US Ambassador Meets Afrikaner Leaders
Staff Writer
– July 6, 2026
3 min read

The United States (US) Ambassador, Leo Brent Bozell III, held a meeting with a group of leaders identified with South Africa’s Afrikaner community late last week. This comes as relations between South Africa and the US sit at an historic low.
The delegation included representatives from Solidarity, AfriForum, the Southern African Agri Initiative (SAAI), the National Employers' Association of South Africa (NEASA), and the Freedom Front Plus. Each of these groups has undertaken visits to the US over the past two years (and some over a longer period) to discuss matters of concern with politicians in that country. With the return to office of President Donald Trump in 2025, they have found interlocutors willing, at a minimum, to give them a hearing.
Details of the meeting are sparse, but Ambassador Bozell put out a message on social media stating: “Great to see Afrikaner leaders from the Solidarity Movement, AfriForum, Solidarity, SAAI, NEASA, and Freedom Front Plus. We discussed how the US government’s focus on the community can contribute to a safer and more prosperous South Africa.”
AfriForum leader Kallie Kriel said, also on social media, that his organisation had cooperated with Solidarity to present proposals to resolve the tensions between the two governments. He said that this was part of the “input” the organisations had made to both governments over the past few months to contribute to finding a way forward.
He added that it was important to avoid escalating tensions and punitive US action against South Africa.
“Sanctions against South Africa would harm everyone in the country,” he said. “For this reason, we visited Washington last year in an effort to help prevent these measures in the interest of the country. Our proposals will promote progress that benefits everyone in South Africa, while also ensuring that important issues such as the threat to property rights, rural safety, other issues of contention, and several other challenges that specifically affect Afrikaners and other minorities receive the attention they deserve.”
Among the issues that have plagued the relationship between the two parties – which were initially communicated to the South African public through these organisations – were that the South African government had to take the security of Afrikaner and related communities seriously (taking action against farm murders and condemning incitement in the form of the “Kill the Boer” chant), to protect property rights and US investments (repudiating expropriation without compensation and exempting US firms from empowerment legislation), and reorient South Africa’s foreign policy towards genuine non-alignment.
He concluded that “for obvious reasons” no details could be provided at present.
AfriForum and Solidarity – and to a lesser extent, the other bodies – have come in for considerable criticism in South Africa for supposedly promoting a narrative of “white genocide” and encouraging hostility on the part of the US government towards South Africa. Particularly embarrassing for the South African government has been the opening of a refugee programme for South Africans fearing persecution.
However, none of these organisations has ever claimed a “white genocide” or called for refugee status for their constituents.
Relatively unacknowledged in the criticism has been that South Africa’s global positioning has often been hostile to the US, and that of the African National Congress (ANC) stridently so. A breakdown in the relationship has long been a possibility.
However, as The Common Sense has noted previously, there remains considerable interest in the US government in a cordial diplomatic relationship and in strengthening the commercial relationship with South Africa. This is a point that Ambassador Bozell had previously made.
Stepping away from race-based economic policy and condemning incitement would be to South Africa’s benefit, and not only in its relations with the US. But there is little evidence at the moment that the ANC, as the dominant component of the government, would be willing to countenance doing so.