Selective solidarity
US fast-tracks Afrikaner refugees (Trump-backed, disputed discrimination), criticised as biased amid broader restrictions. Zambia warns US envoy over drug theft exposé, faces aid cut.
59 Afrikaners received fast-tracked refugee status in the US, backed by President Trump, who cited alleged racial discrimination in South Africa—a claim denied by the South African government and widely discredited. Human rights groups criticised the move as racially biased, given broader refugee restrictions affecting Black and Afghan applicants. Meanwhile, Zambia warned diplomats against media interference after US Ambassador Gonzales exposed theft of donated medicines, prompting a $50 million aid cut. Zambia reported 75 arrests in a national crackdown, asserting there’s no immediate drug shortage. The US funds roughly a third of Zambia’s health sector, covering malaria, HIV, and TB programmes.
The contrasting cases of the 59 Afrikaner refugees granted expedited status in the U.S. and the diplomatic clash between the U.S. and Zambia over misappropriated health aid reveal a complex and often contradictory pattern in American engagement with Africa.
The Trump administration's decision to fast-track asylum for white South Africans, citing "racial discrimination," triggered widespread condemnation. The South African government refuted the claim, and human rights observers found no evidence of systemic persecution meeting international refugee criteria. This move was perceived as politically motivated, aligning with a far-right narrative that portrays white South Africans as victims of "reverse racism," rather than a genuine humanitarian effort. This policy starkly contrasted with the administration's stringent restrictions on refugees from conflict-ridden nations, especially Black Africans, Afghans, and Muslims, who faced high rejection rates. The expedited treatment of the Afrikaners, therefore, highlighted a perceived racial bias in U.S. refugee policy. Furthermore, this action strained U.S.-South Africa relations, which had already deteriorated following South Africa's neutral stance on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Figures like Elon Musk, an advisor to Trump, amplified this narrative of "oppressed white minorities." This move was interpreted by some as a demonstration of U.S. willingness to confront perceived adversaries, regardless of traditional diplomatic norms.
Simultaneously, U.S.-Zambian relations were strained when U.S. Ambassador Michael Gonzales publicly alleged theft and mismanagement of U.S.-donated medicines. This accusation provoked a strong response from the Zambian government, which warned diplomats against "media interference" and asserted national sovereignty. Zambia then launched a nationwide crackdown, resulting in 75 arrests, and attempted to reassure the public about drug availability. However, the incident highlighted the vulnerability of Zambia's health sector, which relies heavily on U.S. funding, approximately one-third of the health budget, for critical programs addressing HIV, malaria, and TB. Investigations revealed that 95% of Zambia's 2,000 pharmacies were selling stolen U.S.-donated drugs, underscoring the severity of corruption and weak oversight.
These two cases expose a paradox in U.S.-Africa relations. While the U.S. provides substantial support for public welfare, its inconsistent application of principles, whether in refugee policy or anti-corruption efforts, raises concerns about double standards. The Afrikaner refugee case revealed a racially biased and politically motivated approach to humanitarianism, while the Zambia incident highlighted the tension between donor accountability and national sovereignty.
Moving forward, the U.S. must demonstrate consistent adherence to principles like justice, equity, and transparency to maintain credibility in Africa. African nations, in turn, must strengthen governance and rebuild public trust, especially concerning foreign aid meant for their most vulnerable citizens.