South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, left, and U.S. President Donald Trump during their Oval Office meeting

By Gimba Kakanda

The analyses of the Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, where the former made provocative claims about the mass killings of white Afrikaner farmers in South Africa, have left the usual suspects from our part of the continent unimpressed. We are so blinded by anti-West sentiment that we often fail to consider the implications of a tit-for-tat, especially when we are only punching from a place of weakness.

The thaw between France and certain Francophone countries excites some of us, and while the sovereignty of these nations matters, the diplomatic option remains the most favourable one. If the South African President had taken the bait and chosen pettiness in that confrontational exchange with a more powerful state, he could have exposed his country to punitive measures such as sanctions or further aid withdrawal. The victims would have been ordinary South Africans.

Ramaphosa’s composure mitigated the risk of the U.S. pushing South Africa further to the edge. It was a calculated act of strategic restraint. And while I am impressed by the fact that he was able to clarify that the Julius Malema-led EFF is a minority party with no influence on government policy, that South Africa’s high crime rates affect all communities, predominantly Black communities, and that the government is addressing crime and ensuring the safety of all its citizens, I think his delegation could have done more.

They ought not to have let him leave without countering the debunked claims of white farmers’ graves and crosses, which even social media users thousands of miles away from South Africa had known to be false.

Trump had aides feeding him information and offering him documents to tender as proof of a non-existent genocide, but Ramaphosa stood alone, with only a whispered intervention from his delegation, which did not appear to present a clear counterpoint from his aide. It could have resulted in irreparable reputational damage if the U.S. media had chosen to amplify Trump’s claims.

An impulsive president might have counted on the rising powers in the East to justify flashing a middle finger to the U.S. President right in the middle of the Oval Office. That is the breed of leaders we are often tempted to cheer, the type that reject a bag of sugar from a wealthy neighbour even when they have none of their own, relying instead on a single cup of sugar from another neighbour with an even less trustworthy record. This is why people with inflated egos have no business sitting on the throne.

South Africa is one of the richest countries on the continent and has strategic alliances that could help it cushion the effects of U.S.-led sanctions, especially through platforms like BRICS. Yet, Ramaphosa has chosen the path of balance, maintaining a working relationship with the U.S. while also engaging with other global powers such as China and Russia. That is how you diversify your country’s international partnerships, reduce overreliance on any single power, and deepen your strategic autonomy.

President Ramaphosa has offered his contemporaries, especially those who mistake shouting in the meeting room for effective statecraft, a profound lesson in the fine art of diplomacy.

Below is how BBC captures the encounter

Ramaphosa keeps cool during Trump’s choreographed onslaught

By Gary O’Donoghue

Three months into Donald Trump’s second term, foreign leaders should be aware that a coveted trip to the Oval Office comes with the risk of a very public dressing down, often straying into attempts at provocation and humiliation.

Wednesday’s episode with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa was a classic of its kind, with the added twist of an ambush involving dimmed lights, a lengthy video screening and stacks of news story clippings.

As television cameras rolled, and after some well-tempered discussion, Trump was asked by a journalist about what it would take for him to be convinced that discredited claims of “white genocide” in South Africa are untrue.

Ramaphosa responded first, by saying the president would have to “listen to the voices of South Africans” on the issue. Trump then came in, asking an assistant to “turn the lights down” and put the television on, so he could show the South African leader “a couple of things”.

Elon Musk, his adviser and a South Africa-born billionaire, watched quietly from behind a couch.

What followed was an extraordinary and highly choreographed onslaught of accusations from the US president about the alleged persecution of white South Africans, echoing the aggressive treatment of Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky during his February visit to the White House.

The footage on the large screen showcased South African political firebrands chanting “Shoot the Boer”, an anti-apartheid song. And Trump, so often critical of the news media, seemed happy to parade pictures of uncertain provenance. Asked where alleged grave sites of white farmers were, he simply answered, “South Africa”.

The US leader also seemed to believe the political leaders in the footage – who are not part of the government – had the power to confiscate land from white farmers. They do not.

While Ramaphosa did sign a controversial bill allowing land seizures without compensation earlier this year, the law has not been implemented. And the South African distanced himself publicly from the language in the political speeches shown.

But the top ally of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela and negotiator who helped bring an end to the apartheid regime of white-minority rule came to this meeting prepared.

Trump sometimes appears unaware of transparent efforts made by foreign leaders to flatter and that was clearly part of the South African strategy.

True, Donald Trump is a golf fanatic, but Ramaphosa’s gambit of bringing two top golfers – Ernie Els and Retief Goosen – to a meeting about diplomatic problems and trade policy is not taken from any textbook on international relations I’ve ever read.

However, the US president’s pleasure at having the two white South African golfers there was on show for all to see.

Their prognostications on the fate of white farmers got nearly as much screen time as South Africa’s democratically-elected president, who largely restricted himself to quiet, short interventions.

But Ramaphosa will likely be happy with that. The golfers, along with his white agriculture minister, himself from an opposition party which is part of the national unity government, were there, at least in part, as a shield – a kind of diplomatic golden dome if you will, and it worked.

Trump returned repeatedly to the issue of the plight of the farmers – dozens of whom he has welcomed into the US as refugees. But President Ramaphosa wasn’t biting and the provocations were largely left to blow in the breeze.

At one point, he referred to the golfers and an Afrikaner billionaire who had joined his delegation, telling Trump: “If there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you, these three gentlemen would not be here.”

But even though President Trump didn’t manage to get a rise out of the South African president, that does not mean his efforts over more than an hour were in vain; they certainly were not.

This performative style of diplomacy is aimed as much at the domestic American audience as it is at the latest visitor to the Oval Office.

Central to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) project is keeping up the energy around perceived grievances and resentment and President Trump knows what his supporters want.

If some foreign leaders are learning to navigate these moments with skill, Donald Trump may have to change the playbook a bit to continue to have the impact he wants.