A Pretoria High Court judge has obtained an affidavit from the Mozambican hitman who was allegedly hired to kill Mbombela municipality speaker Jimmy Mohlala in January last year.
Mohlala was a whistle-blower on the alleged tender corruption involving the building of the R2-billion Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit.
The judge, who cannot be named for his safety, met with the alleged hitman known as ''Josh" in the underworld at the Nerston border post near Piet Retief on Thursday. The border post is between South Africa and Swaziland. Josh, wearing a black tracksuit and white sneakers, made a 15-page hand-written confession before the judge. In the confession, Josh claimed that he had been hired by a senior Mpumalanga politician, a soccer boss and two businessmen. The self-confessed killer's meeting with the judge was witnessed by seven other senior government officials from the Justice Department and police.
The judge will now prepare the statement and submit it to police commissioner General Bheki Cele this week. Cele will then decide when to make an arrest and who must be arrested. Josh was initially telephonically interviewed by senior officials in Cele's office last month. Josh claimed that he and another hitman were responsible for the murder of former defence secretary January "Che" Masilela and made his death appear to have resulted from a car accident. Masilela died near Bronkhorst-spruit in August 2008 after he lost control of his BMW X5. The car caught fire and Masilela was burnt beyond recognition.
Cele yesterday declined to comment on the latest police breakthrough, including developments surrounding the confession made by Josh, saying the matter was at a "sensitive stage". Cele said: "I'd rather not comment on the matter."
Meanwhile, Mohlala's wife, Bonny, yesterday confirmed that she was suing police for R300000 for wrongful arrest and assault. She filed the lawsuit after police allegedly took her and her two children to the bush near KaNyamazane, outside Nelspruit, where they were allegedly tortured. She claims that police tried to force her and her children to make a false confession that they were involved in her husband's murder.
Source: Times Live
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 68 OF 2008
The purpose of the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 68 OF 2008 is to promote a fair, accessible and sustainable marketplace for consumer products and services and for that purpose:
1. to establish national norms and standards relating to consumer protection,
2. to provide for improved standards of consumer information,
3. to prohibit certain unfair marketing and business practices,
4. to promote responsible consumer behaviour,
5. to promote a consistent legislative and enforcement framework relating to consumer transactions and agreements,
6. to establish the National Consumer Commission.
The people of South Africa recognize:
1. that it is necessary to develop and employ innovative means to:
(a) protect the interests of all consumers, ensure accessible, transparent and efficient redress for consumers who are subjected to abuse or exploitation in the marketplace; and
(b) to give effect to internationally recognised customer rights;
2. That recent and emerging technological changes, trading methods, patterns and agreements have brought, and will continue to bring, new benefits, opportunities and challenges to the market for consumer goods and services within South Africa; and
3. That it is desirable to promote an economic environment that supports and strengthens a culture of consumer rights and responsibilities, business innovation and enhanced performance.
For the reasons set out above, and to give effect to the international law obligations of the Republic, a law is to be enacted in order to
1. promote and protect the economic interests of consumers;
2. improve access to, and the quality of, information that is necessary so that consumers are able to make informed choices according to their individual wishes and needs;
3. protect consumers from hazards to their well being and safety;
4. develop effective means of redress for consumers;
5. promote and provide for consumer education, including education concerning the social and economic effects of consumer choices;
6. facilitate the freedom of consumers to associate and form groups to advocate and promote their common interests; and
8. promote consumer participation in decision-making processes concerning the marketplace and the interests of consumers.
Source: Sabinet
1. to establish national norms and standards relating to consumer protection,
2. to provide for improved standards of consumer information,
3. to prohibit certain unfair marketing and business practices,
4. to promote responsible consumer behaviour,
5. to promote a consistent legislative and enforcement framework relating to consumer transactions and agreements,
6. to establish the National Consumer Commission.
The people of South Africa recognize:
1. that it is necessary to develop and employ innovative means to:
(a) protect the interests of all consumers, ensure accessible, transparent and efficient redress for consumers who are subjected to abuse or exploitation in the marketplace; and
(b) to give effect to internationally recognised customer rights;
2. That recent and emerging technological changes, trading methods, patterns and agreements have brought, and will continue to bring, new benefits, opportunities and challenges to the market for consumer goods and services within South Africa; and
3. That it is desirable to promote an economic environment that supports and strengthens a culture of consumer rights and responsibilities, business innovation and enhanced performance.
For the reasons set out above, and to give effect to the international law obligations of the Republic, a law is to be enacted in order to
1. promote and protect the economic interests of consumers;
2. improve access to, and the quality of, information that is necessary so that consumers are able to make informed choices according to their individual wishes and needs;
3. protect consumers from hazards to their well being and safety;
4. develop effective means of redress for consumers;
5. promote and provide for consumer education, including education concerning the social and economic effects of consumer choices;
6. facilitate the freedom of consumers to associate and form groups to advocate and promote their common interests; and
8. promote consumer participation in decision-making processes concerning the marketplace and the interests of consumers.
Source: Sabinet
Monday, April 19, 2010
How corruption sustains the ANC – and is killing our democracy
Official opposition leader Helen Zille’s latest weekly newsletter offers up an essential analysis of why corruption within the ANC is endemic and how its deep, poisonous tentacles are steadily strangling South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
Read it below:
Why Zuma couldn’t stop corruption, even if he wanted to
The utterances of the ANC today have all the hallmarks of the double-think of George Orwell’s 1984. If you haven’t read the book, double-think involves holding two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. This means that when your actions contradict your words, you actually believe your own propaganda. Examples of ANC double-think abound, but nowhere is it more apparent than its stance on corruption. How often have we seen commentators praising ANC leaders, including the President, for their tough talk on corruption? It always ends with rhetoric. Action never follows.
When the President launched the ANC’s manifesto before the last election, he said: “Most importantly, the ANC will step up measures in the fight against corruption within its ranks and the State…this will include measures to review the tendering system, to ensure that ANC members in business, public servants and elected representatives do not abuse the State for corrupt practices.”
In his State of the Nation address this year, he said: “We will pay particular attention to combating corruption and fraud in procurement and tender processes…” He said the same thing the year before. Yet, we have seen no measures introduced to actually do anything about corruption.
These repeated anti-corruption promises are deeply ironic given the cloud of corruption that hangs over the President himself. Extreme double-think must be necessary for Zuma to speak of his “zero tolerance” approach to corruption when he knows how many quashed charges hang over his own head. More than that. As he attacks corruption, President Zuma knows that the ANC undermined the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority to avoid ANC leaders, including himself, having to answer corruption charges in court. The Constitution itself is being sacrificed to the ANC’s corruption.
What’s more, the ANC has even set up front companies to institutionalise corruption. Most notorious is Chancellor House. Its purpose is to channel tenders and contracts from the ANC in government to the ANC in business in order to enrich the ANC and its leaders. Straight, institutionalised corruption.
Chancellor House facilitated the deal between Eskom and Hitachi Africa, to manufacture boilers for the proposed Medupi Power Station, from which the ANC stands to make an estimated R1-billion tax free profit. Eskom will have to pay with taxpayers’ money. And, as a result, the ANC will become one of the wealthiest political parties in the world. Let South Africans remember this when they pay their inflated electricity bills.
So, while some in the ANC leadership rail against the proliferation of tenderpreneurs, the ANC has become the tenderpreneur-in-chief. A pattern is emerging here: the more corrupt the ANC becomes, the tougher its anti-corruption stance. Indeed, this is how double-think works. The graver the deed, the greater the falsehood required to neutralise it in one’s mind.
It is time for everyone to realise that corruption is not just an aberration in the ANC that must be ‘rooted out’ from time to time. The ANC needs corruption to survive, it is its lifeblood. It needs it to fund its election campaigns. It needs it to pay the loyalty networks necessary for ANC leaders to entrench their power. And it needs corruption to pay for its leadership’s lifestyles. ANC leaders in the party, the state, and in business have become an interlocked network of patronage and corruption. Everyone knows that everyone else is corrupt, so they cover up for each other, and abuse power to tighten their grip, undermining independent institutions and eliminating opposition both inside and outside the Party.
In the process, the ANC is turning South Africa into a criminal state. What will it take to get us out of this sordid mess?
The obvious thing would be for President Zuma to stop talking about corruption and take decisive action to actually expose and prevent it. He could announce anti-corruption measures such as preventing political parties from doing business with the state. He could announce laws which prevent government employees from doing business with government. And, he could stop the deployment of cadres to parastatals and institutions integral to the fight against corruption, such as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He could re-instate the independence of the criminal justice system to expose and prosecute corruption without fear or favour.
But he cannot do any of these things without exposing himself and his closest political allies to criminal prosecution. The criminal justice system has been perverted as an instrument for persecuting political opponents and protecting political allies. But even this selective use of the criminal justice system is becoming difficult because the entire ANC edifice — allies and opponents alike — are caught in what Allister Sparks calls a ‘corruption gridlock’. Senior ANC members have so much dirt on each other, that they dare not take action against corruption. If one goes down, he will take the rest down with them. This is precisely what Jacob Zuma himself threatened to do when faced with prosecution relating to the arms deal before he became President.
This explains why the corruption in the arms deal was so successfully covered up. It explains why Julius Malema was able to get away with what he did and said before any rebuke whatsoever from Zuma. It explains why Schabir Shaik is still on medical parole, despite no evidence that he is terminally ill.
In all of these cases, the ANC leadership is paralysed because of its dubious past and future interest in maintaining the status quo. Zuma cannot go beyond rhetoric and take real action against corruption for fear of alienating those who have enough information to bring him down. His time and energy is spent placating those who hold this power over him instead of governing. This is the consequence of endemic corruption.
Most people think Zuma needed to avoid jail so he could become President. Actually, the opposite is true. Zuma needed to become President so that he could avoid jail.
Now that he has succeeded, Zuma is paralysed as a President. You can be sure that nothing will come of his rebuke of Malema. There will be no tough anti-corruption measures taken while he is in office. And, in time, Schabir Shaik will receive a presidential pardon.
If we dig deep enough, I believe we would discover that Jacob Zuma continues to benefit from corrupt relationships to this day. The lifestyle of his family is too lavish to be affordable on his presidential income. We wonder how he can spend R65 million – which he has insisted is his own money – renovating his residence at Nkandla. And we marvel at how he can support his wives, his fiancée and 20 children on a single salary.
But we also know that his family members, including his wives, are involved in over 100 companies – some of which benefit from state contracts. It was therefore not surprising that Zuma missed the deadline to declare his financial interests by 10 months, and only disclosed his assets when public pressure forced him to. The irresistible inference is that his advisors were sanitising his business interests for public consumption.
All of this tells us why Zuma cannot get tough on corruption, even if he wanted to. The cronies he relies on for political support benefit from corruption too much. Not only this, the ANC benefits. Most of all, Zuma and his family benefit.
This week, the DA tabled private members legislation in the National Assembly that, if passed, would put an end to political parties doing business with the state. This would have prevented the ANC from using its influence at Eskom to grant a multi-billion rand state contract to a company it has a stake in.
Also this week, we announced new legislation in the Western Cape, where the DA governs, that will prevent state employees and their families from doing business with the state, because of the clear conflict of interest this presents.
I have challenged President Zuma to implement this legislation at national level and I look forward to seeing his response. But I am not holding my breath. After all, he is caught in a corruption gridlock. He has too much to lose from taking decisive action against graft.
But what Zuma and his cronies need to understand is that, if they do not act against corruption in their ranks soon, they will lose in the end. They must remember that we live in a democracy and that they are subject to the will of the people. The time will come when even the ANC’s staunchest supporters will realise what their party has become. The only remedy available in a democracy is to vote for an alternative.
As ANC NEC member Jeremy Cronin said this week: “The ANC should realise overwhelmingly that the honeymoon is over.”
Source: Afrodissident: Alex Matthews
Read it below:
Why Zuma couldn’t stop corruption, even if he wanted to
The utterances of the ANC today have all the hallmarks of the double-think of George Orwell’s 1984. If you haven’t read the book, double-think involves holding two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. This means that when your actions contradict your words, you actually believe your own propaganda. Examples of ANC double-think abound, but nowhere is it more apparent than its stance on corruption. How often have we seen commentators praising ANC leaders, including the President, for their tough talk on corruption? It always ends with rhetoric. Action never follows.
When the President launched the ANC’s manifesto before the last election, he said: “Most importantly, the ANC will step up measures in the fight against corruption within its ranks and the State…this will include measures to review the tendering system, to ensure that ANC members in business, public servants and elected representatives do not abuse the State for corrupt practices.”
In his State of the Nation address this year, he said: “We will pay particular attention to combating corruption and fraud in procurement and tender processes…” He said the same thing the year before. Yet, we have seen no measures introduced to actually do anything about corruption.
These repeated anti-corruption promises are deeply ironic given the cloud of corruption that hangs over the President himself. Extreme double-think must be necessary for Zuma to speak of his “zero tolerance” approach to corruption when he knows how many quashed charges hang over his own head. More than that. As he attacks corruption, President Zuma knows that the ANC undermined the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority to avoid ANC leaders, including himself, having to answer corruption charges in court. The Constitution itself is being sacrificed to the ANC’s corruption.
What’s more, the ANC has even set up front companies to institutionalise corruption. Most notorious is Chancellor House. Its purpose is to channel tenders and contracts from the ANC in government to the ANC in business in order to enrich the ANC and its leaders. Straight, institutionalised corruption.
Chancellor House facilitated the deal between Eskom and Hitachi Africa, to manufacture boilers for the proposed Medupi Power Station, from which the ANC stands to make an estimated R1-billion tax free profit. Eskom will have to pay with taxpayers’ money. And, as a result, the ANC will become one of the wealthiest political parties in the world. Let South Africans remember this when they pay their inflated electricity bills.
So, while some in the ANC leadership rail against the proliferation of tenderpreneurs, the ANC has become the tenderpreneur-in-chief. A pattern is emerging here: the more corrupt the ANC becomes, the tougher its anti-corruption stance. Indeed, this is how double-think works. The graver the deed, the greater the falsehood required to neutralise it in one’s mind.
It is time for everyone to realise that corruption is not just an aberration in the ANC that must be ‘rooted out’ from time to time. The ANC needs corruption to survive, it is its lifeblood. It needs it to fund its election campaigns. It needs it to pay the loyalty networks necessary for ANC leaders to entrench their power. And it needs corruption to pay for its leadership’s lifestyles. ANC leaders in the party, the state, and in business have become an interlocked network of patronage and corruption. Everyone knows that everyone else is corrupt, so they cover up for each other, and abuse power to tighten their grip, undermining independent institutions and eliminating opposition both inside and outside the Party.
In the process, the ANC is turning South Africa into a criminal state. What will it take to get us out of this sordid mess?
The obvious thing would be for President Zuma to stop talking about corruption and take decisive action to actually expose and prevent it. He could announce anti-corruption measures such as preventing political parties from doing business with the state. He could announce laws which prevent government employees from doing business with government. And, he could stop the deployment of cadres to parastatals and institutions integral to the fight against corruption, such as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He could re-instate the independence of the criminal justice system to expose and prosecute corruption without fear or favour.
But he cannot do any of these things without exposing himself and his closest political allies to criminal prosecution. The criminal justice system has been perverted as an instrument for persecuting political opponents and protecting political allies. But even this selective use of the criminal justice system is becoming difficult because the entire ANC edifice — allies and opponents alike — are caught in what Allister Sparks calls a ‘corruption gridlock’. Senior ANC members have so much dirt on each other, that they dare not take action against corruption. If one goes down, he will take the rest down with them. This is precisely what Jacob Zuma himself threatened to do when faced with prosecution relating to the arms deal before he became President.
This explains why the corruption in the arms deal was so successfully covered up. It explains why Julius Malema was able to get away with what he did and said before any rebuke whatsoever from Zuma. It explains why Schabir Shaik is still on medical parole, despite no evidence that he is terminally ill.
In all of these cases, the ANC leadership is paralysed because of its dubious past and future interest in maintaining the status quo. Zuma cannot go beyond rhetoric and take real action against corruption for fear of alienating those who have enough information to bring him down. His time and energy is spent placating those who hold this power over him instead of governing. This is the consequence of endemic corruption.
Most people think Zuma needed to avoid jail so he could become President. Actually, the opposite is true. Zuma needed to become President so that he could avoid jail.
Now that he has succeeded, Zuma is paralysed as a President. You can be sure that nothing will come of his rebuke of Malema. There will be no tough anti-corruption measures taken while he is in office. And, in time, Schabir Shaik will receive a presidential pardon.
If we dig deep enough, I believe we would discover that Jacob Zuma continues to benefit from corrupt relationships to this day. The lifestyle of his family is too lavish to be affordable on his presidential income. We wonder how he can spend R65 million – which he has insisted is his own money – renovating his residence at Nkandla. And we marvel at how he can support his wives, his fiancée and 20 children on a single salary.
But we also know that his family members, including his wives, are involved in over 100 companies – some of which benefit from state contracts. It was therefore not surprising that Zuma missed the deadline to declare his financial interests by 10 months, and only disclosed his assets when public pressure forced him to. The irresistible inference is that his advisors were sanitising his business interests for public consumption.
All of this tells us why Zuma cannot get tough on corruption, even if he wanted to. The cronies he relies on for political support benefit from corruption too much. Not only this, the ANC benefits. Most of all, Zuma and his family benefit.
This week, the DA tabled private members legislation in the National Assembly that, if passed, would put an end to political parties doing business with the state. This would have prevented the ANC from using its influence at Eskom to grant a multi-billion rand state contract to a company it has a stake in.
Also this week, we announced new legislation in the Western Cape, where the DA governs, that will prevent state employees and their families from doing business with the state, because of the clear conflict of interest this presents.
I have challenged President Zuma to implement this legislation at national level and I look forward to seeing his response. But I am not holding my breath. After all, he is caught in a corruption gridlock. He has too much to lose from taking decisive action against graft.
But what Zuma and his cronies need to understand is that, if they do not act against corruption in their ranks soon, they will lose in the end. They must remember that we live in a democracy and that they are subject to the will of the people. The time will come when even the ANC’s staunchest supporters will realise what their party has become. The only remedy available in a democracy is to vote for an alternative.
As ANC NEC member Jeremy Cronin said this week: “The ANC should realise overwhelmingly that the honeymoon is over.”
Source: Afrodissident: Alex Matthews
Court rules Hlophe proceedings were invalid
The high court in Cape Town on Monday found last year's proceedings of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), where it dismissed a complaint of gross misconduct against Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe, were "unconstitutional and invalid". High court Judges Jos Jones and Chamin Ebrahim, in finding against the JSC, also ordered it to pay the costs of an application brought by Western Cape Premier Helen Zille, who mounted a legal challenge against the JSC's decision.
Zille had questioned the constitutional validity of the Hlophe decision, saying that she should, as premier, have been invited to be part of the commission when it met to consider the complaint against him. The premier also argued that the JSC, at the time it sat to hear the matter, was improperly constituted because it did not have the required 15 members in attendance during the proceedings and decision-making process. Further, that any ruling of the JSC had to be supported by a majority of its members, which had not been the case in its decision on the Hlophe matter, when only six of the commission's 15 members had voted that the complaint be dismissed.
Zille on Monday welcomed the court's finding and hailed it as precedent-setting. "It sets a precedent: every time the government does something that cuts corners on the Constitution, they will be called into line," she told journalists at a media conference in Cape Town. The JSC would now have to redo the process. "I certainly will be expecting an invite to attend," Zille said, adding that she was looking forward to it.
In their judgement, Jones and Ebrahim found the proceedings of the JSC "and the decision to dismiss the complaint and counter-complaint, which were the subject of those proceedings, are declared to be unconstitutional and invalid". Further, that the "respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application, which shall include the costs of two counsel".
Source: Mail & Guardian
Zille had questioned the constitutional validity of the Hlophe decision, saying that she should, as premier, have been invited to be part of the commission when it met to consider the complaint against him. The premier also argued that the JSC, at the time it sat to hear the matter, was improperly constituted because it did not have the required 15 members in attendance during the proceedings and decision-making process. Further, that any ruling of the JSC had to be supported by a majority of its members, which had not been the case in its decision on the Hlophe matter, when only six of the commission's 15 members had voted that the complaint be dismissed.
Zille on Monday welcomed the court's finding and hailed it as precedent-setting. "It sets a precedent: every time the government does something that cuts corners on the Constitution, they will be called into line," she told journalists at a media conference in Cape Town. The JSC would now have to redo the process. "I certainly will be expecting an invite to attend," Zille said, adding that she was looking forward to it.
In their judgement, Jones and Ebrahim found the proceedings of the JSC "and the decision to dismiss the complaint and counter-complaint, which were the subject of those proceedings, are declared to be unconstitutional and invalid". Further, that the "respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application, which shall include the costs of two counsel".
Source: Mail & Guardian
Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Salvador, Brazil, 12-19 April 2010)
The Government of Brazil will host the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Salvador, from 12 to 19 April 2010. Pre-Congress consultations will take place on 11 April 2010.
The theme for the Twelfth Congress will be "Comprehensive strategies for global challenges: crime prevention and criminal justice systems and their development in a changing world".
Crime congresses have been held every five years since 1955 in different parts of the world and have contributed to shaping international and domestic policies and promoting novel thinking and approaches to complex issues at the heart of one of the key institutions of the modern state: the criminal justice system.
The Twelfth Crime Congress will bring together the largest and most diverse gathering of policymakers and practitioners in the area of crime prevention and criminal justice, as well as parliamentarians, individual experts from academia and representatives of civil society and the media.
The Twelfth Crime Congress, which marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of United Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice, offers a unique opportunity to stimulate in-depth discussion and proposals for action along three principal avenues by:
* Establishing firmly the criminal justice system as a central pillar in the rule-of-law architecture;
* Highlighting the pivotal role of the criminal justice system in development;
* Emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to criminal justice system reform to strengthen the capacity of criminal justice systems in dealing with crime
The provisional agenda for the Twelfth Congress shows that special attention will be paid to: children, youth and crime; smuggling of migrants; trafficking in persons; money-laundering; and cybercrime.
As is the practice, participants in the Twelfth Congress will adopt a declaration containing recommendations based on deliberations held during the high-level segment, the round tables and the workshops, to be submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its nineteenth session, in 2010.
Four regional preparatory meetings have been held (in Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia, Asia and the Pacific and Africa), providing a platform from which to discuss the issues that will be raised at the Twelfth Congress from a regional perspective. At the regional preparatory meetings, participants highlighted special problems and concerns, as well as successful experiences and promising approaches to addressing them.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
The theme for the Twelfth Congress will be "Comprehensive strategies for global challenges: crime prevention and criminal justice systems and their development in a changing world".
Crime congresses have been held every five years since 1955 in different parts of the world and have contributed to shaping international and domestic policies and promoting novel thinking and approaches to complex issues at the heart of one of the key institutions of the modern state: the criminal justice system.
The Twelfth Crime Congress will bring together the largest and most diverse gathering of policymakers and practitioners in the area of crime prevention and criminal justice, as well as parliamentarians, individual experts from academia and representatives of civil society and the media.
The Twelfth Crime Congress, which marks the fifty-fifth anniversary of United Nations congresses on crime prevention and criminal justice, offers a unique opportunity to stimulate in-depth discussion and proposals for action along three principal avenues by:
* Establishing firmly the criminal justice system as a central pillar in the rule-of-law architecture;
* Highlighting the pivotal role of the criminal justice system in development;
* Emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to criminal justice system reform to strengthen the capacity of criminal justice systems in dealing with crime
The provisional agenda for the Twelfth Congress shows that special attention will be paid to: children, youth and crime; smuggling of migrants; trafficking in persons; money-laundering; and cybercrime.
As is the practice, participants in the Twelfth Congress will adopt a declaration containing recommendations based on deliberations held during the high-level segment, the round tables and the workshops, to be submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its nineteenth session, in 2010.
Four regional preparatory meetings have been held (in Latin America and the Caribbean, West Asia, Asia and the Pacific and Africa), providing a platform from which to discuss the issues that will be raised at the Twelfth Congress from a regional perspective. At the regional preparatory meetings, participants highlighted special problems and concerns, as well as successful experiences and promising approaches to addressing them.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Friday, April 9, 2010
Growing intolerance of journalists cause for concern
THERE is concern that press freedom is increasingly coming under threat with the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef), in the past few months, issuing one statement after the other condemning attacks on press freedom. Yesterday, African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) president Julius Malema kicked BBC journalist Jonah Fisher out of a press conference in Johannesburg calling him a “bastard”, an “agent” and telling him to take his “white tendencies elsewhere” after Fisher pointed out that Malema lived in Sandton yet he criticised Zimbabwe’s opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, for having offices there.
This came on the heels of Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging secretary-general Andre Visagie walking out on an e.tv talk show on the relationship between farm workers and their bosses after he became unhappy about how the interview was being handled. These incidents on their own would be concerning, but it is not the first incident involving the ANCYL or the only incident involving media being censored in the past few months. Last month, a group of journalists lodged a formal complaint against ANCYL spokesman Floyd Shivambu for allegedly threatening journalists, saying that he had information on them after they questioned the accuracy of a document on another journalist that was leaked to them by Shivambu.
Shivambu’s attack followed a series of stories on Malema’s lifestyle and questions on whether he had directorships in companies that could be constituted as a conflict of interest. The information in Shivambu’s possession on a City Press journalist, who has been particularly critical of Malema, suggests that someone gained access to that journalist’s personal bank account. The indication was that data was being gathered on a number of journalists.
At almost the same time, two Mail & Guardian journalists were detained after taking pictures of President Jacob Zuma’s home in Forest Town, Johannesburg, and 702 Eyewitness News reporter Tshepo Lesole was forced by Zuma’s VIP unit to delete pictures of the president’s motorcade during a visit to Soweto’s Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital. Then, on March 23, eNews journalist Morgan Collins was arrested in Durban while covering a protest by nurses employed by the city council. Collins, who was allegedly standing on a pavement, was given five minutes to leave by metro police and did not.
Anton Harber, head of the Wits University journalism department, says there is a “worrying disrespect” for the media emerging. “The media at the moment are being tough on a number of issues and this is leading to a lot of intolerance from a number of quarters,” he says. “The only way the media can stand up to this is with good solid reporting and to support each other when an individual journalist is targeted. “Ahead of the Olympic Games in China there was a lot of insistence on the media’s freedom to operate independently during the games, and yesterday’s incident involving the ANCYL reflects badly in world media on SA and the Soccer World Cup.”
Sanef Media Freedom chairman Thabo Leshilo, who had described the Shivambu incident as “the most cynical, most sinister attack on press freedom since the end of apartheid”, says throwing a journalist out of a press conference and preventing his organisation from covering an event was censorship. “There is a concerning lack of respect for the media’s role in society,” he says. “The media are necessary for the public good to continually monitor and report on issues. We need to promote the idea of having an open society, where people are free to express themselves, where the media are free to do their jobs.”
Leshilo says despite an undertaking from the police ministry that journalists will not be prevented from doing their jobs, “ the message does not appear to be filtering down to the members who are still harassing journalists,” he says.
Harber says Malema’s comments that the rest of the media could leave yesterday’s conference because the only media house they were worried about was the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) because it “was their own”, did immeasurable damage to SABC’s credibility.
SA is ranked 44th out of 168 countries in the latest index on press freedom.
Source: Business Day
This came on the heels of Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging secretary-general Andre Visagie walking out on an e.tv talk show on the relationship between farm workers and their bosses after he became unhappy about how the interview was being handled. These incidents on their own would be concerning, but it is not the first incident involving the ANCYL or the only incident involving media being censored in the past few months. Last month, a group of journalists lodged a formal complaint against ANCYL spokesman Floyd Shivambu for allegedly threatening journalists, saying that he had information on them after they questioned the accuracy of a document on another journalist that was leaked to them by Shivambu.
Shivambu’s attack followed a series of stories on Malema’s lifestyle and questions on whether he had directorships in companies that could be constituted as a conflict of interest. The information in Shivambu’s possession on a City Press journalist, who has been particularly critical of Malema, suggests that someone gained access to that journalist’s personal bank account. The indication was that data was being gathered on a number of journalists.
At almost the same time, two Mail & Guardian journalists were detained after taking pictures of President Jacob Zuma’s home in Forest Town, Johannesburg, and 702 Eyewitness News reporter Tshepo Lesole was forced by Zuma’s VIP unit to delete pictures of the president’s motorcade during a visit to Soweto’s Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital. Then, on March 23, eNews journalist Morgan Collins was arrested in Durban while covering a protest by nurses employed by the city council. Collins, who was allegedly standing on a pavement, was given five minutes to leave by metro police and did not.
Anton Harber, head of the Wits University journalism department, says there is a “worrying disrespect” for the media emerging. “The media at the moment are being tough on a number of issues and this is leading to a lot of intolerance from a number of quarters,” he says. “The only way the media can stand up to this is with good solid reporting and to support each other when an individual journalist is targeted. “Ahead of the Olympic Games in China there was a lot of insistence on the media’s freedom to operate independently during the games, and yesterday’s incident involving the ANCYL reflects badly in world media on SA and the Soccer World Cup.”
Sanef Media Freedom chairman Thabo Leshilo, who had described the Shivambu incident as “the most cynical, most sinister attack on press freedom since the end of apartheid”, says throwing a journalist out of a press conference and preventing his organisation from covering an event was censorship. “There is a concerning lack of respect for the media’s role in society,” he says. “The media are necessary for the public good to continually monitor and report on issues. We need to promote the idea of having an open society, where people are free to express themselves, where the media are free to do their jobs.”
Leshilo says despite an undertaking from the police ministry that journalists will not be prevented from doing their jobs, “ the message does not appear to be filtering down to the members who are still harassing journalists,” he says.
Harber says Malema’s comments that the rest of the media could leave yesterday’s conference because the only media house they were worried about was the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) because it “was their own”, did immeasurable damage to SABC’s credibility.
SA is ranked 44th out of 168 countries in the latest index on press freedom.
Source: Business Day
ZIMBABWE: Food insecurity threatens rural villages
The villagers of Nkalanje, in Zimbabwe's arid Matabeleland South Province, use bells tied around the necks of their livestock to track animals that roam ever greater distances in search of sparse tufts of grass as a dry spell tightens its grip in the already food insecure country. Nicholas Ntepe, 40, told IRIN he often spent days away from home to find his livestock and bring them closer to home. "It is a tough life, because I have to divide my time between looking for my livestock and looking for food to feed my family." An assessment by at the beginning of April indicated that crops had failed in all seven districts of Matabeleland South, and an estimated 9,000 tons of maize would be required each month to mitigate the effects of the expected food shortages.
The governor of the province, Angeline Masuku, told IRIN: "We have not yet had distress calls, possibly because some people are still surviving on produce such as pumpkins, but we expect to stock up maize so that we are found ready when the food shortages become more pronounced." Masuku said although the province had received occasional drizzle, which had improved pastures, most of the crops were a write-off and sparse pastures posed a serious threat to villagers' livestock.
The province plans to introduce a scheme in which villagers undertake community improvement tasks, such as assisting clinics, schools and other public institutions, in return for food. A similar situation is unfolding in Midlands Province, where the harvest is projected to fail in most parts, with the districts of Mberengwa, Zvishavane, Shurugwi, Gweru and Mvuma hardest hit. About 2.4 million people received food assistance in the first quarter of 2010 and a recent UNICEF report noted that "approximately 78 percent of the population of Zimbabwe is absolutely poor, and 55 percent live below the food poverty line".
People living below the food poverty line cannot meet any of their basic needs and suffer chronic hunger. The report said an estimated 6.6 million people, including 3.5 million children, were suffering this extreme form of deprivation. A report by the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) said although most households in rural areas had come through the peak hunger season, adverse agricultural conditions were affecting Masvingo, Matabeleland South and Manicaland provinces, among other areas. "It's another bad year for the province, as only three out of eight districts are likely to record meaningful harvests this year," Jason Machaya, governor of Midlands, told IRIN. "The tonnage is far less than what we require to feed all the families that have run out of food, and there is urgent need to source more maize."
Chief Ngungumbane, in Mberengwa district, Midlands, told IRIN: "People here have not harvested anything for the past two years. At the moment only one NGO [which he did not name] is assisting people under the food-for-work programme, but this is not enough because most families ran out of food last year." The people who were most vulnerable would slip through the net if they could not work. "Those living with HIV and AIDS, the aged and the disabled cannot benefit, yet they are the worst affected," Ngungumbane said.
Nyasha Zindove, the administrator of Zaka district in Masvingo Province, said there was urgent need for food relief. "We need food aid as of yesterday - at least 100,000 villagers are vulnerable."
Source: IRIN
The governor of the province, Angeline Masuku, told IRIN: "We have not yet had distress calls, possibly because some people are still surviving on produce such as pumpkins, but we expect to stock up maize so that we are found ready when the food shortages become more pronounced." Masuku said although the province had received occasional drizzle, which had improved pastures, most of the crops were a write-off and sparse pastures posed a serious threat to villagers' livestock.
The province plans to introduce a scheme in which villagers undertake community improvement tasks, such as assisting clinics, schools and other public institutions, in return for food. A similar situation is unfolding in Midlands Province, where the harvest is projected to fail in most parts, with the districts of Mberengwa, Zvishavane, Shurugwi, Gweru and Mvuma hardest hit. About 2.4 million people received food assistance in the first quarter of 2010 and a recent UNICEF report noted that "approximately 78 percent of the population of Zimbabwe is absolutely poor, and 55 percent live below the food poverty line".
People living below the food poverty line cannot meet any of their basic needs and suffer chronic hunger. The report said an estimated 6.6 million people, including 3.5 million children, were suffering this extreme form of deprivation. A report by the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) said although most households in rural areas had come through the peak hunger season, adverse agricultural conditions were affecting Masvingo, Matabeleland South and Manicaland provinces, among other areas. "It's another bad year for the province, as only three out of eight districts are likely to record meaningful harvests this year," Jason Machaya, governor of Midlands, told IRIN. "The tonnage is far less than what we require to feed all the families that have run out of food, and there is urgent need to source more maize."
Chief Ngungumbane, in Mberengwa district, Midlands, told IRIN: "People here have not harvested anything for the past two years. At the moment only one NGO [which he did not name] is assisting people under the food-for-work programme, but this is not enough because most families ran out of food last year." The people who were most vulnerable would slip through the net if they could not work. "Those living with HIV and AIDS, the aged and the disabled cannot benefit, yet they are the worst affected," Ngungumbane said.
Nyasha Zindove, the administrator of Zaka district in Masvingo Province, said there was urgent need for food relief. "We need food aid as of yesterday - at least 100,000 villagers are vulnerable."
Source: IRIN
Julius Malema and the Roots of Fascism in South Africa
I met a young man called Lubabalo Folose because I regularly pass through his place of work – O.R. Tambo International Airport near Johannesburg. Neatly dressed and always smiling, he shines shoes. A few years ago he persuaded me to let him shine my shoes “because if you are in the Treatment Action Campaign you must have clean shoes” he said.
Lubabalo’s shoe shining techniques are good but his analysis and questioning of contemporary politics is always more astute than many commentators. We have become friends because I have learnt more about sacrifice and hard work from this man who reminds me of my parents and grand-parents than from all our political representatives. Most days, Lubalo wakes at 03:00 and makes his way to the airport where he shines the shoes of lawyers who can earn R30 000.00 a day and business men (black and white) who make much more all use his services. At the end of the month (after working 240 hours excluding 100 hours travelling to work) Lubabalo takes home about R1000,00. He completed matric and wanted to become a nurse or teacher but he does not have enough money to improve his grades or to study through UNISA. He lives in a shack and he refuses to marry or father children until he has saved money. Lubabalo Folose works hard and earns about R4.00 an hour. Can he be regarded as fortunate because the majority of his peers will never have an income?
The average male farm worker in Vanwyksdorp where my friend and comrade Jack Lewis has a small-holding earns R300.00 per week and he has to decide whether to feed himself or his family. Women farmworkers earn even less. Similarly, clothing and textile workers earn starvation wages while many casual workers in the service sector hardly earn R2000.00 per month. Class and race inequality, the conditions of immiseration, unimaginable hardship combined with a riot in luxury are at the roots of an emerging fascism in South Africa.
Julius Malema is a cunning, dangerous and popular decoy for people in the state and powerful ANC leaders linked to business. They aim to cement their power, weaken democracy and extract every ounce of fat from the state. They use the anger of the unemployed, alloy it with sexism, patriarchy and envy to create a movement. Two obstacles bar the way of Malema, corrupt civil servants and business leaders to the bank: the over-privileged and very often racist white minority and the vast mass of poor and working people. White people are an easy target but not the central obstacle.
The Democratic Alliance and their business allies have similar objectives to Malema: ensure greater profits for business and protect privileged lifestyles. The mines, farms, the hotels, the casinos, retail outlets and tenders owned or eyed by Malema and his backers can only make excessive profits if they drive down wages and conditions of workers.
The divisive racism against white people must be combated but it is also a smoke-screen for an even more dangerous agenda. For enfeebled, entitled and greedy black business (and their powerful white counter-parts) to profiteer, the solidarity and organisation of working class people must be destroyed. Both white and black business and their representatives want to use the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised people against the working class. How often do we hear the refrain from economists such as Nicoli Nattrass at UCT to political leaders such as Tony Leon and Helen Zille that the labour laws and the trade union “aristocracy” prevent business growth?
These paragons of constitutional virtue would not object to a constitutional amendment that removes fair labour practices Representatives of privileged and upper-class interests have no roots among the socially disenfranchised and this is what makes Malema dangerous. The arrogance of over-privileged white people also relies on the insecurity of white, coloured and Indian middle-classes to build a political power base. The AWB is an expression of the broad climate of racist invective from faceless white people on the internet, talk shows and private conversation that developed even before Malema. The big black business faction of the ANC cannot inscribe “Enrich yourself” on its banner instead it has to wear the garments of Robert Mugabe. Nationalisation and land occupations represent their route to power. The business people in the ANC who regard themselves as progressive have to openly condemn Malema.
The presence of the trade unions in the African National Congress together with an independent progressive civil society and socially engaged religious communities represents the real alternative and the possibility and probability of a more equal and just distribution of income and wealth. They are also the real target of Malema and his business faction. Right now, Cosatu must take the initiative to call together leaders and organisations of civil society, religious bodies and all labour federations to condemn the emerging fascism that uses the ANC for black business. Julius Malema must be condemned by every trade union leader.
Cosatu must build and lead a political campaign for fair global labour and trade standards, equal education, health for all, and sustained public investment. In addition, it must demand just and fair economic union in Southern Africa because our growth path will be strengthened with the development of Angola, DRC and the smaller countries in our region.
The ANC leadership has allowed this situation to develop. Only after they faced international media condemnation because of Malema (and his cruel antics that insults people of Zimbabwe) the leadership developed some backbone. As an ANC member, I ask that Julius Malema and his clique be removed from our movement.
Source: Zackie Achmat: Writing Rights
Lubabalo’s shoe shining techniques are good but his analysis and questioning of contemporary politics is always more astute than many commentators. We have become friends because I have learnt more about sacrifice and hard work from this man who reminds me of my parents and grand-parents than from all our political representatives. Most days, Lubalo wakes at 03:00 and makes his way to the airport where he shines the shoes of lawyers who can earn R30 000.00 a day and business men (black and white) who make much more all use his services. At the end of the month (after working 240 hours excluding 100 hours travelling to work) Lubabalo takes home about R1000,00. He completed matric and wanted to become a nurse or teacher but he does not have enough money to improve his grades or to study through UNISA. He lives in a shack and he refuses to marry or father children until he has saved money. Lubabalo Folose works hard and earns about R4.00 an hour. Can he be regarded as fortunate because the majority of his peers will never have an income?
The average male farm worker in Vanwyksdorp where my friend and comrade Jack Lewis has a small-holding earns R300.00 per week and he has to decide whether to feed himself or his family. Women farmworkers earn even less. Similarly, clothing and textile workers earn starvation wages while many casual workers in the service sector hardly earn R2000.00 per month. Class and race inequality, the conditions of immiseration, unimaginable hardship combined with a riot in luxury are at the roots of an emerging fascism in South Africa.
Julius Malema is a cunning, dangerous and popular decoy for people in the state and powerful ANC leaders linked to business. They aim to cement their power, weaken democracy and extract every ounce of fat from the state. They use the anger of the unemployed, alloy it with sexism, patriarchy and envy to create a movement. Two obstacles bar the way of Malema, corrupt civil servants and business leaders to the bank: the over-privileged and very often racist white minority and the vast mass of poor and working people. White people are an easy target but not the central obstacle.
The Democratic Alliance and their business allies have similar objectives to Malema: ensure greater profits for business and protect privileged lifestyles. The mines, farms, the hotels, the casinos, retail outlets and tenders owned or eyed by Malema and his backers can only make excessive profits if they drive down wages and conditions of workers.
The divisive racism against white people must be combated but it is also a smoke-screen for an even more dangerous agenda. For enfeebled, entitled and greedy black business (and their powerful white counter-parts) to profiteer, the solidarity and organisation of working class people must be destroyed. Both white and black business and their representatives want to use the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised people against the working class. How often do we hear the refrain from economists such as Nicoli Nattrass at UCT to political leaders such as Tony Leon and Helen Zille that the labour laws and the trade union “aristocracy” prevent business growth?
These paragons of constitutional virtue would not object to a constitutional amendment that removes fair labour practices Representatives of privileged and upper-class interests have no roots among the socially disenfranchised and this is what makes Malema dangerous. The arrogance of over-privileged white people also relies on the insecurity of white, coloured and Indian middle-classes to build a political power base. The AWB is an expression of the broad climate of racist invective from faceless white people on the internet, talk shows and private conversation that developed even before Malema. The big black business faction of the ANC cannot inscribe “Enrich yourself” on its banner instead it has to wear the garments of Robert Mugabe. Nationalisation and land occupations represent their route to power. The business people in the ANC who regard themselves as progressive have to openly condemn Malema.
The presence of the trade unions in the African National Congress together with an independent progressive civil society and socially engaged religious communities represents the real alternative and the possibility and probability of a more equal and just distribution of income and wealth. They are also the real target of Malema and his business faction. Right now, Cosatu must take the initiative to call together leaders and organisations of civil society, religious bodies and all labour federations to condemn the emerging fascism that uses the ANC for black business. Julius Malema must be condemned by every trade union leader.
Cosatu must build and lead a political campaign for fair global labour and trade standards, equal education, health for all, and sustained public investment. In addition, it must demand just and fair economic union in Southern Africa because our growth path will be strengthened with the development of Angola, DRC and the smaller countries in our region.
The ANC leadership has allowed this situation to develop. Only after they faced international media condemnation because of Malema (and his cruel antics that insults people of Zimbabwe) the leadership developed some backbone. As an ANC member, I ask that Julius Malema and his clique be removed from our movement.
Source: Zackie Achmat: Writing Rights
Zuma's approval rating falls
President Jacob Zuma's approval rating has plummeted to 43 percent compared with 58 percent in December 2009, and 75 percent in November 2009.
A survey of 2 000 urban adults in the major metropolitan areas by research company TNS puts his approval rating in the first quarter of 2010 at levels last seen before last year's election. The survey was conducted in February, in the week of revelations that Zuma had fathered a child with Irvin Khoza's daughter Sonono. "This is against the backdrop of various issues that have surrounded his personal life - the multiple wives and the revelations of his love child - the continuing stalemate in Zimbabwe and growing service delivery protests," TNS said.
Zuma's approval rating among blacks fell from 75 percent in November to 58 percent in February, with 27 percent of blacks disapproving of him and 15 percent undecided. Among whites, his approval rating is 17 percent, with 64 percent disapproving and 19 percent undecided. Sixty-six percent of coloureds and 65 percent of Indians do not approve of Zuma.
His popularity has taken a knock in a number of metropolitan areas. In Joburg and surrounding areas, Zuma's approval rating has gone down from 64 to 50 percent. In Soweto, it has decreased from 70 to 50 percent, while in Pretoria only 35 percent approve of him, down from 61 percent in November. His rating among all Gauteng residents stands at 47 percent, down from 64 percent. Only 23 percent of those in Cape Town approve of Zuma, down from 35 percent. His approval rating has also taken a nosedive in Durban, where only 49 percent now approve of him, down from 61 percent.
Younger people were more accepting of Zuma, with 45 percent of those under 34 saying he is doing a good job. But his rating among over-50s has declined from 63 percent to only 32 percent.
Source: IoL
A survey of 2 000 urban adults in the major metropolitan areas by research company TNS puts his approval rating in the first quarter of 2010 at levels last seen before last year's election. The survey was conducted in February, in the week of revelations that Zuma had fathered a child with Irvin Khoza's daughter Sonono. "This is against the backdrop of various issues that have surrounded his personal life - the multiple wives and the revelations of his love child - the continuing stalemate in Zimbabwe and growing service delivery protests," TNS said.
Zuma's approval rating among blacks fell from 75 percent in November to 58 percent in February, with 27 percent of blacks disapproving of him and 15 percent undecided. Among whites, his approval rating is 17 percent, with 64 percent disapproving and 19 percent undecided. Sixty-six percent of coloureds and 65 percent of Indians do not approve of Zuma.
His popularity has taken a knock in a number of metropolitan areas. In Joburg and surrounding areas, Zuma's approval rating has gone down from 64 to 50 percent. In Soweto, it has decreased from 70 to 50 percent, while in Pretoria only 35 percent approve of him, down from 61 percent in November. His rating among all Gauteng residents stands at 47 percent, down from 64 percent. Only 23 percent of those in Cape Town approve of Zuma, down from 35 percent. His approval rating has also taken a nosedive in Durban, where only 49 percent now approve of him, down from 61 percent.
Younger people were more accepting of Zuma, with 45 percent of those under 34 saying he is doing a good job. But his rating among over-50s has declined from 63 percent to only 32 percent.
Source: IoL
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Kill the boer not part of ANC Heritage
Is the controversial song urging the killing of “Boers” truly part of the ANC’s liberation struggle heritage, or are such claims simply an ingenuous, or perhaps sinister, attempt by the ANC leadership to defend its Youth League leader Julius Malema by distorting the historical truth? Or is the ANC itself trying to rewrite history after it accused the courts of doing so when two successive court rulings found the song to incite racial hatred – findings in line with one already made by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) as long ago as 2003? These are questions that come to the fore from an investigation into the origins of the controversial song, "Dubula iBhunu".
The truth seems to be that words to the same effect first were chanted in Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) circles in the early 1990s along with their infamous slogan of “one settler, one bullet”. Shortly thereafter, the late ANC youth leader Peter Mokaba borrowed the slogan and began chanting his “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” version in 1993 after the murder of ANC and Communist Party leader, Chris Hani.
In none of the sources on the origins of the song which could be identified, could any indication be found that the song has ever been part of the ANC repertoire of songs during the struggle days. Although the controversial song sung by Malema is claimed now to be a historical liberation struggle song, it was not included in a 2-CD history and recording of 25 freedom songs released in 2002. Senior ANC and former Umkhonto we Sizwe leaders, including Ronnie Kasrils, Baleka Mbete and Pallo Jordan among others, had collaborated in the production of the collection.
At the time of its release, the CD set was described as a collection of field recordings of songs and chants used in the liberation struggle, complemented by a radio documentary providing an overview of the songs, their history and context in the struggle. These songs were sung in ANC camps, at meetings, mass rallies, demonstrations and other gatherings. The set, it was said, was designed as an archival and historical document. Nowhere did it mention “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” or “shoot the Boer”.
All indications are that the slogan or chant and the song, or even songs that developed from it, originated with the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). In August 1999, Thomas Ramaila told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that he had been a PAC operative and had been influenced by what he called a PAC slogan, namely “kill the farmer, kill the Boer” to kill a farmer, Neville Rudman. Most of Ramaila’s testimony and his amnesty application were rejected, but his reference to the slogan was not. The slogan/song in any version was used first in circles associated with the PAC in the early 1990s, although the PAC never officially took ownership of it and, after the first democratic elections of 1994, distanced itself from it. At almost the same time, the ANC’s Mokaba began using the slogan in 1993 when the armed struggle for all intents and purposes was a thing of the past.
In that same year, a large crowd of PAC supporters marched through Cape Town’s Kenilworth and Claremont suburbs, demanding the release of PAC members who had been arrested in connection with the massacre of 11 churchgoers at the St. James Church and chanted “kill the Boer, kill the farmer”, “one settler, one bullet” and “one church, one bomb”. Also in 1993, at a rally in Tembisa near Johannesburg, both Mokaba and a PAC representative used these or similar words in speeches to the large crowd. Mokaba reportedly also urged the crowd to direct their “bullets” at then president FW de Klerk, declaring that he hated De Klerk. To which the PAC representative added, “war against the enemy... kill them”.
In March this year, a former participant in an August 1993 march (called “Operation Barcelona”) against increased exam fees in Cape Town, wrote in a comment to an article on the Internet, that he was among PASO (PAC student wing) students in the march who chanted “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” immediately before American student Amy Biehl was killed by members of that mob.
In 2002, then president Thabo Mbeki, as president of the ANC, and in 2003 then ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe - who is now ANC deputy president - firmly and unambiguously distanced the ANC from any such song or slogan, saying it had never been, and would never be, a part of the ANC. No claim was made then that it – in any form - ever had been an ANC liberation struggle song. That is until now, when, in March this year, Malema began singing a generic version of Mokaba’s chant. Suddenly senior ANC leaders, among them secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, are claiming this to be an old ANC liberation struggle song that apparently never was sung to incite violence against white farmers or whites in general, but was aimed against the apartheid regime.
Mcebisi Ndletyana, senior researcher at the Human Science Research Council - in another defence of the song and attack on the judges who ruled against its use in an article in "The Sunday Independent" - claims the song embodies black hatred of “whiteness”, but not of people of European descent... with a very wooly explaination of what the difference is intended to be.
No documentary or other evidence could be found that the chant or related songs were indeed ANC liberation songs before 1993, when the liberation struggle was practically over and constitutional negotiations in full swing. The Mokaba chant of “kill the farmer, kill the Boer” was next heard in June 2002 at an ANC Youth League meeting in Kimberley, and at Mokaba’s funeral in Limpopo. The funeral was attended by prominent ANC leaders, including Nelson Mandela and Mbeki, and the chanting was stopped immediately.
The Freedom Front lodged a complaint of hate speech with the HRC, which subsequently rejected it. However Mbeki, as president of the ANC and the country at the time, on 19 June of that year told Parliament: “Nobody in our country has a right to call for the killing of any South African, whatever the colour, race, ethnic origin, gender or health condition of the intended victim. Those farmers and boers are as much South African and African as I am...”
In June 2003, the HRC, chaired by Professor Karthy Govender, assisted by Professor Henk Botha and Mr Khashane Manamela, heard an appeal by the Freedom Front against the earlier HRC ruling. In their decision, delivered on 15 July, they overturned the earlier HRC ruling and found that the slogan "Kill the farmer, kill the boer" as chanted at the ANC youth rally in Kimberley and at the funeral of Mokaba constituted hate speech as defined in section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution.
What is even more interesting is that part of the record of submissions made to the HRC at the time contains a letter from Motlanthe, then ANC secretary-general, stating that the ‘’utterance has never been, cannot and will never be a slogan of the ANC, not used by the ANC at all.’’ The logical assumption then is that, according to Motlanthe, it was not part of the ANC’s liberation struggle heritage.
Source: Leadership online
The truth seems to be that words to the same effect first were chanted in Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) circles in the early 1990s along with their infamous slogan of “one settler, one bullet”. Shortly thereafter, the late ANC youth leader Peter Mokaba borrowed the slogan and began chanting his “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” version in 1993 after the murder of ANC and Communist Party leader, Chris Hani.
In none of the sources on the origins of the song which could be identified, could any indication be found that the song has ever been part of the ANC repertoire of songs during the struggle days. Although the controversial song sung by Malema is claimed now to be a historical liberation struggle song, it was not included in a 2-CD history and recording of 25 freedom songs released in 2002. Senior ANC and former Umkhonto we Sizwe leaders, including Ronnie Kasrils, Baleka Mbete and Pallo Jordan among others, had collaborated in the production of the collection.
At the time of its release, the CD set was described as a collection of field recordings of songs and chants used in the liberation struggle, complemented by a radio documentary providing an overview of the songs, their history and context in the struggle. These songs were sung in ANC camps, at meetings, mass rallies, demonstrations and other gatherings. The set, it was said, was designed as an archival and historical document. Nowhere did it mention “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” or “shoot the Boer”.
All indications are that the slogan or chant and the song, or even songs that developed from it, originated with the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). In August 1999, Thomas Ramaila told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that he had been a PAC operative and had been influenced by what he called a PAC slogan, namely “kill the farmer, kill the Boer” to kill a farmer, Neville Rudman. Most of Ramaila’s testimony and his amnesty application were rejected, but his reference to the slogan was not. The slogan/song in any version was used first in circles associated with the PAC in the early 1990s, although the PAC never officially took ownership of it and, after the first democratic elections of 1994, distanced itself from it. At almost the same time, the ANC’s Mokaba began using the slogan in 1993 when the armed struggle for all intents and purposes was a thing of the past.
In that same year, a large crowd of PAC supporters marched through Cape Town’s Kenilworth and Claremont suburbs, demanding the release of PAC members who had been arrested in connection with the massacre of 11 churchgoers at the St. James Church and chanted “kill the Boer, kill the farmer”, “one settler, one bullet” and “one church, one bomb”. Also in 1993, at a rally in Tembisa near Johannesburg, both Mokaba and a PAC representative used these or similar words in speeches to the large crowd. Mokaba reportedly also urged the crowd to direct their “bullets” at then president FW de Klerk, declaring that he hated De Klerk. To which the PAC representative added, “war against the enemy... kill them”.
In March this year, a former participant in an August 1993 march (called “Operation Barcelona”) against increased exam fees in Cape Town, wrote in a comment to an article on the Internet, that he was among PASO (PAC student wing) students in the march who chanted “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” immediately before American student Amy Biehl was killed by members of that mob.
In 2002, then president Thabo Mbeki, as president of the ANC, and in 2003 then ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe - who is now ANC deputy president - firmly and unambiguously distanced the ANC from any such song or slogan, saying it had never been, and would never be, a part of the ANC. No claim was made then that it – in any form - ever had been an ANC liberation struggle song. That is until now, when, in March this year, Malema began singing a generic version of Mokaba’s chant. Suddenly senior ANC leaders, among them secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, are claiming this to be an old ANC liberation struggle song that apparently never was sung to incite violence against white farmers or whites in general, but was aimed against the apartheid regime.
Mcebisi Ndletyana, senior researcher at the Human Science Research Council - in another defence of the song and attack on the judges who ruled against its use in an article in "The Sunday Independent" - claims the song embodies black hatred of “whiteness”, but not of people of European descent... with a very wooly explaination of what the difference is intended to be.
No documentary or other evidence could be found that the chant or related songs were indeed ANC liberation songs before 1993, when the liberation struggle was practically over and constitutional negotiations in full swing. The Mokaba chant of “kill the farmer, kill the Boer” was next heard in June 2002 at an ANC Youth League meeting in Kimberley, and at Mokaba’s funeral in Limpopo. The funeral was attended by prominent ANC leaders, including Nelson Mandela and Mbeki, and the chanting was stopped immediately.
The Freedom Front lodged a complaint of hate speech with the HRC, which subsequently rejected it. However Mbeki, as president of the ANC and the country at the time, on 19 June of that year told Parliament: “Nobody in our country has a right to call for the killing of any South African, whatever the colour, race, ethnic origin, gender or health condition of the intended victim. Those farmers and boers are as much South African and African as I am...”
In June 2003, the HRC, chaired by Professor Karthy Govender, assisted by Professor Henk Botha and Mr Khashane Manamela, heard an appeal by the Freedom Front against the earlier HRC ruling. In their decision, delivered on 15 July, they overturned the earlier HRC ruling and found that the slogan "Kill the farmer, kill the boer" as chanted at the ANC youth rally in Kimberley and at the funeral of Mokaba constituted hate speech as defined in section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution.
What is even more interesting is that part of the record of submissions made to the HRC at the time contains a letter from Motlanthe, then ANC secretary-general, stating that the ‘’utterance has never been, cannot and will never be a slogan of the ANC, not used by the ANC at all.’’ The logical assumption then is that, according to Motlanthe, it was not part of the ANC’s liberation struggle heritage.
Source: Leadership online
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Time to move away from the Malema monologue to dialogue on our future
A hip-hop star, allegedly high on cocaine ploughs into a group of schoolchildren in Soweto, killing 4 of them. The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Menzi Simelane, admits to intervening in order to ensure that the singer gets bail. This is so despite the fact that the senior prosecutor assigned to the case, opposes bail. A senior political figure visits the singer in prison and provides him with a take-out meal.
This story of hip-hop singer, Jub-Jub neatly reflects so much of what is wrong in our society; life is cheap and if you are poor it is even cheaper and there are no guarantees that the law will provide the requisite protection from excess. Those who are politically connected, it seems, stand a greater chance of escaping the consequences of their actions. No presidential address made the news when these children were killed. One of the most dangerous appointments made by President Zuma must surely be that of Menzi Simelane? During the Ginwala commission of enquiry into the fitness of Vusi Pikoli (then NDPP) to hold office, Simelane, then Director-General of Justice, was found to have interfered when he deemed it proper to pen a letter to Vusi Pikoli in order to stop the investigation into Jackie Selebi. Ginwala found this conduct to be ‘reckless' and Simelane's evidence ‘contradictory'. That Simelane is now in probably one of the most powerful positions in the country and making decisions on prosecutions should concern all who are committed to the rule of law. His ‘redeployment' of senior members of the prosecuting service seems less linked to bolstering the lower courts than to weakening the resolve of senior prosecutors. His admission to intervening in the Jub Jub case and opposition to a provisional preservation order against Fana Hlongwane, who was alleged to have received bribes associated with the arms deal both indicate that Simelane is continuing his ‘reckless' actions to suit the political winds. Thus far Simelane has done little to deserve our trust. In fact, in the Jub Jub case he has acted against the interests of children and the community through his intervention.
This weekend when Eugene Terreblanche is murdered on his farm in Ventersdorp, the President, in an address on national television appeals for calm and says that ‘the institutions of state' must be allowed to do their work. They should, but then equally, those in power should not use political influence to undermine the institutions of state, as we have seen repeatedly in recent times. For, during times of crisis and when political rhetoric becomes inflamed, all we can do is rely on the rules of the game. What this means, simply, is that when a court hands down a decision regarding hate speech, the state should be firm in its resolve to ensure that inflammatory language does not lace our political discourse. It also means that the President, as head of state must unequivocally show leadership on such matters and on questions of nation-building. It means that the President must, on behalf of all of us, say unequivocally, that the nightmarish visions of an unelected upstart like Julius Malema, dressed in ZANU-PF garb does not represent who and what we are.
Whatever the motive behind the murder, the Terreblanche incident shows that life is cheap; both white life and black life. It is a sad indictment of our society and the depravity which is reflected in these acts. Black people in Ventersdorp now live in fear of reprisals from right-wingers. White farmers continuously live in fear of being murdered and attacked on their farm homes. Whatever the politics of Terreblanche, his murder was a brutal act and must be condemned. It should also provide pause for thought at the hundreds of farmers murdered annually and the many killed in townships and suburbs across our country in random criminal acts. If anything, the state has failed dismally to keep us all safe. We don't need statistics to prove the lawlessness. It is in the suburbs behind electric fences, in the townships amongst mothers afraid to allow children to play outside for fear of being raped or attacked.
We live in uncertain times. Our political leadership has never been as unconvincing since the dawn of democracy. Never before has cross-racial solidarity to advance the gains of 1994 been so crucial. Never before have we needed to build social movements, a powerful media and community organizations to advance the rights of the Constitution, more than now. It is time. It is time for ordinary citizens, business, the academy and communities to take a stand for a decent society with principled leadership. It is time for us to move away from the ‘Malema monologue' and into a dialogue between the millions of peace-loving South Africans who want to see the beloved country prosper.
Source: Polity: INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH AFRICA: Judith February
This story of hip-hop singer, Jub-Jub neatly reflects so much of what is wrong in our society; life is cheap and if you are poor it is even cheaper and there are no guarantees that the law will provide the requisite protection from excess. Those who are politically connected, it seems, stand a greater chance of escaping the consequences of their actions. No presidential address made the news when these children were killed. One of the most dangerous appointments made by President Zuma must surely be that of Menzi Simelane? During the Ginwala commission of enquiry into the fitness of Vusi Pikoli (then NDPP) to hold office, Simelane, then Director-General of Justice, was found to have interfered when he deemed it proper to pen a letter to Vusi Pikoli in order to stop the investigation into Jackie Selebi. Ginwala found this conduct to be ‘reckless' and Simelane's evidence ‘contradictory'. That Simelane is now in probably one of the most powerful positions in the country and making decisions on prosecutions should concern all who are committed to the rule of law. His ‘redeployment' of senior members of the prosecuting service seems less linked to bolstering the lower courts than to weakening the resolve of senior prosecutors. His admission to intervening in the Jub Jub case and opposition to a provisional preservation order against Fana Hlongwane, who was alleged to have received bribes associated with the arms deal both indicate that Simelane is continuing his ‘reckless' actions to suit the political winds. Thus far Simelane has done little to deserve our trust. In fact, in the Jub Jub case he has acted against the interests of children and the community through his intervention.
This weekend when Eugene Terreblanche is murdered on his farm in Ventersdorp, the President, in an address on national television appeals for calm and says that ‘the institutions of state' must be allowed to do their work. They should, but then equally, those in power should not use political influence to undermine the institutions of state, as we have seen repeatedly in recent times. For, during times of crisis and when political rhetoric becomes inflamed, all we can do is rely on the rules of the game. What this means, simply, is that when a court hands down a decision regarding hate speech, the state should be firm in its resolve to ensure that inflammatory language does not lace our political discourse. It also means that the President, as head of state must unequivocally show leadership on such matters and on questions of nation-building. It means that the President must, on behalf of all of us, say unequivocally, that the nightmarish visions of an unelected upstart like Julius Malema, dressed in ZANU-PF garb does not represent who and what we are.
Whatever the motive behind the murder, the Terreblanche incident shows that life is cheap; both white life and black life. It is a sad indictment of our society and the depravity which is reflected in these acts. Black people in Ventersdorp now live in fear of reprisals from right-wingers. White farmers continuously live in fear of being murdered and attacked on their farm homes. Whatever the politics of Terreblanche, his murder was a brutal act and must be condemned. It should also provide pause for thought at the hundreds of farmers murdered annually and the many killed in townships and suburbs across our country in random criminal acts. If anything, the state has failed dismally to keep us all safe. We don't need statistics to prove the lawlessness. It is in the suburbs behind electric fences, in the townships amongst mothers afraid to allow children to play outside for fear of being raped or attacked.
We live in uncertain times. Our political leadership has never been as unconvincing since the dawn of democracy. Never before has cross-racial solidarity to advance the gains of 1994 been so crucial. Never before have we needed to build social movements, a powerful media and community organizations to advance the rights of the Constitution, more than now. It is time. It is time for ordinary citizens, business, the academy and communities to take a stand for a decent society with principled leadership. It is time for us to move away from the ‘Malema monologue' and into a dialogue between the millions of peace-loving South Africans who want to see the beloved country prosper.
Source: Polity: INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH AFRICA: Judith February
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Zimbabwe man stoned to death in brutal xenophobic attack
A Zimbabwean man, a father of five, has been stoned to death for being a Zimbabwean, in a brutal xenophobic attack believed to be organised by local ANC local leaders.
Those who knew him say Sergent Kanyimo was a quiet man whose only passion was his wife and five children back home in Zimbabwe.
The xenophobic attack happened in the early hours of Good Friday in Wallacedene, Kraaifontein, as Sergent left for work in Simon's Town. Homeowner Maduna Mwahla, 56, says she was shocked to see the bloodied man in her yard. "It just doesn't make sense. Why would one kill a man simply because he comes from another country?" she asks. She says she heard a stone hitting her house then peeped through the window and saw Sergent sprawled on her doorstep. "They hit him with a hammer until he fell down - he stood up but they hit him repeatedly until he could stand no more," she says.
But witnessing the murder is the least of Maduna's worries - she is scared Sergent's spirit will haunt her home and begged his family to conduct a ritual to cleanse it. "Before they leave, they must say to him: 'Now we are collecting your body and we are taking it back to Zimbabwe'," Maduna says. "I'm worried that his soul will roam around and cause bad luck."
A 22-year-old witness to the attack says Sergent's death is xenophobic and a local ANC leader has been fingered in the attack. "They [the attackers] said they wanted to rid our area of foreigners - and it hurts because I know him personally," she says. Sergent's brother-in-law Adam Chairi, 22, says the older man hated alcohol and kept to himself. "All he cared about were his five kids and wife he left in Zimbabwe," says Adam.
Source: The Zimbabwe Mail
Those who knew him say Sergent Kanyimo was a quiet man whose only passion was his wife and five children back home in Zimbabwe.
The xenophobic attack happened in the early hours of Good Friday in Wallacedene, Kraaifontein, as Sergent left for work in Simon's Town. Homeowner Maduna Mwahla, 56, says she was shocked to see the bloodied man in her yard. "It just doesn't make sense. Why would one kill a man simply because he comes from another country?" she asks. She says she heard a stone hitting her house then peeped through the window and saw Sergent sprawled on her doorstep. "They hit him with a hammer until he fell down - he stood up but they hit him repeatedly until he could stand no more," she says.
But witnessing the murder is the least of Maduna's worries - she is scared Sergent's spirit will haunt her home and begged his family to conduct a ritual to cleanse it. "Before they leave, they must say to him: 'Now we are collecting your body and we are taking it back to Zimbabwe'," Maduna says. "I'm worried that his soul will roam around and cause bad luck."
A 22-year-old witness to the attack says Sergent's death is xenophobic and a local ANC leader has been fingered in the attack. "They [the attackers] said they wanted to rid our area of foreigners - and it hurts because I know him personally," she says. Sergent's brother-in-law Adam Chairi, 22, says the older man hated alcohol and kept to himself. "All he cared about were his five kids and wife he left in Zimbabwe," says Adam.
Source: The Zimbabwe Mail
The ramifications of the killing of Eugène Terre'Blanche
The Institute desisted from issuing a formal statement in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche in order to first gauge the broader social, political, and international reaction to the killing. The Institute is now in a position to make the following points.
Racial tensions in the country appear to have increased significantly in recent weeks. This appears to be chiefly as a result of incitement by the ruling African National Congress to ‘shoot and kill’ the Afrikaner ethnic minority in the country. The anxiety around this incitement may well have influenced opinions across the broader white community. What appears to be the case is that much of the racial rapprochement that characterised the first 15 years of South Africa’s democracy is being undone. This rapprochement saw both black and white South Africans come to occupy a middle ground on race relations upon which the maintenance of future stable race relations depends.
Since 1994 the number of white farmers and their families murdered in South Africa is conservatively put at around 1 000. It may very well be much higher. There are currently an estimated 40 000 commercial farmers in the country. Over this same period in the region 250 000 South Africans out of a total current population of approximately 47 million have been murdered. Criminal violence can therefore be described as ‘rampant’ and has done considerable damage to the social fabric of the country. However, this is not to say that all murders in the country are a function of simple criminal banditry. In an environment where law and order has largely collapsed the consequences of incitement by political leaders to commit murder must be taken seriously.
Over the same period the policy measures put in place by the Government to raise the living standards of the black majority have failed to meet expectations. The key interventions of affirmative action and black economic empowerment have been exploited by the African National Congress to build a network of patronage that has made elements of its leadership extremely wealthy. The party also appears to have been so overwhelmed by corrupt tendencies that it is no longer able to act decisively against corrupt behaviour.
It has also through incompetence and poor policy been unable to address failures in the education system which are now the primary factor retarding the economic advancement of black South Africans. At the same time the party is acutely aware that its support base of poor black South Africans has begun to turn against it. Violent protest action against the ruling party is now commonplace around the country. In order to shore up support in the black community the ANC increasingly appears to be seeking to shift the blame for its delivery failures onto the small white ethnic minority, which today comprises well under 10% of the total population of South Africa. Here parallels may be read to the behaviour of Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe when that party realised that its political future was in peril. The ANC Youth League’s recent visit to Zanu-PF which saw it endorse that party’s ruinous polices are pertinent here.
In such an environment it is plausible to consider that the ANC’s exhortations to violence may be a contributing factor to the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche. Certainly the ANC’s protestations to the contrary seem ridiculous as the party is in effect saying that its followers pay no attention to what it says - this from a party that routinely claims that it is the manifestation of the will of all black South Africans. This is not to say that a labour dispute or some other matter could not have inflamed tensions on the Terre'Blanche farm. Rather it is to say that a number of different matters should be considered in determining the motivation for the crime.
Certainly the ANC’s exhortations to violence have created a context where the killings of white people will see a degree of suspicion falling around the party and its supporters. It is of concern therefore that the police’s senior management are on record as saying that they will not consider a political motive or partial motive for the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche. This suggests an early effort to cover up the ANC’s possible culpability for inciting the crime. Should any allegations of a political cover-up arise in the pending murder trial of the two young men accused of the Terre'Blanche murder the political consequences could be significant. Should evidence be led that the two young men acted with what they understood to be the tacit backing of the ANC, and a causal link between their actions and incitement by the ANC be established, then the possibility of charging the ANC’s senior leadership in connection to the murder arises. Equally plausible is that the Terre'Blanche family and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging could bring a civil suit against the ANC and the Government.
It is possible that the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche will greatly strengthen the hand of a new hardened right wing in South Africa. In life Mr Terre'Blanche attracted a small, uninfluential, and extremist following. He will not be mourned for what he stood for. However, in death he may come to represent the experiences of scores of minority groups in the country who perceive themselves as being on the receiving end of racist and now also violent abuse from the ANC. In effect therefore Mr Terre'Blanche may be seen as having been martyred for a minority cause in the country. The implications of a resurgent right wing will be numerous. It is most unlikely that this right wing will take the form of camouflage clad henchmen on horses in shows of force. The ANC has also often, wrongly, identified groups including the political opposition, Afriforum, agricultural unions, and even this Institute as ‘the right wing’. This silly ‘red under every bed’ attitude in the ANC saw it lose the trust of many civil society and political groups. These groups could all be defined first and foremost by the common belief that they had to act within the bounds of what the Constitution prescribed. But the ANC belittled and undermined them. It also undermined parliament, the national prosecution service, and the various human rights and other organisations that were established under the Constitution. It may yet usurp the independence of the courts and the judiciary. The result was a shutting down of many of the democratic channels that were created for citizens in the country to make the Government aware of their concerns and circumstances.
The resurgence of a new political consciousness among minorities could drive an altogether different political force. Such a movement will draw its strength chiefly from a hardening attitudes in the white community but perhaps also in the Indian and coloured communities. These will be views that in the main have come to subscribe to some or all of the following points:
1. That the Government has corrupted and debilitated many of the country’s internal democratic processes for political or civil expression that were established under the Constitution
2. That cooperation with the current Government of South Africa is therefore fundamentally unfeasible and therefore futile
3. That the Government is unable to restore law and order in the country
4. That the Government is therefore unable protect its citizens
5. That the Government has a hostile agenda against minority groups
However it is equally, if not most likely, that many minorities who subscribe to the five points above may simply get so fed up that those who can will pack up and go. Here they may take the advice of President Zuma to remain calm as they pack up their businesses and their families and calmly board aircraft for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. With the exodus will leave much of the tax and expertise base of the country.
Should the ANC, however, find itself facing increased political resistance it will in many respects have a tiger by the tail. Firstly, the ANC depends greatly on the tax income paid by white South Africans to balance South Africa’s books. Secondly, it depends entirely on the food produced by a small number of white farmers to feed the country. Thirdly, white South Africans still dominate the skills base of the country. Finally, and most importantly, much white opinion since the early 1990s has been moderate. White South Africa has been willing and often eager to cooperate with the Government in building an open, non-racial, and prosperous South Africa. Losing that cooperation will to an extent put an end to any serious chance that the ANC has of leading South Africa to become a successful and prosperous democracy.
While the ANC will be inclined to blame whites for this, and may even take drastic action to confiscate white commercial interests as they are currently doing in agriculture, these actions will be ruinous for the economy. The result of such ruin will be to drive a deeper wedge between the ANC and its traditional support base and thereby hasten the political decay of the party.
When General Constand Viljoen decided to throw his lot in with democracy in the early 1990s the right wing in South Africa was a spent force. So it should and could have remained. The ANC could have taken advantage of white expertise and tax revenue to realise their own vision of a better life for all. Things have however gone badly wrong for the party. Corruption has destroyed its ability to meet the demands of its constituents while racial bigotry has now seen it defending its image against what should have been an insignificant and dying neo-Nazi faction in the country.
The failure of sensible South Africans to take back the racial middle ground in the country will be serious. Polarisation will beget further racial conflict and a hardening of attitudes on all sides. This is perhaps the greatest leadership test that the current Government has faced and it is one that they cannot afford to fail.
Source: South African Institute for Race Relations
Racial tensions in the country appear to have increased significantly in recent weeks. This appears to be chiefly as a result of incitement by the ruling African National Congress to ‘shoot and kill’ the Afrikaner ethnic minority in the country. The anxiety around this incitement may well have influenced opinions across the broader white community. What appears to be the case is that much of the racial rapprochement that characterised the first 15 years of South Africa’s democracy is being undone. This rapprochement saw both black and white South Africans come to occupy a middle ground on race relations upon which the maintenance of future stable race relations depends.
Since 1994 the number of white farmers and their families murdered in South Africa is conservatively put at around 1 000. It may very well be much higher. There are currently an estimated 40 000 commercial farmers in the country. Over this same period in the region 250 000 South Africans out of a total current population of approximately 47 million have been murdered. Criminal violence can therefore be described as ‘rampant’ and has done considerable damage to the social fabric of the country. However, this is not to say that all murders in the country are a function of simple criminal banditry. In an environment where law and order has largely collapsed the consequences of incitement by political leaders to commit murder must be taken seriously.
Over the same period the policy measures put in place by the Government to raise the living standards of the black majority have failed to meet expectations. The key interventions of affirmative action and black economic empowerment have been exploited by the African National Congress to build a network of patronage that has made elements of its leadership extremely wealthy. The party also appears to have been so overwhelmed by corrupt tendencies that it is no longer able to act decisively against corrupt behaviour.
It has also through incompetence and poor policy been unable to address failures in the education system which are now the primary factor retarding the economic advancement of black South Africans. At the same time the party is acutely aware that its support base of poor black South Africans has begun to turn against it. Violent protest action against the ruling party is now commonplace around the country. In order to shore up support in the black community the ANC increasingly appears to be seeking to shift the blame for its delivery failures onto the small white ethnic minority, which today comprises well under 10% of the total population of South Africa. Here parallels may be read to the behaviour of Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe when that party realised that its political future was in peril. The ANC Youth League’s recent visit to Zanu-PF which saw it endorse that party’s ruinous polices are pertinent here.
In such an environment it is plausible to consider that the ANC’s exhortations to violence may be a contributing factor to the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche. Certainly the ANC’s protestations to the contrary seem ridiculous as the party is in effect saying that its followers pay no attention to what it says - this from a party that routinely claims that it is the manifestation of the will of all black South Africans. This is not to say that a labour dispute or some other matter could not have inflamed tensions on the Terre'Blanche farm. Rather it is to say that a number of different matters should be considered in determining the motivation for the crime.
Certainly the ANC’s exhortations to violence have created a context where the killings of white people will see a degree of suspicion falling around the party and its supporters. It is of concern therefore that the police’s senior management are on record as saying that they will not consider a political motive or partial motive for the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche. This suggests an early effort to cover up the ANC’s possible culpability for inciting the crime. Should any allegations of a political cover-up arise in the pending murder trial of the two young men accused of the Terre'Blanche murder the political consequences could be significant. Should evidence be led that the two young men acted with what they understood to be the tacit backing of the ANC, and a causal link between their actions and incitement by the ANC be established, then the possibility of charging the ANC’s senior leadership in connection to the murder arises. Equally plausible is that the Terre'Blanche family and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging could bring a civil suit against the ANC and the Government.
It is possible that the killing of Mr Terre'Blanche will greatly strengthen the hand of a new hardened right wing in South Africa. In life Mr Terre'Blanche attracted a small, uninfluential, and extremist following. He will not be mourned for what he stood for. However, in death he may come to represent the experiences of scores of minority groups in the country who perceive themselves as being on the receiving end of racist and now also violent abuse from the ANC. In effect therefore Mr Terre'Blanche may be seen as having been martyred for a minority cause in the country. The implications of a resurgent right wing will be numerous. It is most unlikely that this right wing will take the form of camouflage clad henchmen on horses in shows of force. The ANC has also often, wrongly, identified groups including the political opposition, Afriforum, agricultural unions, and even this Institute as ‘the right wing’. This silly ‘red under every bed’ attitude in the ANC saw it lose the trust of many civil society and political groups. These groups could all be defined first and foremost by the common belief that they had to act within the bounds of what the Constitution prescribed. But the ANC belittled and undermined them. It also undermined parliament, the national prosecution service, and the various human rights and other organisations that were established under the Constitution. It may yet usurp the independence of the courts and the judiciary. The result was a shutting down of many of the democratic channels that were created for citizens in the country to make the Government aware of their concerns and circumstances.
The resurgence of a new political consciousness among minorities could drive an altogether different political force. Such a movement will draw its strength chiefly from a hardening attitudes in the white community but perhaps also in the Indian and coloured communities. These will be views that in the main have come to subscribe to some or all of the following points:
1. That the Government has corrupted and debilitated many of the country’s internal democratic processes for political or civil expression that were established under the Constitution
2. That cooperation with the current Government of South Africa is therefore fundamentally unfeasible and therefore futile
3. That the Government is unable to restore law and order in the country
4. That the Government is therefore unable protect its citizens
5. That the Government has a hostile agenda against minority groups
However it is equally, if not most likely, that many minorities who subscribe to the five points above may simply get so fed up that those who can will pack up and go. Here they may take the advice of President Zuma to remain calm as they pack up their businesses and their families and calmly board aircraft for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. With the exodus will leave much of the tax and expertise base of the country.
Should the ANC, however, find itself facing increased political resistance it will in many respects have a tiger by the tail. Firstly, the ANC depends greatly on the tax income paid by white South Africans to balance South Africa’s books. Secondly, it depends entirely on the food produced by a small number of white farmers to feed the country. Thirdly, white South Africans still dominate the skills base of the country. Finally, and most importantly, much white opinion since the early 1990s has been moderate. White South Africa has been willing and often eager to cooperate with the Government in building an open, non-racial, and prosperous South Africa. Losing that cooperation will to an extent put an end to any serious chance that the ANC has of leading South Africa to become a successful and prosperous democracy.
While the ANC will be inclined to blame whites for this, and may even take drastic action to confiscate white commercial interests as they are currently doing in agriculture, these actions will be ruinous for the economy. The result of such ruin will be to drive a deeper wedge between the ANC and its traditional support base and thereby hasten the political decay of the party.
When General Constand Viljoen decided to throw his lot in with democracy in the early 1990s the right wing in South Africa was a spent force. So it should and could have remained. The ANC could have taken advantage of white expertise and tax revenue to realise their own vision of a better life for all. Things have however gone badly wrong for the party. Corruption has destroyed its ability to meet the demands of its constituents while racial bigotry has now seen it defending its image against what should have been an insignificant and dying neo-Nazi faction in the country.
The failure of sensible South Africans to take back the racial middle ground in the country will be serious. Polarisation will beget further racial conflict and a hardening of attitudes on all sides. This is perhaps the greatest leadership test that the current Government has faced and it is one that they cannot afford to fail.
Source: South African Institute for Race Relations
Monday, April 5, 2010
TV channel gets R50m from Gauteng
Questions have emerged about the role of Paul Mashatile, the controversial former Gauteng economic development minister, in payments of R50-million made by the Gauteng Film Commission to an American news channel, reports Lisa Steyn Former president Thabo Mbeki was a guest at the launch of Consumer News and Business Channel Africa (CNBC) in June 2007. And this week it emerged that the Gauteng government has since paid the American network R50-million, in equal amounts of $3-million (R25-million) over the past two years.
The Daily Maverick news website reported on Wednesday that close Mbeki ally Essop Pahad -- at the time minister in the presidency -- had a "relationship" with CNBC Africa co-founder Rakesh Wahi. The Daily Maverick also reported that the payments were authorised by Paul Mashatile, the controversial former Gauteng economic development minister who is now national deputy minister of arts and culture. The annual R25-million was paid by the Gauteng Film Commission (GFC), the mandate of which is to promote the province's movie and TV industries.
While Mashatile was employed by the Gauteng government, he "allocated funds to the commission on the basis that around half those funds be forwarded to CNBC Africa", the Daily Maverick reported. And R25-million is about one-third of CNBC Africa's annual revenue to date. "I think that the biggest issue we've faced on the African continent for some time has been the problem of perception, a failure to see the good things that are happening on the continent," Mbeki said on the night of the channel's launch. "People's understanding of the continent gets overwhelmed by what the media tells them. I hope CNBC doesn't do that -- media practitioners tell me that bad news sells," Mbeki continued.
Vernon Matzopoulos, managing director of Summit TV, which competes with CNBC Africa, told the Mail & Guardian he would not like to speculate but "would look for the long arm of Essop Pahad" in these dealings. Pahad furiously denied any involvement with the deal. "No, categorically no," he told the M&G. "I have never been involved with any contract which the Gauteng government may or may not have offered to anyone. I did not see that report [in the Daily Maverick]. If the report said I was involved it is certainly inaccurate." Matzopoulos said: "Our fundamental objection is that the $3-million contributed to about a half, or at least a third, of CNBC Africa's turnover. What is local government doing subsidising CNBC Africa … and using our money to do so?" On Wednesday Matzopoulos called for a full investigation into the payments.
Mashatile did not himself sign the agreement with CNBC Africa, the commission's chief executive, Terry Tselane, told the M&G. He said the film commission's former acting chief executive, Tony Sauls, concluded the deal. "When the agreement came to light the board and management of the GFC initiated processes to deal with the contract," Tselane said. On the deal itself, Tselane said the GFC acted on behalf of the Gauteng provincial government in guaranteeing advertising costing R22,5-million a year for five years. In return "CNBC Africa would invest in excess of R170-million in the province" and provide "preferential and regular programming and content slots to the Gauteng provincial government. The agreement made provision for Gauteng-focused content being produced and aired in line with CNBC Africa's normal editorial policy," Tselane said.
In January Gauteng economic development minister Firoz Cachalia scrapped the agreement following legal opinion that it directly contravened the Public Finance Management Act. Cachalia's spokesperson, Mandla Radebe, told the M&G that the department had not signed anything related to the agreement. The GFC, which did sign the contract, is an agent of the department and is an entirely independent entity with its own board, Radebe said.
Gary Alfonso, chief executive of CNBC Africa, told the M&G that "the company's official position for now is that we prefer not to comment at this stage". Asked whether CNBC Africa's independence was compromised by the contract, Alfonso said: "CNBC Africa has a strict clause in all commercial contracts that the editorial control rests with the channel and the integrity of the channel remains and will always be unquestionable and uncompromising." CNBC New York had not replied to the M&G's questions at the time of going to press.
Mashatile's spokeperson, Percy Mthimkhulu, told the M&G that "the deputy minister is no longer in Gauteng and has no responsibility to comment on those things [the deal with CNBC Africa]". Comment the M&G had already obtained from the GFC and the Gauteng government "should suffice", Mthimkhulu said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Daily Maverick news website reported on Wednesday that close Mbeki ally Essop Pahad -- at the time minister in the presidency -- had a "relationship" with CNBC Africa co-founder Rakesh Wahi. The Daily Maverick also reported that the payments were authorised by Paul Mashatile, the controversial former Gauteng economic development minister who is now national deputy minister of arts and culture. The annual R25-million was paid by the Gauteng Film Commission (GFC), the mandate of which is to promote the province's movie and TV industries.
While Mashatile was employed by the Gauteng government, he "allocated funds to the commission on the basis that around half those funds be forwarded to CNBC Africa", the Daily Maverick reported. And R25-million is about one-third of CNBC Africa's annual revenue to date. "I think that the biggest issue we've faced on the African continent for some time has been the problem of perception, a failure to see the good things that are happening on the continent," Mbeki said on the night of the channel's launch. "People's understanding of the continent gets overwhelmed by what the media tells them. I hope CNBC doesn't do that -- media practitioners tell me that bad news sells," Mbeki continued.
Vernon Matzopoulos, managing director of Summit TV, which competes with CNBC Africa, told the Mail & Guardian he would not like to speculate but "would look for the long arm of Essop Pahad" in these dealings. Pahad furiously denied any involvement with the deal. "No, categorically no," he told the M&G. "I have never been involved with any contract which the Gauteng government may or may not have offered to anyone. I did not see that report [in the Daily Maverick]. If the report said I was involved it is certainly inaccurate." Matzopoulos said: "Our fundamental objection is that the $3-million contributed to about a half, or at least a third, of CNBC Africa's turnover. What is local government doing subsidising CNBC Africa … and using our money to do so?" On Wednesday Matzopoulos called for a full investigation into the payments.
Mashatile did not himself sign the agreement with CNBC Africa, the commission's chief executive, Terry Tselane, told the M&G. He said the film commission's former acting chief executive, Tony Sauls, concluded the deal. "When the agreement came to light the board and management of the GFC initiated processes to deal with the contract," Tselane said. On the deal itself, Tselane said the GFC acted on behalf of the Gauteng provincial government in guaranteeing advertising costing R22,5-million a year for five years. In return "CNBC Africa would invest in excess of R170-million in the province" and provide "preferential and regular programming and content slots to the Gauteng provincial government. The agreement made provision for Gauteng-focused content being produced and aired in line with CNBC Africa's normal editorial policy," Tselane said.
In January Gauteng economic development minister Firoz Cachalia scrapped the agreement following legal opinion that it directly contravened the Public Finance Management Act. Cachalia's spokesperson, Mandla Radebe, told the M&G that the department had not signed anything related to the agreement. The GFC, which did sign the contract, is an agent of the department and is an entirely independent entity with its own board, Radebe said.
Gary Alfonso, chief executive of CNBC Africa, told the M&G that "the company's official position for now is that we prefer not to comment at this stage". Asked whether CNBC Africa's independence was compromised by the contract, Alfonso said: "CNBC Africa has a strict clause in all commercial contracts that the editorial control rests with the channel and the integrity of the channel remains and will always be unquestionable and uncompromising." CNBC New York had not replied to the M&G's questions at the time of going to press.
Mashatile's spokeperson, Percy Mthimkhulu, told the M&G that "the deputy minister is no longer in Gauteng and has no responsibility to comment on those things [the deal with CNBC Africa]". Comment the M&G had already obtained from the GFC and the Gauteng government "should suffice", Mthimkhulu said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Saturday, April 3, 2010
White Supremacist Is Killed in South Africa
The white supremacist Eugene TerreBlanche, who sought to rally Afrikaners to resist the end of apartheid, was killed Saturday on his farm by workers there, police officials said. Mr. TerreBlanche, who was sentenced to six years in prison in 1997 for beating one of his black workers and setting his dogs on a gas station attendant, was beaten to death by workers on his farm on Saturday who said they had argued with him over unpaid wages, the police told the South African Press Association.
Capt. Adele Myburgh, a spokeswoman for the North West Province police, said a 21-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy had been arrested and charged with Mr. TerreBlanche’s murder, according to SAPA.
Mr. TerreBlanche, for whom conflicting ages have been given, but SAPA reported as being 69, has periodically tried to revive his right-wing political party in recent years. But he had become basically irrelevant in modern-day South Africa, a well-established, multiracial democracy. During the talks to end apartheid in the early 1990s, Mr. TerreBlanche agitated for all-white republics within South Africa where blacks could only live as guest workers. In 1993, hundreds of his armed supporters in the Afrikaner Resistance Movement stormed constitutional negotiations to protest the approach of majority rule in predominantly black South Africa. He called for a boycott of the first democratic elections in 1994 that brought Nelson Mandela to power.
Captain Myburgh was quoted as saying that “Mr. TerreBlanche’s body was found on the bed with facial and head injuries.” She said a machete-like knife and a traditional knobkerrie club were found near him.
Source: New York Times
Capt. Adele Myburgh, a spokeswoman for the North West Province police, said a 21-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy had been arrested and charged with Mr. TerreBlanche’s murder, according to SAPA.
Mr. TerreBlanche, for whom conflicting ages have been given, but SAPA reported as being 69, has periodically tried to revive his right-wing political party in recent years. But he had become basically irrelevant in modern-day South Africa, a well-established, multiracial democracy. During the talks to end apartheid in the early 1990s, Mr. TerreBlanche agitated for all-white republics within South Africa where blacks could only live as guest workers. In 1993, hundreds of his armed supporters in the Afrikaner Resistance Movement stormed constitutional negotiations to protest the approach of majority rule in predominantly black South Africa. He called for a boycott of the first democratic elections in 1994 that brought Nelson Mandela to power.
Captain Myburgh was quoted as saying that “Mr. TerreBlanche’s body was found on the bed with facial and head injuries.” She said a machete-like knife and a traditional knobkerrie club were found near him.
Source: New York Times
Thursday, April 1, 2010
South Africa is becoming a high-carbon zone to attract foreign investment
With its proposed Medupi power station, South Africa is an industrialised global climate player and major polluter. With its sky-high poverty levels and average life expectancy of just 51 years, South Africa is not a country we generally associate with extravagant binge-flying lifestyles, turbo-consumerism, and shopping trips to New York. How bizarre then that per capita carbon emissions in South Africa are now higher than in many European countries. While most South Africans are unlikely to ever own a plasma screen TV or Hummer, their carbon footprints still appear to be only slightly less than your average Japanese, and their national carbon emissions are now greater than those of France.
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
South Africa is becoming a high-carbon zone to attract foreign investment
With its proposed Medupi power station, South Africa is an industrialised global climate player and major polluter. With its sky-high poverty levels and average life expectancy of just 51 years, South Africa is not a country we generally associate with extravagant binge-flying lifestyles, turbo-consumerism, and shopping trips to New York. How bizarre then that per capita carbon emissions in South Africa are now higher than in many European countries. While most South Africans are unlikely to ever own a plasma screen TV or Hummer, their carbon footprints still appear to be only slightly less than your average Japanese, and their national carbon emissions are now greater than those of France.
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
The situation becomes more comprehensible when you look at South Africa's industrial base, with 60% of South Africa's electricity being guzzled by heavy industry, and most of that comes from dirty coal. Now this key global climate player wants another coal station that would pollute as much as the two dirtiest plants in Britain put together, and cause a further surge in its national emissions – and they want you to pay for it. Far from benefiting ordinary South Africans, they will also be forced into subsidising this artificially low-cost electricity, for the benefit of multinational mining companies. It's no wonder that African civil society movements are leading the opposition to this development.
South Africa's situation is a case study in one of the major political currents that poisoned last year's UN climate talks. At Copenhagen, major emerging economies hid behind their poor to justify why they shouldn't need to take on legally-binding climate targets. Infuriating western governments, they used a rigid interpretation of the wonky principle known in UN-speak as "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to argue for more "pollution rights", since they have less historical responsibility for causing the carbon problem and less ability to pay to solve it. Never mind the new carbon-constrained realities on the whole world, these powerful developing countries claimed the right to pollute indefinitely, because (just like their industrialised counterparts), they saw short-term strategic interest in securing the largest possible area of global atmospheric territory. In short, a concept developed to promote equity has turned into an excuse to allow ever increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
Just as Switzerland offers the super-rich the ability to avoid high taxes, and Uzbekistan-presented high-street clothes chains in Europe with cheap child labour in their cotton fields, South Africa and other major emerging economies like China are beginning to exploit the CBDR principle to establish themselves as global havens for the most environmentally destructive industries on Earth. South Africa is effectively setting up shop as a high-carbon economic zone to encourage in foreign companies by freeing them of carbon regulation.
After Copenhagen, the attitude of the most powerful industrialising countries caused much spluttering on the part of western ministers. Ed Miliband was enraged at what he saw as an unfair apportioning of the blame to the industrialised world after the managed collapse of the negotiations, and wrote: "The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this."
That's why it's so odd that western governments, including our own, now seem determined to egg them on by making a $3.7bn (£2.4bn) World Bank loan to the South African state-owned power company Eskom to help build one of the most polluting power stations in the world. With one hand the government complains about major emerging economies not doing enough to embrace low-carbon development, while at the same time, it directs money that's meant for aid, into dirty coal developments that power the international mining industry.
In fairness, Miliband's comments were clearly directed at China. There was a time last year when climate progressives in the South African government seemed to be his most effective allies in the south. By establishing a reasonable 2020 climate target the South African government positioned themselves in Copenhagen as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds. But in retrospect, with an aspiration to get up to 95% of their electricity from coal by 2025, despite vast untapped clean energy potential, last year's rhetoric looks like a very thin green veneer. Well, either that or the South African government's principled stand has since been quashed by Big Carbon lobbying.
Recognising that a tonne of CO2 from a South African coal plant is just as damaging as a tonne from anywhere else, the White House has signalled they won't offer their support to subsidise the Eksom mega-coal plant in South Africa when it comes up for a vote at the World Bank next week. Yet as the single biggest donor to the Bank, it will be the UK which is likely to get the final say. This offers a key test of whether the climate progressives in our own government can win out.
Source: The Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)