In a familiar presentation of ignorance, US President Donald Trump recently condemned the new South Africa confiscation law, Familiarly framing It is a racist attack on the white minority. His statements, Embolic in wrong informationThe right -wing extremist groups’ speech that has long sought to slip from South Africa’s efforts to correct the centuries to get rid of land.

While Trump extends his rights We blocked the aid Money from South Africa does not depend or seek it – he has no work that interferes in an attempt by a sovereign state to address historical injustice. His inflammatory comments are not mere misleading; They are dangerous. South Africa, a country that came out of the brutal system in the apartheid only 30 years ago, is still in depth due to ethnic and economic inequality. The issue of the earth is at the heart of these unnamed wounds, and reckless data from the American President risks tensions in society in a society that is still striving for justice.

But perhaps the greatest paradox ever is that the United States itself has laws confiscated under its fifth amendment. The idea that the lands can be taken for the common good, with or without compensation, not new – it is an institution of the American real estate law. So why, then, does Trump pretend when South Africa follows a similar path?

This paradox diminishes comparison Trump’s comments About “assuming” Gaza and making it “to us” after the destruction of the mass and genocide in Palestine. The land of confiscation within the limits of a person is one thing; Ethnic cleansing and the annexation of foreign lands is hypocrisy and moral corruption at an unimaginable level.

To understand a necessary reason for land reform, one must face an uncomfortable truth: South Africa has been stolen. From the colonial conquest to the forced removal processes dating back to the apartheid, they were systematically stripped of black South Africa and landing to a barren “homeland”. Land works 1913 and 1936 regretted this theft, obtained 87 percent of the land for the white minority and left the black majority in only 13 percent of the country.

This is not ancient history. The consequences of these laws remain deeply rooted. Today, despite 80 percent of the population, South Africa has a small part of agricultural land, while white landowners – less than 8 percent of the population – still control the vast majority. The result? About 64 percent of South Africa is still unambiguous, and millions live in unofficial settlements or crowded towns.

After the apartheid, successive governments tried to compensate for this injustice, but progress was painfully slow. The model of the “wishful buyer, inheritance of the seller”, which was presented in the 1990s, put the financial burden on the state to buy land at market prices. This approach, although politically caution, failed: the goals of redistributing the unparalleled lands remain, and economic variations continue to widen.

The confiscation law seeks to change this. It provides a legal framework for the land for its issuance in specific cases, including cases where the land is abandoned or unused, or obtained through the last racial concession. Compensation is determined – when needed – by considering factors such as historical acquisition, government benefits, and public interest. In some cases, this means that the Earth can be taken without compensation.

This is not an attack on white farmers. It is a necessary step towards restoring dignity and the economic agency of millions who were stripped of both.

Trump’s comments did not appear in a vacuum. They are closely in line with the narration that white national groups in South Africa – organizations that have long sought to depict land reform as an existential threat to white landowners. The legend of the “white genocide”, which falsely claims that the white South Africa is targeted systematically, was completely exposed. However, it continues to appear in the right -wing circles, which are amplified by characters such as Trump that thrive on racist grievances.

The facts tell a different story. There is no widespread campaign to seize lands arbitrarily, and the government does not participate in racial persecution. The confiscation law does not grant power that has not been verified to the state – it simply corresponds to the lands reform strategy in South Africa with the constitutional principles of justice and fairness.

But besides his inaccuracy, Trump’s intervention is dangerous. South Africa is still moving in its post -colonial identity, and it is a balance between reconciliation with recovery. Foreign leaders who enter themselves recklessly in this process – especially those who do not have an understanding of the country’s history – are risked by making real progress.

Perhaps the most obvious contradiction in Trump’s position is the fact that the United States itself has confiscation laws. The fifth amendment to the American constitution allows the government to seize private property for public use, provided that “fair compensation” is provided. It often discusses what is “fair” – just as in South Africa.

In fact, the history of the United States is filled with examples of land attacks that were more aggressive than anything proposed in South Africa. The original lands were taken without compensation under the curtain of expansion. The entire societies – especially the poor and black neighborhoods – were caught through prominent field laws in the name of urban development. If the United States does not see any contradiction in the use of confiscation of its own interests, then why is South Africa to do the same?

The answer is simple: Land justice is treated for South Africa as a threat, while the seizures of land that have historically benefited from the white population are normalized.

Besides its historical harm, land redistribution is very important in the economic future of South Africa. Without land, millions of South Africa remain trapped in economic opportunities. The ability to cultivate, build homes, or access credit directly to land ownership. However, under the current system, the country’s wealth remains focused in a few hands.

The economic argument against land reform – that it will frighten investors or destabilize the agricultural sector – is a chimney screen. Countries that have successfully implemented land reform, such as South Korea and Japan, have proven that, when it is strategically performed, enhances economic growth. The real danger does not lie in confiscation, but in maintaining the status quo – as the land is stored by a small elite while millions remain without land.

Trump may threaten US aid, but land policies in South Africa are not due to foreign negotiations. The sovereignty of the country that has been achieved by the most recent of an American president, a busy record of racist justice, cannot be dictated.

Land confiscation is not theft. It is not an attack on South Africa whites. It is the long -awaited correction of a historical crime that stole the black South Africa from their lands, dignity, and economic future. Trump’s comments are a reminder that the battle of justice will always meet resistance – but the South Africa road will not be determined to recover.

South Africa will decide the future of South Africa.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.