If you consider "rioting and protesting" that happened over 10 years prior to Carter renegotiating the treaty, then no, I don't consider one to be predicated on the other.
In both cases, the land was eventually returned to the rightful nation. Key word being nation there. The Panama Canal, Macau and Hong Kong were all eventually transferred back to the host nation's control. And in the case of Macau, came 400 years
after the Dutch had established that city. Regardless, apples to oranges comparisons as two nations were negotiating and transferring control..
As 82 pointed out, does the government of SA actually want to confiscate "private" lands being used by individuals? Or is it the SA federal government idea of "Robin Hooding" the lands owned by whites and giving it to the tenant blacks? Or reclaiming traditional regions the original inhabitants of South Africa used? Or is it a method of "balancing" the power of one group over another? Here's a good article to read on some historical background:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenz...ver-land-reform-in-south-africa/#7b79f1b971f3
Says nothing of whether the lands were owned prior to the Apartheid laws or not. However, Huffpo gives a bit more background:
'It's Time For The ANC To Get Land Reform Right'
If we were to compare the land "reform" in SA to a US historical period, it would have been the government confiscating lands in the former Confederacy 25 years after the war and giving it to the freed slaves that were working on the lands as freedmen.
The major difference being it's not as much about "reform" in South Africa as it is a political party's hardline stance and bedrock principle since they came to power in 1994. And ignoring (as the Forbes article points out) if the folks actually wanted the property to begin with. Or had the desire or aptitude to work it as intended. Or didn't turn around and resell to a new white owner.
Basically, we are talking the South African version of reparations here though with the twist of "give it up or else."
I don't think we can say for certain the land was "taken" by a government in the first place, namely the Dutch and British. The area was colonized by those two nations (for the most part) and against the will of the original inhabitants, but to say those two governments were "taking" lands in the first place isn't quite true. As 82 implied, it would be the equal of the US Government "taking" lands that belongs to the Native Americans. They really didn't "own" the land to begin with, but rather had regions they lived on and used. There were probably some cases (maybe a lot, I don't know) where individual land ownership was forfeited during the Indian Removal Act days, but to say the government "took" great stretches of lands owned by individuals is a stretch.
The problem, as it is with the reparation argument, is who actually is entitled to what? What kind of historical claim might one individual have on such a tract of land? "My grandfather's grandfather's uncle once hunted this land and killed a lion, hence, I have historical claim to it." The further argument is whether one can consider the current white owners to be "inhabitants" or not. Some of the Boer families can probably trace their lineage all the way to the 17th century. Are they not entitled to the same status as being "inhabitants" as the original tribes?
But more to the point, this isn't about "returning" lands as much as it is a transition of power and, again, the political promise and principle of the ANC since it came into power in 1994. Yes, my argument is against the forced taking of land by the government without proper compensation and turning it over to those who just might not want to use it. I agree in principle the lands not owned by private citizens in SA being turned over to the "people" or even groups. But to confiscate private lands without just compensation just because your party is in power and you want to "up" the ownership of lands by black individuals in South Africa?
It's a recipe for disaster.
