Did Trump win his argument on Genocide ?: South Africa vs Ukraine
By Dorrothy Moyo | Analysis | A pair of viral images recently shared by the far-right “End Wokeness” account show U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House, speaking sternly to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in one photo and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in another—this time brandishing a printout referencing alleged attacks on white farmers in South Africa.
The images have reignited an international debate over Trump’s apparent double standard on mass violence and human rights: dismissive of Russia’s documented atrocities in Ukraine, yet vocally alarmist over what far-right platforms call “white genocide” in South Africa—a claim not supported by credible data.
⸻
Trump’s Silence on Russian Aggression
While Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been universally condemned by Western leaders, Trump has consistently refused to hold Vladimir Putin accountable. Speaking at a CNN town hall in May 2023, Trump said:
………..
“I want everybody to stop dying. Russians and Ukrainians, I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.”
— CNN Town Hall, 10 May 2023
He refused to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war and avoided directly criticizing Putin. Trump’s evasiveness and past praise for Putin—calling him “very smart” at the outset of the invasion—have drawn criticism from NATO allies and American foreign policy experts alike. Despite mounting evidence from international investigators of war crimes, mass graves, and civilian bombings, Trump has never acknowledged Russian aggression as genocide.
⸻
Trump Amplified “White Genocide” Conspiracy
Contrast this with Trump’s 2018 tweet:
“I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large-scale killing of farmers.”
— Donald Trump, 22 August 2018
The tweet was inspired by a Tucker Carlson segment promoting the false claim of a racial genocide against white farmers. Multiple investigations, including one by BBC Africa Check, concluded that:
• Farm murders in South Africa affect both black and white farmers.
• There is no state-led or systematic campaign of extermination.
• The homicide rate in farming communities is part of broader violent crime trends.
Even South Africa’s government condemned Trump’s tweet as based on “false information.”
⸻
Julius Malema: A Surprising Voice of Moral Consistency?
While Julius Malema is often described as a populist and firebrand, particularly over his rhetoric on land expropriation and race, he has publicly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—setting him apart from Trump’s equivocation.
“Russia is wrong for entering Ukraine militarily, but the US is equally wrong for provoking Russia. We need peace and not war.”
— Julius Malema, EFF media briefing, 10 March 2022
“We call for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. The sovereignty of Ukraine must be respected.”
— EFF Statement, 3 March 2022
Malema went further to call for a return to negotiations and respect for the territorial integrity of all nations, a stance he reiterated in multiple public addresses. While the EFF criticized NATO’s expansion as a trigger for tension, they did not excuse the invasion itself.
This stands in stark contrast to Trump, who has repeatedly refused to assign blame to Russia or even acknowledge Ukraine’s suffering in clear terms.
⸻
Who Is the Better Moral Example?
The comparison may be uncomfortable for many in the West: a South African opposition leader often vilified for radical speech showing more moral clarity on a major war crime than a sitting U.S. president.
While Malema’s rhetoric is not without controversy, his condemnation of Russia’s aggression is grounded in international law and human rights principles. Trump, on the other hand, has used his platform to amplify disinformation about South Africa while remaining silent on verified atrocities in Ukraine.
⸻
Political Expediency Over Principle
Trump has proven to be no moral beacon. His response to international crises is shaped not by justice or ethics but by what resonates with his political base. Malema, though deeply polarizing, has at least maintained consistency in condemning global violence—whether from NATO or Russia.
Verdict: No, Trump has not communicated wisely or ethically. His selective outrage undermines his credibility, and ironically, even Julius Malema—a man Trump supporters might dismiss—has stood on higher moral ground when it comes to global justice.
In the end what could have worked to stop Malema’s dangerous inflammatory politics, has sadly gone sour due to Trump’s failures at communication. It might take a while for someone to come up and heal the credibility wounds inflicted. The embarrassment was huge – if last night was an election, Malema would be the new US president. – ZimEye