U.N. Assembly, in Blow to U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine

More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations, a triumph for Palestinian diplomacy and a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel.

But the vote, at least for now, did little to bring either the Palestinians or the Israelis closer to the goal they claim to seek: two states living side by side, or increased Palestinian unity. Israel and the militant group Hamas both responded critically to the day’s events, though for different reasons.

The new status will give the Palestinians more tools to challenge Israel in international legal forums for its occupation activities in the West Bank, including settlement-building, and it helped bolster the Palestinian Authority, weakened after eight days of battle between its rival Hamas and Israel.

But even as a small but determined crowd of 2,000 celebrated in central Ramallah in the West Bank, waving flags and dancing, there was an underlying sense of concerned resignation.

“I hope this is good,” said Munir Shafie, 36, an electrical engineer who was there. “But how are we going to benefit?”

Still, the General Assembly vote — 138 countries in favor, 9 opposed and 41 abstaining — showed impressive backing for the Palestinians at a difficult time. It was taken on the 65th anniversary of the vote to divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, a vote Israel considers the international seal of approval for its birth.

The past two years of Arab uprisings have marginalized the Palestinian cause to some extent as nations that focused their political aspirations on the Palestinian struggle have turned inward. The vote on Thursday, coming so soon after the Gaza fighting, put the Palestinians again — if briefly, perhaps — at the center of international discussion.

“The question is, where do we go from here and what does it mean?” Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, who was in New York for the vote, said in an interview. “The sooner the tough rhetoric of this can subside and the more this is viewed as a logical consequence of many years of failure to move the process forward, the better.” He said nothing would change without deep American involvement.

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, speaking to the assembly’s member nations, said, “The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the state of Palestine,” and he condemned what he called Israeli racism and colonialism. His remarks seemed aimed in part at Israel and in part at Hamas. But both quickly attacked him for the parts they found offensive.

“The world watched a defamatory and venomous speech that was full of mendacious propaganda against the Israel Defense Forces and the citizens of Israel,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel responded. “Someone who wants peace does not talk in such a manner.”

While Hamas had officially backed the United Nations bid of Mr. Abbas, it quickly criticized his speech because the group does not recognize Israel.

“There are controversial issues in the points that Abbas raised, and Hamas has the right to preserve its position over them,” said Salah al-Bardaweel, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, on Thursday.

“We do not recognize Israel, nor the partition of Palestine, and Israel has no right in Palestine,” he added. “Getting our membership in the U.N. bodies is our natural right, but without giving up any inch of Palestine’s soil.”

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, spoke after Mr. Abbas and said he was concerned that the Palestinian Authority failed to recognize Israel for what it is.

“Three months ago, Israel’s prime minister stood in this very hall and extended his hand in peace to President Abbas,” Mr. Prosor said. “He reiterated that his goal was to create a solution of two states for two peoples, where a demilitarized Palestinian state will recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“That’s right. Two states for two peoples. In fact, President Abbas, I did not hear you use the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ this afternoon. In fact, I have never heard you say the phrase ‘two states for two peoples’ because the Palestinian leadership has never recognized that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

The Israelis also say that the fact that Mr. Abbas is not welcome in Gaza, the Palestinian coastal enclave run by Hamas, from which he was ejected five years ago, shows that there is no viable Palestinian leadership living up to its obligations now.

As expected, the vote won backing from a number of European countries, and was a rebuff to intense American and Israeli diplomacy. France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland all voted yes. Britain and Germany abstained. Apart from Canada, no major country joined the United States and Israel in voting no. The other opponents included Palau, Panama and Micronesia.

Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, was dismissive of the entire exercise. “Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade,” she said. “And the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about their lives has changed, save that the prospects of a durable peace have only receded.”

A major concern for the Americans is that the Palestinians may use their new status to try to join the International Criminal Court. That prospect particularly worries the Israelis, who fear that the Palestinians may press for an investigation of their practices in the occupied territories widely viewed as violations of international law.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that after the vote “life will not be the same” because “Palestine will become a country under occupation.”

“The terms of reference for any negotiations become withdrawal,” Mr. Erekat said.

Another worry is that the Palestinians may use the vote to seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations, a move that could have consequences for the financing of the international organizations as well as the Palestinian Authority itself. Congress cut off financing to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, known as Unesco, in 2011 after it accepted Palestine as a member. The United States is a major contributor to many of these agencies and is active on their governing boards.

In response to the Palestinian bid, a bipartisan group of senators said Thursday that they would introduce legislation that would cut off foreign aid to the authority if it tried to use the International Criminal Court against Israel, and close the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington if Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel.

Calling the Palestinian bid “an unhealthy step that could undermine the peace process,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that he and the other senators, including Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, would be closely monitoring the situation.

The vote came shortly after an eight-day Israeli military assault on Gaza that Israel described as a response to stepped-up rocket fire into Israel. The operation killed scores of Palestinians and was aimed at reducing the arsenal of Hamas in Gaza, part of the territory that the United Nations resolution expects to make up a future state of Palestine.

The Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah, was politically weakened by the Gaza fighting, with its rivals in Hamas seen by many Palestinians as more willing to stand up to Israel and fight back. That shift in sentiment is one reason that some Western countries gave for backing the United Nations resolution, to strengthen Mr. Abbas and his more moderate colleagues in their contest with Hamas.

Source: New York Times

The far right's advocacy of supremacism

The far-right, (also known as the extreme right or radical right) refers to the highest degree of rightism in right-wing politics. Far right politics involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior.^[1]

The far right's advocacy of supremacism is based on what its adherents perceive as innate characteristics of people that cannot be changed.^[2] This stands as a point of difference with the centre-right's attribution of behaviours, such as laziness or decadence, as the primary sources of social inequalities.^[2] The centre right - unlike the far right - claims that people can end their behavioural inferiority through changing their habits and choices.^[3]

The original far right, which emerged in France after the French Revolution, refused to accept the French Republic and supported a counter-revolution to restore the French monarchy and aristocracy.^[4] The far right is commonly associated with persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.^[5] The most extreme-right movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.^[6]

Far right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, nativism and racialism.^[8] Typically, the term far right is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis,^{[9][10][11][12][13]} and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and — in the case of Nazism — genocide of people deemed to be inferior.^[14] The far right claims that superior people should proportionally have greater rights than inferior people.^[15] The far right has historically favoured an elitist society based on belief of the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses.^[16] Far-right politics usually involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable.^[17] Concerning the socio-cultural dimension (nationality, culture and migration), a far-right position could be the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one’s own group should be prioritised.^[18] 

The German political scientist Klaus von Beyme describes three historical phases in the development of far right parties in Western Europe after the World War II.[18][19]

From 1945 to the mid-1950s, far right parties were marginalised and their main objective was to survive rather than having any political impact. Far right policy had been discredited by Nazism, and was subsequently politically isolated. From the mid-1950s to the 1970s, the so-called "populist protest phase" emerged with sporadic electoral success. Characteristics of far right parties in this phase included charismatic leaders and a profound dislike of the political establishment, using an "us and them" model; with “us” being the “common man” and “them” being the politicians and bureaucrats. In the 1980s, electoral success of far right parties consolidated, while they used anti-immigration views as a main issue.

Source: Wikipedia

Racist Banks Fined for Discriminatory Lending Practices, But Is It Enough?

One of the biggest banks in the US, Wells Fargo, has agreed to pay $175m to settle allegations it charged higher mortgage rates and fees to Black and Latino customers. Discriminatory lending practices in the banking industry left Black and Latino neighbourhoods blighted by foreclosures after the housing bubble burst.

A government investigation found tens of thousands of cases of African Americans and Hispanics being charged more than White customers with similar credit profiles. The settlement is the second-biggest of its kind; the Bank of America paid $335m over similar charges. But in both cases, the banks were allowed to deny any wrongdoing.

And to add insult to injury, just a day after the settlement, Wells Fargo announced second quarter profits of $4.6bn, which is 26 times the amount it agreed to pay out. Are banks being sufficiently discouraged from wrongdoing?

Joining Al Jazeera's Inside Americas to discuss this are guests: Jordan Estevao, the director of the Bank Accountability Program at National People's Action, a community direct action group; Edward Wyckoff Williams, a political analyst and former investment banker; and Richard Wolff, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Source: Al Jazeera

Solidarity takes SAPS to court over affirmative action policy

Trade union Solidarity filed papers at the Johannesburg Labour Court, asking for the SA Police Service (SAPS) affirmative action plan to be declared invalid.

Solidarity deputy general secretary Dirk Hermann said in a statement that the union aimed to dismantle the entire plan. "We cannot continue taking individual cases to court. Now for the first time we are taking to court the root of the problem, namely absolute racial representation," he said. The union had already taken the SAPS to court in 14 separate cases.

Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant and police commissioner General Riah Phiyega were named as respondents in the documents. Mthethwa's spokesman Zweli Mnisi said he had not seen the papers, and could not comment on its contents. "[It is] safe to say if the matter is brought before court, then our legal team will handle the matter accordingly."

In the papers Solidarity claimed that the SAPS's affirmative action plan amounted to social manipulation based on blatant race and gender quotas. It said the 'ideal' race-based targets set by the SAPS affirmative action plan between 2010 to 2014 were 79.35 percent for Africans, 2.46 percent for Indians, 8.85 percent for coloureds and 9.34 percent for whites. The union claimed this was unconstitutional. "Under the Constitution it is impermissible to discriminate on the grounds of race and gender. The Employment Equity Act, in outlawing discrimination, echoes this principle," the papers said. It said the "naked pursuit" of demographic representation based on racial factors can never be lawful. "The enactments legitimate affirmative action measures in order to redress the inequities of the past, but they positively decline to sanction social engineering mechanically designed to produce racial and gender representation in the future." It said that the plan did not take into account the regional differences in racial demographics. "For example, the representation of coloured people is made to depend on national demographics despite the preponderance of such persons in the Western Cape."

Hermann said the "problem" with absolute racial representation was that employers were beginning to "believe it was proper thing to do". "Solidarity wants to petition the court to give its verdict on the question of whether this practice is allowed by the Employment Equity Act and the Constitution of South Africa," he said. "The irony is that this racial ideology is hitting ordinary South Africans the hardest: people who are victims of poor service in various areas, including poor policing service."

He said the court date for the case had not been set yet.

Source: Times Live

Hawks probe FNB

THE HAWKS have lodged an investigation into allegations of discrimination against black bondholders at FNB. But the bank has denied doing anything wrong.

It is alleged that when Saambou went bankrupt 10 years ago, thousands of clients were incorporated into FNB and some of them were bondholders. Saambou's system made black bondholders pay more than their white counterparts and this was allegedly not rectified when clients were incorporated into FNB.

Yesterday a docket was opened to investigate allegations of discrimination and fraud against the bank. Hawks spokesman McIntosh Polela said: "We received a complaint from a Mr Van Zyl who has been working with people who were incorporated from Saambou. We have opened a docket, but have not started investigating yet. "He alleges fraud and discrimination. We will speak to Van Zyl and take it from there. He alleges that there were tens of thousands of people who were incorporated from Saambou when it went bankrupt, but 6000 of those were black people who were charged more than the rest. As a result some of them have lost their houses," the spokesman said.

But Marius Marais, chief executive of FNB housing finance, said the allegations of racial bias and fraud against FNB are unsubstantiated and have no factual basis. "FNB's core value is one of equality and fairness both to our customers and employees. The bank strongly rejects any allegations of racism. FNB has long sought a judicial outcome to terminate the speculation and false allegations. Trial dates have been set and then postponed by the plaintiff," he said.

Marais said FNB had taken every step to rectify the errors inherited from Saambou. "The bank will welcome any investigation by the Hawks and will offer every cooperation to the investigators. We have not yet received any communication from the Hawks, but we are seeking an urgent meeting with them to address any issues they wish to investigate," Marais said.

According to FNB the bank recalculated the acquired Saambou accounts based on a set of carefully considered principles, and in June 2006 offered a R154-million refund to Saambou customers. "Notwithstanding the unprecedented steps that FNB took in respect of Saambou customers, some individuals with a vested interest continued to pursue allegations related to Saambou's method of interest calculation," Marais said. "FNB has publicly stated that it welcomes legal finality on these matters and actively pursued a trial date that was scheduled in the North Gauteng High Court in November 2011. "The case was delayed at the request of the plaintiff and eventually deferred to a later date. As a result the bank was awarded full costs associated with the delay," Marais said.

Source: The Sowetan

Separating Free Speech From Hate in South Africa

It seemed like a throwback to the days when a white minority ruled South Africa. Inside a colonial-era courthouse that was once a stage for the political trials of anti-apartheid activists, a white lawyer in robes and frilly bib accused a black leader of being a Communist and fomenting hatred of whites. “Do you know who Vladimir Lenin was?” demanded the lawyer, rekindling memories of the anti-Communist measures that helped crush dissent during apartheid.

In his defense, the black leader in the dock championed his right to lead his supporters in singing a song with the seemingly bloodthirsty line “Shoot the Boer!” — a historical reference widely taken as a threat by Afrikaners, the descendants of Dutch settlers and the creators of apartheid. Of course, that racist system ended 17 years ago with Nelson Mandela’s election. The African National Congress has been the governing party ever since. But the past is not really past here. Race remains a fraught issue, riveting the country in recent weeks as the hate-speech trial of Julius Malema, the leader of the party’s youth wing, was broadcast live on television. Closing arguments are expected within weeks.

The decision will help establish where free speech crosses the line into hate speech in one of Africa’s most democratic countries. The trial itself may also have strengthened Mr. Malema’s political allure in a nation where four out of five citizens are black. He is alternately denounced here as a demagogue and hailed as a future president. Even some senior leaders in the A.N.C. worry that his angry brand of populism could resonate with the country’s millions of dispossessed youths. The final day of testimony, in a wood-paneled courtroom packed with Mr. Malema’s partisans, presented a polarized version of South Africa’s complicated and never-ending debate about how to deal with its racial legacy. “It’s a clash of atavisms,” said Nic Dawes, editor of The Mail & Guardian. “It’s like those days when you tune into talk radio and you hear a version of the national conversation dominated by the most unpleasant aspects of white anxiety and the angriest black reactions.”

The imagery was powerful: Roelof du Plessis, an Afrikaner lawyer with a heavy Afrikaans accent, accusing Mr. Malema of being a Communist, suggesting that South Africa was heading toward a genocide against whites and accusing Mr. Malema of having carried a gun “illegally” as a child during the armed struggle against apartheid. (Mr. Malema happily confirmed the claim). “That seems to be typical of Africa, using children to fight wars,” Mr. Du Plessis harrumphed.

At the other extreme, Mr. Malema, 30, arrived each day at the courthouse in Johannesburg surrounded by bodyguards in dark suits and red ties, assault rifles slung across their chests. In recent years, he has declared a readiness to kill for Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president; described the leader of the main opposition party, Helen Zille, as a cockroach; and hounded a BBC correspondent out of a news conference, accusing him of “white tendencies.” He has also pushed the African National Congress into a debate on the nationalization of South Africa’s mineral wealth, though party elders warned it could drive away foreign investment. Some of his statements last year prompted his party to order him to attend anger management classes. Nonetheless, party leaders rallied to Mr. Malema’s defense in the current case, testifying in support of his assertion that the “Shoot the Boer” refrain was a metaphorical call to defeat apartheid, not a literal incitement to violence.

The debate has played out in newspapers and blogs. Many in the news media and academia who have been harsh critics of Mr. Malema’s have nonetheless argued that his singing of the offending song does not justify banning it as a form of hate speech under South Africa’s Constitution. Some also found Mr. Du Plessis’s cross-examination ridiculous. Pierre de Vos, a law professor at the University of Cape Town, wrote that Mr. Du Plessis’s line of questioning reminded him of apartheid-era leaders speaking on “the dangers of communism and the evils of A.N.C. ‘terrorism.’ ” “I must say, Adv. Du Plessis’s performance today is almost enough to make me want to burst out singing: ‘dubul’ibhunu/dubula dubula,’ ” the professor wrote, quoting the Zulu rendition of the “Shoot the Boer” refrain.

But others found the hate speech complaint convincing. It was filed by two groups representing Afrikaners, who contended that the song’s refrain suggested that Afrikaners were “the enemy at least to be shunned and at most to be killed.” Rhoda Kadalie, a columnist writing in an Afrikaans-language newspaper, said the lyrics were wrong during apartheid years and shocking now, especially in light of the many white farmers murdered since the end of apartheid. “Justifying these wrongs in the name of apartheid gives carte blanche to yesterday’s liberators to become tomorrow’s oppressors,” she wrote.

The song is not among the famous freedom anthems. Hugh Masekela, the renowned South African trumpeter, said he had not heard of it, adding that there were many such songs. “This was a time when people were very angry,” he said, “and they were singing songs much more violent than that one.” Mr. Malema, just 13 when Mr. Mandela became president, was too young to join the armed struggle against apartheid, but seemed eager to use the trial to bolster his revolutionary street cred. “I belong to a radical and militant youth organization, and if you’re not militant in the Youth League, you run the risk of being irrelevant,” Mr. Malema said on the stand.

He boasted that the A.N.C. has taught him to fire a gun and chant slogans since he was 11. In 1993, he said, when he was 12, he marched into white suburbs armed with a gun after a right-wing white assassinated the charismatic black leader Chris Hani — only to be disappointed when Mr. Mandela appealed for discipline and nonviolence rather than ordering an attack. “We came across white people,” Mr. Malema said. “We never shot any one of them. We had all the reasons.”

Mr. Du Plessis, advocating for white farmers, opened the door for Mr. Malema to make his case for nationalizing the mines and confiscating the land of white farmers without compensation — policies that would constitute a sharp break with the country’s Constitution.

Mr. Malema said he would act according to the law in seeking to change the Constitution to allow land confiscation. But he held up Robert Mugabe, the strongman in neighboring Zimbabwe, as a democrat who had led that nation’s drive to seize white-owned land — a drive that Mr. Malema noted regretfully had relied on violence. “It’s a democratic country,” Mr. Malema said of Zimbabwe, flashing a grin. “They have been holding elections every five years.” “Oh, I see!” Mr. Du Plessis sputtered sarcastically.

After his testimony, Mr. Malema told hundreds of his followers who had stood outside for hours that Mr. Du Plessis “couldn’t hide the racism in his face.” He said the lawyer’s clients were far more worried about the confiscation of their land than about a song’s lyrics. “We are going to take their land whether they like it or not!” he exclaimed, as the crowd roared. His supporters then serenaded Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Mr. Mandela’s former wife, who had been at Mr. Malema’s side throughout his trial. Ms. Madikizela-Mandela, who was implicated in the murders and beatings of township youths in the late 1980s, thanked AfriForum, one of the complainants in the case, for bringing Mr. Malema’s supporters together “to baptize” him as “the future president of South Africa.” “This is the leadership that is going to run the very last mile of transformation for this country,” she proclaimed.

Source: New York Times

Racism posing as rule of law

I wonder what a real rape survivor might think about Sabbar Kashur being convicted of rape and sentenced to 18 months in prison for sleeping with a woman who thought he was Jewish. The Arab-Israeli man was sentenced on Thursday in Jerusalem, after being under house arrest for two years for his "rape" of a Jewish woman in 2008.

Here's what happened -- he met an Israeli Jewish woman on the street, literally, they hit it off, and then went into the closest building to have sex. Then she figured out he was Arab, which turned their consensual sex into rape in the eyes of both the unnamed woman and Judge Tzvi Segal. "It is incumbent on the court to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth, sweet-talking offenders who can mislead naive victims into paying an unbearable price: the sanctity of their bodies and souls," said Segal.

There are so many problems here. First up, how many men would end up in prison for "deceiving" women that they slept with? Too many to fit our jails, I imagine. "I drive a BMW", "I like children" and "I love you" are all phrases that changed far too often in post-coital conversations around the world. But while it's not okay to lie to your partner, it's certainly not rape. Kashur also allegedly told her he was an eligible bachelor when in fact he is married with two children. While a lock-up for men who have extra-marital affairs is not a bad idea in my book, it's still not rape.

Rape is very specifically intercourse with somebody without their consent. While the specifics may vary in different countries, the concept of without consent remains firmly in place.

Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that Kashur posed as a man seeking a long-term romantic relationship. Surely, if that was what the woman was seeking, a quickie in the closest structure 10 minutes after they met was not one of the criteria. If the woman was so specific about who she slept with, then perhaps a meal to get to know him slightly, or at least a cup of coffee would have cleared up any racist queries she might have had.

But this is not only about sex. This is also straight-up racism posing as the rule of law. It is another means of making Arab-Israelis feel less human than Israeli Jews, just like keeping the plumbing systems in East Jerusalem in the same state as they were in the early 20th century, while upgrading those in West Jerusalem. This means that when you visit the toilet in East Jerusalem, your toilet paper can't be flushed down the toilet -- rather it needs to be thrown into a bid beside the loo. Getting to the gritty, most grossly physical aspects of humanity, through humiliation and attempt to crush dignity, is how Israel maintains its racist policies.

In the meantime, and for this end, rape survivors and those fighting sexual abuse are having their plight made a mockery of as the meaning of the truly horrendous and inhumane act of rape becomes diluted. Real rape victims are afraid to speak out, often for fear of being accused of crying wolf. Real rape victims do not get attention from police and from the justice system. But when racism is involved, and the Israeli government is trying to prove a point, then regretful sex leads to a conviction. Now a man will spend a year and a half in prison to make some unnamed woman in Israel feel innocent and pure again.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Zuma says no to call for debate on race

President Jacob Zuma says a debate on race will take the country backwards, calling instead for a deeper understanding of non-racialism in South Africa, according to a report in the Star on Friday. "We have never looked at things in terms of race and ethnicity but, rather, in terms of people being South Africans." He said political education on what non-racialism meant was needed.

He was responding to a question about African National Congress Youth League leader Julius Malema's recent criticism of the racial make-up of Zuma's Cabinet. Malema had questioned why black people had been overlooked for key economic portfolios.
Zuma said he would argue against a suggestion by the ANC's national executive committee (NEC) that the party start a debate on race and transformation. NEC member Lindiwe Sisulu made the call after Malema said on SAfm radio that there would be an uprising if the issue of black people's access to economic levers of power was not "handled properly".

Zuma said. "The fact of the matter is the ANC does not look at things from a race point of view," Zuma said. "We are a non-racial organisation. It cannot be a crucial thing for the ANC to begin to look at race and ethnicity, because you are dealing with colleagues, with comrades, who have sacrificed and who were there [during the struggle against apartheid]. "There is a need for a greater understanding of the policy of the ANC -- a policy we championed when apartheid was killing people. We never looked at things in terms of race and ethnicity, but [rather] in terms of non-racialism as South Africans."

Source: Main & Guardian

Our country needs facts, not groundless allegations

A letter from Thabo Mbeki

In the Biblical Gospel according to St Matthew, it is said that Jesus Christ saw Simon Peter and his brother Andrew fishing in the Sea of Galilee. And He said to them: "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men."

Perhaps taking a cue from this, some in our country have appointed themselves as "fishers of corrupt men". Our governance system is the sea in which they have chosen to exercise their craft. From everything they say, it is clear that they know it as a matter of fact that they are bound to return from their fishing expeditions with huge catches of corrupt men (and women).

In March 1999, our country's Human Rights Commission (HRC) conducted hearings on the matter of "racism in the media". Not unexpectedly, instead of dealing with this serious matter, some in our country and others abroad, made a big song and dance about it, seeking to ensure that the HRC should not proceed with the hearings.

To frighten the HRC into silence, these made the absurd and self-serving allegation that these hearings constituted a threat to the freedom of the press. Fortunately, the campaign, whose central objective was to cover up racism in our country, failed.

The hearings took place. The HRC made its recommendations. Despite the scare-mongering, the press is no less free now than it was before the hearings. Others will answer the question whether it has done anything to implement at least some of the recommendations of the HRC.

The ANC made its own submission to the hearings. One of the critical issues it raised was the role of the intensely negative, highly offensive and deeply entrenched stereotype of Africans among some in our country, which makes it inevitable that much reporting in our country would be racist. The ANC made the point that this stereotype necessarily dictated that some in our country would proceed from the position that our government was corrupt as alleged, unless it proved itself to be innocent.

Among other things, it cited the instance of an article in a weekly journal, in which the journalist concerned gratuitously accused the writer of this Letter of dictatorial tendencies. The ANC explained the circumstances surrounding the writing and publication of this article, which were relevant to the subject of the hearings.

This matter having been contested and subsequently taken to court by the journal concerned, the judge found in favour of the ANC. Needless to say, the determination made by the courts did not get the public exposure that the resort to these courts by this journal had evoked.

The false allegation of wrong doing by the ANC was what was vigorously implanted in the public mind. To the contrary, the rejection of this allegation by the courts, and therefore the independent judicial assertion of the truth about this matter, was assiduously hidden from the public.

Had this truth been communicated as openly as it should have been, it would have undermined the racist stereotype of Africans, and demonstrated the correctness of the decision of the HRC to hold its hearings. It was therefore not in the interests of some in our country, who believe in the stereotype, that this truth should be widely known.

The same stereotypical conviction about our government being corrupt, unless it proves itself innocent, has re-surfaced with regard to the defence procurement decided by our government in 2000. The fishermen (and women?) have recast their fishing nets, convinced that they will bring in a rich haul of corrupt government luminaries.

So convinced are they of the outcome of their fishing expedition that they regularly describe the defence procurement as "the arms deal scandal" or "debacle". They say "a deepening shadow of allegations is threatening to engulf the highest reaches of government".

Triumphantly, they proclaim that "the publication of details of an earlier (investigative) draft confirmed long-held suspicions by opponents of the arms procurement exercise that changes were made before publication, possibly at the instance of senior members of government".

They say "there was a crucial 'nondisclosure of facts' to a body tasked with evaluating products", and that "draft reports released in court show evidence that passages detailing possible corruption were edited from the report before it was presented to parliament".

The fishers of corrupt men happily construct doom scenarios that serve their purposes. They speculate about the possibility of a senior official being shown to be corrupt, and how this might lead to the conclusion that the whole procurement process was corrupted, resulting in the "the whole edifice of the arms procurement exercise" crumbling. The reality is that the wish is father to the thought.

But it all sounds terribly dramatic and pregnant with the potential to expose horrifying facts about massive corruption by our government, involving billions of rands To prepare the public mind, words such as "scandal" and "debacle" must be, and are used!

To add to the sense of impeding horror, "senior members of government" must be implicated, including "the highest reaches of government", which means the President. Further to whet the appetite for the expected catch that will be brought in by the fishers, the threat is made that a "shadow of allegations might engulf" these "highest reaches".

Quite how shadows rather than substance, and allegations rather than facts might engulf the President, or anybody else for that matter, is somewhat difficult to fathom. The point however is that neither substance nor facts are important to the fishers of corrupt men in terms of their project to substantiate the stereotype of which the ANC spoke, when it made its presentation at the HRC hearings on racism in the media.

What is central is that the stereotype must be sustained and entrenched. For this purpose, precisely because of this entrenched stereotype, shadows and allegations will serve as well as anything else. Carefully chosen words with no factual information to substantiate them, such as "scandal" and "debacle", also come in as useful devices, to give the shadows and allegations the appearance of substance.

In this no-holds-barred campaign, anything and anybody who stands in the way of the fishers, including and especially the truth, must give way. In the current fishing expedition, the Auditor General (AG) has been targeted as one of the possible big fish that the fishers hope to catch.

Accordingly, they accuse the AG of doctoring the report he presented to Parliament, by omitting some details contained in an earlier draft. The AG has taken strong exception to this charge of fraud. In barely disguised language, the fishers have said that they are convinced that the AG is lying. Naturally, they will not bother to supply facts to disprove what the AG said.

As part of this campaign against the AG, they charge him with having "sanitised" and "heavily edited" the final report, "possibly at the instance of senior members of government". They say nothing of the fact that the AG is required by the law to show his draft reports to any institution he may be auditing, for any comments it may wish to make. The AG is free to accept or reject any comments made by those he has audited.

This happens regularly, is required by law, and carries no imputation whatsoever of corrupt behaviour on the part of the AG. Precisely because he had absolutely nothing to hide by following this procedure, the AG attached an official letter to the draft report he gave the Cabinet sub-committee that approved the primary contracts, citing the provisions in the law requiring him to abide by this procedure.

The fishers have focused especially on the Thomson (Thales) element of the prime contract entered into by the government with the suppliers of the corvettes, the German Frigate Consortium (GFC). The government has explained this very clearly before, that it entered into a contract with the GFC to supply the required number of corvettes, meeting all the stipulated specifications.

The government has no contracts with the companies retained by the GFC to supply the various component parts of the corvettes. Similarly, it never had occasion or need to determine who the partners of the GFC should or should not be, including Thomson (Thales).

The proposition that the government influenced the choice of Thomson by the GFC as one of its sub-contractors is both a blatant falsity concocted by the fishers, and a logical absurdity. In its statement of 15 September 2000, the government announced those with whom it had entered into contracts. These are British Aerospace/SAAB, the German Frigate Consortium and Augusta. It had no primary contract with Thomson (Thales), as the supplier of the electronic combat suite of the corvettes, which matter, of the supplier of this suite, remained in the exclusive domain of the GFC.

In the Background Notes issued on 12 January, 2001, the government said: "It should be pointed out that the Procurement does not deal with subcontractors. This has to be the contractual obligation of the prime contractor as it is they who must deliver reliable equipment and undertake the performance and delivery obligations. This is standard practice in major contracts. To insist that the Government must be held to account for minor subcontracts is to misunderstand procurement. The prime contractors are major international corporations and we are confident that they would ensure the quality of the subcontractors and this is their responsibility."

But of course this does not matter to the fishers, who are intent to prove or otherwise entrench the stereotype of a corrupt African government. This is why their fond scenario visualises a determination that an official acted corruptly, leading, according to them, to the collapse of the "arms procurement exercise", even as they exclude the fact that the final recommendations to the deciding authority, the Cabinet, had to be, and were made by a Cabinet sub-committee, and not officials.

An aggrieved potential and unsuccessful sub-contractor has taken his grievance to our courts. For this reason, we will not comment on the matters he raises, which the fishers nevertheless use triumphantly and wilfully to justify their campaign. But this gentleman decided to raise, in the media, the matter of an earlier process to acquire corvettes for our Navy.

The gentleman concerned makes the false allegation that during the life of the Government of National Unity, formed in 1994, a contract for four corvettes to be built by Bazan of Spain "was cancelled after being awarded". This is not true. The preceding apartheid Cabinet had not approved this contract. The GNU Cabinet decided not to enter into this contract.

Bazan entered the later competition to supply the four corvettes, and lost to the GFC. This issue is of relevance and interest only because of the controversy that some have brought into the current defence procurement. It is an interesting coincidence that this controversy has focused so intensely on the corvettes.

In time the details of the truth will come out about how the controversy concerning the 2000 defence procurement emerged and persisted. The gentleman litigant, who has raised the matter of Bazan of Spain, may be proved to have been justified in raising this issue, even if he made false claims about a Bazan contract that never was.

This detailed truthful account would tell our country interesting things about such matters as defence procurement during the apartheid years, and the promotion of political careers and fortunes in contemporary South Africa. It would tell a story about the political uses of the racist stereotypes that are part of our daily menu of information and perception, and the formation of popular consciousness.

It would inform us about the impact or otherwise of the domestic and international apartheid networks on our democratic order, and the moral integrity of those who correctly claim that they fought for the victory of this order, and therefore seek to position themselves as its true representatives.

The sooner this fascinating story is told the better, so that we can improve our performance with regard to the achievement of the critical objective of building a truly people-centred society.

As an important part of the struggle to realise this objective, we should not, and will not abandon the offensive to defeat the insulting campaigns further to entrench a stereotype that has, for centuries, sought to portray Africans as a people that is corrupt, given to telling lies, prone to theft and self-enrichment by immoral means, a people that is otherwise contemptible in the eyes of the "civilised". We must expect that, as usual, our opponents will accuse us of "playing the race card", to stop us confronting the challenge of racism.

The fishers of corrupt men are determined to prove everything in the anti-African stereotype. They rely on their capacity to produce long shadows and innumerable allegations around the effort of our government to supply the South African National Defence Force with the means to discharge its constitutional and continental obligations. They are confident that these long shadows and allegations without number will engulf and suffocate the forces that fought for and lead our process of democratisation, reconstruction and development.

However, what our country needs is substance and not shadows, facts instead of allegations, and the eradication of racism. The struggle continues.

Source: ANC Today

Amnesty says US leads in human rights violations following September 11

The Amnesty International (AI) Report 2002 covers the period from January to December 2001, with a particular focus on the world situation following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

The foreword to the report, written by Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty, together with most of the introduction, addresses the attitude of governments towards human rights since the launching of the so-called war against terrorism by US President Bush.

Under the heading “Countering the backlash,” Kahn notes that human rights activists now face an uphill battle: “As the ‘war against terrorism’ dominated world news, governments increasingly portrayed human rights as an obstacle to security, and human rights activists as romantic idealists at best, ‘defenders of terrorists’ at worst.”

Leading into this passage she quotes a revealing comment by an unnamed government official: “‘Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York.’ This blunt statement to AI delegates by a senior government official captured the challenge faced by the human rights movement following the events of 11 September 2001.” Amnesty was unable to source the above quotation as Kahn is presently away, but promised to do so as soon as possible. There is no reason to doubt its veracity, however, given that one attack after another on democratic rights has been mounted in the name of combating terrorism.
US human rights violations

Kahn explains, “the readiness of governments to trade human rights in the interest of security is nothing new,” but the difference today is that this is not done by “autocratic regimes but established democracies in the name of public security.” Heading the list of culprits is the US itself, with Britain also earning dishonourable mention.

The summary introducing the section on the US paints a picture far removed from that presented by Bush in his recent State of the Union address, when he insisted, “America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” and that these include “the rule of law” and “equal justice.”

AI writes that more than 1,200 people, mainly foreign nationals were detained during investigations into the September 11 attacks. Though public information on these detentions remains scant, it is clear that some were held incommunicado. The report speaks of “Muslim detainees suffering physical or verbal abuse from guards or other inmates while held in local jails and of cruel conditions of confinement, including prolonged solitary confinement, inadequate exercise and the wearing of shackles during non-contact visits.”

In late November last year, the Attorney General revealed that 104 people had been charged with various criminal offences, “many of them minor and one directly related to 11 September, of whom half remain in custody. Another 548 unidentified individuals were held on immigration charges,” the AI report states.

Alongside anti-terrorist legislation that severely curtails human rights and civil liberties, “AI has called for inquiries into several incidents involving the killing of civilians by US and allied forces during military action in Afghanistan and into the killing of hundreds of prisoners in Qala-i-Jhangi fort following an uprising.”

The report continues, “An as yet unknown number of Afghan civilians were killed or injured or had their homes or property destroyed during the US-led coalition bombing which began on 7 October and continued for the rest of the year. AI raised concerns with the US authorities about specific attacks in which civilians were killed and civilian objects were destroyed, urged that investigations be conducted into possible violation of international humanitarian law and called for a moratorium on the use of cluster-weapons. In November, AI called on the USA, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (United Front) and the United Kingdom to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of hundreds of Taleban prisoners and others at Qala-i-Jhangi fort, after an uprising by some Taleban captives was put down by bombing by US warplanes and United front artillery.”

Both the US and British governments denied AI’s request for an investigation into what happened at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort.

The stance of the Bush administration finds its reflection throughout the globe. Indeed the AI report makes clear that the launch of the US war on terrorism has had a major destabilising effect on world politics. It is broken down into regional sections including the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, and Africa. Whatever the region, the assessment notes increased militarism and the systematic abuse of human rights. Khan says in the foreword, “A number of governments jumped on the ‘anti-terrorist’ bandwagon to stifle political dissent.”

Explaining that governments, “rushed through laws formulating new crimes, banning organisations and freezing their assets, curbing civil liberties and reducing the safeguards against human rights violations,” Kahn adds, “Regrettably, a number of these laws used definitions of ‘terrorism’ which were dangerously broad and vague.”

It is indicative that Britain, America’s main ally in the war on terrorism, is also singled out for particular criticism. The section dealing with Britain includes Northern Ireland and a substantial part of the report is given over to the record of human rights violations there. As with America, however, the September 11 attacks have been seized upon to introduce sweeping new legislation that severely curtails democratic rights and civil liberties.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought to strengthen Britain’s ties with the US by providing crucial political support to Bush’s war drive. As with Bush, the climate of hysteria produced after the terrorist attacks provided a useful cloak behind which to make inroads into democratic rights and civil liberties within Britain.

The report explains, “In the United Kingdom (UK), the government passed ‘emergency’ legislation which provided for detention of foreign nationals without charge or trial, thereby creating a shadow criminal justice system without the essential safeguards of the formal system. Legislation was passed in the USA allowing for indefinite detention on national security grounds of non-US nationals facing deportation,” Kahn writes.

“The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed in December after less than a month of parliamentary and public scrutiny. The UK derogated from Article 5(t) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] in order to allow for indefinite administrative detention. Under the Act, the Secretary of State may order such detention, without charge or trial and without recourse to judicial review, of any non-UK national deemed a ‘suspected international terrorist and national security risk’ on the basis of reasonable suspicion. The evidence would not be subject to public scrutiny or effective challenge. Among other measures, the Act also denies asylum-seekers labelled as ‘terrorist’ the right to have the merits of their claim individually assessed. In December, eight people were detained under the new legislation.” the report says.

In a separate press briefing on anti-terrorism legislation internationally, AI says of the European Union, “The European Commission prepared a proposal for a set of ‘terrorism’ offences that all member states should prohibit. In Amnesty International’s view, some of the proposed offences were excessively broad or too vague and could criminalise peaceful activities. The Commission also proposed an EU arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states. Aspects of this would infringe human rights guarantees, e.g. not to be extradited to a jurisdiction where the person might face an unfair trial. New measures might prevent people from seeking asylum on the basis that they may be involved in ‘acts of terrorism’ without fully considering their claims in fair and satisfactory procedures.”

Kahn goes on to cite many other examples of countries that have imposed repressive and undemocratic legislation, concluding, “the aftermath of 11 September saw a resurgence in the powers of the military. More and more civilians were detained by the military and tried by military courts. Military forces, as well as unaccountable security and intelligence services, were increasingly involved in public security functions and in intelligence operations targeted at the civilian population.”

The “hypocrisy and selectivity of governments,” while not new, “became even clearer in the drive to build an alliance in the ‘war against terrorism’. Governments remained silent on abuses committed by those they counted or sought as allies. The same governments that denounced the human rights abuse of women by the Taleban government of Afghanistan remained silent about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. Those who condemned human rights violations in Iraq did not protest against human rights violations by Russian troops in Chechnya, or by the authorities in Uzbekistan against Muslims who peacefully practise their faith outside state controls.”

The AI report draws particular attention to the impact of the war on terrorism upon immigrants and asylum seekers. Kahn states that the “tendency... to portray foreigners, particularly refugees and asylum-seekers, as ‘terrorists’” has led to “a refuelling of the fires of racism... People were attacked in the USA, Canada, western Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, not for what they did but for who they were, simply for being a Muslim or Arab or Asian, or even for looking like a Muslim, Arab or Asian.”

Source: World Socialist Web Site

A Battle in South Africa Over Racism and Press Freedom

The subpoena landed on the editor's desk on a Friday afternoon last month. It ordered him to appear before the country's Human Rights Commission, which was investigating racism in the media. It said he must account for his newspaper's reporting or face up to six months in jail. All told, the commission issued 36 such subpoenas to editors -- white and black -- of newspapers, radio and television stations. And in a country where freedom of the press was only recently enshrined in the Constitution, where newspapers were frequently closed and journalists arrested under the apartheid government, the subpoenas sent shivers through South Africa's newsrooms. ''I thought, 'My God,' '' said the editor, Phillip van Niekerk, who is white and who runs the Mail & Guardian, a weekly here. ''I really didn't expect them to go that far. The jackboot approach is something we thought we'd got away from.''

In the outcry that ensued, the subpoenas were withdrawn and the editors agreed to appear voluntarily before the commission. Mr. van Niekerk and other white editors say they are willing to discuss the issue; they just don't want to be forced to discuss it. Nonetheless, the hearings on racism in the media, which started this week, have set off a debate over whether the commission and the government of President Thabo Mbeki are trying to stifle criticism and dissent in the press.

It is no secret that Mr. Mbeki and his ruling party, the African National Congress, remain deeply suspicious of the white-dominated news media. Most of the nation's politically influential newspapers, including Mr. van Niekerk's Mail & Guardian, are run by white editors. Party and government officials, who helped write the country's new Constitution, say white journalists seem intent on discrediting the black government and typically disregard issues important to the black majority.

Mr. Mbeki, the African National Congress and commission members deny that they want to muzzle the media, but they rarely sugarcoat their criticism. The A.N.C. applauded the commission for issuing the subpoenas. Last month, in its annual report, the ruling party described the media as a ''hostile press'' that is ''still primarily owned and controlled by antagonistic forces with minority interests.'' Those opinions are increasingly shared by black editors. At today's hearing, five black editors broke ranks with their white colleagues to support the commission's investigation, which has been largely derided by whites. The black editors testified that the media still portrays blacks as corrupt and incompetent, focuses almost exclusively on the white minority and drowns out the stories and concerns of ordinary black people. ''It is our contention that in a country like South Africa, it simply cannot be right that, because of its dominance in the media, a minority should continue to set the public agenda,'' said Mike Siluma, editor of Sowetan, the nation's largest daily, one of several popular newspapers directed at black readers.

The black editors said the issue was so important that they would have willingly testified under subpoena, which stunned their white counterparts, who had unanimously attacked the subpoenas as an infringement of press freedom. ''We talk about a rainbow nation, but we're still living in different places,'' said Mr. van Niekerk. Many of the editors, black and white, battled apartheid in South Africa and suffered for it. In 1988, Mr. van Niekerk, who worked at what was then The Weekly Mail, saw his newspaper shuttered temporarily because the government decided it had portrayed A.N.C. guerrillas favorably.

Peter Sullivan, the white editor of The Star, who then worked for the liberal Rand Daily Mail, was forced to justify his reporting before a government commission in the 1970's. Aggrey Klaaste, the black editor-in-chief of the Sowetan, was jailed for six months in 1977 after the government closed what was then Sunday World. All three men run influential newspapers. All agree that the commission's interim report on racism in the media, which was the foundation of the investigation, was seriously flawed. The report, for instance, criticized a photograph of two black birds near an overflowing garbage can, saying the birds depicted Johannesburg's black downtown and the garbage can its decay.

All agree that the subtle racism and stereotyping described in the report continues to surface in newspapers and television and radio broadcasts. ''We mirror a very racist society,'' Mr. Sullivan said. ''If there was no racism in the media, it would be absolutely astounding.'' But that is where the similarities end. The white editors say they are already working hard to hire blacks and to carefully scrutinize coverage, and that the commission's investigation was, for the most part, unnecessary. The black editors disagree.

After the hearing this week, the commission will present its recommendations to Parliament. ''People must not pretend that things are normal when they are not,'' Mr. Klaaste said. ''The country is run by white people, economy-wise. These newspapers are run by white people. We know that. There's no point in trying to be coy about this kind of thing. They say there is racism in the media, but they say that and do nothing about it.''

The commission began looking at the issue two years ago when the Black Lawyers Association and the Association of Black Accountants called for bias inquiries into two papers, including the Mail & Guardian. The groups pointed out that the Mail & Guardian had written 14 times about allegedly corrupt blacks but only 4 times about whites. Journalists counter that that should not be surprising since the most government officials these days are black. They also note that the major newspapers have given Mr. Mbeki some favorable coverage. Mr. Mbeki and Trevor Manuel, the finance minister, received rave reviews last month for major speeches. According to the commission's statistics, progress has been made in the hiring and promotion of blacks, but whites still overwhelmingly dominate the top tiers of management. Last year, the commission said, about 76 percent of the country's top media managers were white compared with 88 percent in 1994.

But whites are not the only ones to voice concerns about Mr. Mbeki's commitment to freewheeling discussion and critique. Earlier this year, two black professors complained about what they described as the dampening of dissent within the ruling party in a column in the recently revived Sunday World newspaper. And last year, Trevor Ngwane, an African National Congress councilman in Johannesburg, was suspended from his party positions for publicly criticizing the A.N.C.-led council's planned privatization of government services. Parks Mankahlana, a spokesman for President Mbeki, said the Human Rights Commission, an independent body that reports to Parliament, is no mouthpiece for Mr. Mbeki. Last year, he noted, the commission sharply criticized the government for seeming to scale back rights of accused criminals and began an investigation into the government's interim policy against distribution of the anti-AIDS drug A.Z.T.

Mr. Mankahlana emphasized that it was the black government, not the white government, that gave this country its first constitutionally protected rights to free speech. ''This thing of being intolerant of dissent, it's just not true, '' he said.

Source: New York Times

A revealing British documentary on post-apartheid South Africa

In 1994 the Government of National Unity, consisting of the African National Congress, the National Party (a long-time pillar of apartheid) and the Inkatha Freedom Party replaced the South African apartheid regime. ANC leader Nelson Mandela took the place of F.W. De Clerk as president.

John Pilger, a respected investigative journalist, returned to South Africa 30 years after he was banned for his reports on apartheid to find out what changes have taken place since 1994. His findings were shown nationally in a documentary entitled, "Apartheid Did Not Die," aired on Britain's ITV station April 21.

Pilger says: "Yes, apartheid based on race is outlawed now, but the system always went far deeper than that. The cruelty and injustice were underwritten by an economic apartheid that regarded people as no more than cheap, dispensable labour. International corporations in South Africa, Britain, Europe and the United States backed it. And it was this apartheid, based on money and profits, which allowed a small minority to control most of the land, most of the industrial wealth and most of the economic power. Today the same system is called, without a trace of irony, the free market." This film, he adds "asks why apartheid continues by other means."

Pilger's insistence that "apartheid did not die" confuses the issue. Apartheid has ended, but capitalist oppression continues. The ANC, like bourgeois nationalist movements throughout the world, have proven incapable of putting an end to the legacy of poverty and exploitation in the oppressed nations. That is the task of the South African and international working class.

Source: World Socialist Web; International Committee of the Fourth International