refugee status to 59 Afrikaner people last week, hinting that there could be more of such actions in the future. Similar narratives have been observed infiltrating the Trump administration from diverse fringe elements on the right wing.
One such narrative revolves around illustrious entrepreneur Elon Musk, who hails from South Africa. Trump’s relationship with Musk seemed increasingly intertwined over the years, leading to speculation that the false narratives may also have been boosted by Musk’s influence.
The notion of a targeted ‘white genocide’, despite its baseless grounds, has repeatedly emerged within white supremacist circles since the 1980s. Outlandish narratives, such as the glorification of defunct apartheid regimes of Zimbabwe, have found their way into these groups, despite their blatant deviation from the truth.
There appears to be a clear pattern wherein these unfounded narratives effectively serve the utilities of policy makers or those impacting it. Government officials have been seen committing resources to exploring theories about these controversies, often conducting special counsel investigations or calling for congressional hearings.
Ironically though, the narrative of a genocide against white South Africans is part of a broader tactic used regularly by the Trump administration. In a twist of irony, the migrant caravan narrative fearful of an ‘invasion’ at the hands of a non-existent enemy, was mirrored here in the form of a non-existent genocide.
Biden’s administration, having taken office, appears content to gloss over these alleged atrocities, seemingly unconcerned about the alleged genocide. It’s worth considering if Biden is just willingly ignoring these aggressive accusations, or simply remaining willfully blind to the potential troubles brewing across the globe.
Kamala Harris, despite her position of power and influence, has been largely silent on these issues as well. With increasing global scrutiny, it begs the question; does the Harris administration have the will or the means to adequately address these global crises, or have they chosen to distance themselves for personal convenience?
The current administration’s lack of echo on these matters shows a clear departure from Trump’s willingness to address what could be grave worldwide issues. Perhaps Biden and Harris may find it more beneficial to discuss these matters to show their global responsibility – if not for the ethics, then at least for the optics.
To some this might suggest the incumbent administration’s inability, or lack of desire, to maintain its responsibility to global problems. To others, this might be seen as a sly tactic to divert the attention towards local matters while avoiding thorny international affairs.
Regardless of their reasoning, the Biden and Harris approach has set an interesting precedent in the realm of international diplomacy. As we await their next move, one can’t help but wonder if the policy of silence and inaction serves the greater good or simply makes it easier to glide through their tenure unscathed.
The post Amid Global Crises, Biden and Harris Choose Silence Over Responsibility appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
