America's double standards on genocide is a concern for Africa

Is a genocide unfolding in South Africa? According to US President Donald Trump, white South Africans are fleeing what he terms a genocidal threat. This assertion formed the basis of a controversial policy shift that has enabled expedited refugee resettlement to the US for white South African farmers.

Genocide, under international law and the Genocide Convention of 1948, refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. The ongoing crisis in Sudan’s West Darfur region constitutes a textbook case of genocide. In the past year, nearly 20,000 members of the Masalit community, an ethnically African group, have been targeted and killed by the RSF paramilitary group. The violence, motivated by racial and ethnic animosity, has forced hundreds of thousands to flee.

Yet, under the same administration that expressed alarm over supposed persecution in South Africa, not a single Masalit refugee was admitted into US. This exclusion was the result of Trump’s Executive Order that indefinitely halted entry through the US Refugee Admissions Programme.

However, this suspension has not applied uniformly. White South Africans seeking asylum have been given special consideration based on an unsubstantiated claim that they were victims of systematic racial persecution. This exception reveals a disturbing double standard. It demonstrates that US refugee policy during the Trump era was not primarily guided by severity of humanitarian crises but by ideological and racial considerations. There is no credible evidence of a white genocide in South Africa. The claim is unfounded and widely discredited by international human rights bodies, South African institutions, and academic researchers. Currently, white South Africans constitute approximately 9 per cent of the population yet control 87 per cent of South Africa’s most productive agricultural land. Black South Africans, who represent at least 80 per cent of the population, own just 4 per cent of private land. These disparities are not coincidental but the result of centuries of racially discriminatory policies. The land reform agenda, therefore, is not an act of vengeance but an effort to achieve restorative justice.

The US selective application of refugee policy in this context exposes a broader pattern of geopolitical inconsistency and racial bias in the implementation of international humanitarian norms.

Kenya, as a regional leader and member of the African Union, must take a principled stance on such matters. The treatment of African refugees and selective recognition of humanitarian crises by global powers are not just matters of foreign policy—they are fundamental issues of justice and human dignity. The international community cannot condone a framework in which humanitarian assistance is extended based on racial or ideological affinity rather than objective need.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Trump says 'getting close' to deal to avoid Iran military action
• 
  Witnesses: Murdered athlete's wife hired men to punish him for affair
• 
  China's Alibaba posts annual revenue increase despite spending slump
• 
  Trump renews third-term talk in troop rally in Qatar

Kenya is also grappling with its own land-related challenges. The legacy of colonial land alienation continues to affect communities, from the Coast to the Rift Valley. While Kenya has made progress through various land commissions and legal reforms, unresolved grievances persist. As such, Kenyans can empathise with South Africa’s attempts to redress historical land injustices, and should be wary of international narratives that delegitimise such efforts.

Furthermore, Kenya hosts one of the largest refugee populations in Africa. Our own refugee policy has often had to balance national security, humanitarian obligations, and regional diplomacy. It is therefore of direct concern to us when powerful countries arbitrarily restrict or enable refugee flows in ways that reflect underlying racial hierarchies.

The situation in Sudan also demands closer attention. Kenya has historically played a pivotal role in brokering peace in Sudan and South Sudan. As the humanitarian crisis in West Darfur escalates, Kenya must work with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Union, and the United Nations to ensure that civilian protection and refugee rights remain central to the regional agenda. Sudanese victims of ethnic violence should not be rendered invisible on the global stage.

Ultimately, the use of humanitarian policy to serve geopolitical or racial agendas undermines the integrity of the international system.