South Africa is not a 'banana republic'

By Madibeng Kgwete: 28 January 2007

Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya is rightly not shy of speaking his mind on matters of state incompetence and other issues of public interest, but the comparisons he makes between South Africa and so-called “banana republics” in “Slip-ups put our country in the company of banana republics” (January 21) taste sour.

As if he had foreseen widespread government failure as early as February 2006 when President Thabo Mbeki delivered his State of the Nation address, Makhanya writes in his I-told-you-so tone: “Those who were not moved by that speech were those with hearts as dead as ancient rock.”

Makhanya then goes on to suggest, obviously falsely, that Mbeki, after his 2006 State of the Nation address, “promptly disappeared behind his Union Buildings barricades and let us get on with being hopeful by ourselves”.

You’d think that Makhanya would follow his criticism of Mbeki with the latest incidents of state incompetence or denialism, but he relies heavily on recycled news items retrieved from previous editions of the Sunday Times.

He blasts Mbeki on the controversial Film and Publications Bill, whose enactment the state has already reconsidered following intense opposition by media freedom organisations, and the police’s reported attempt to centralise communication (also reconsidered after media opposition).

Whether or not the government had a hidden agenda behind each of the above plans and others is hard to fathom, but that the government has listened to critics should make the distinction that South Africa is not in “the company of banana republics”.

South Africa may be doing not so well on critical aspects such as crime and corruption, but to compare the country to “banana republics” is like applying for membership of a doomsayers’ choir.

A copy of this article was published in the Sunday Times newspaper on 28 January 2007.

Africa: Beholden to the ‘First World’

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 19 January 2007

The African continental renewal programme, popularly known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), is tasked with eradicating poverty, placing African countries on a path of sustainable development and halting the marginalisation of the continent in the globalisation process.

However, the reality in the international scene is hostile for the realisation of this magnificent dream, partly because the NEPAD programme’s success is wholly dependent on the will of the major economic powers that offended many international protocols in their paths to economic growth.

In its pursuit of poverty eradication solutions at home and a more prominent role in the globalisation process, Africa is faced with some tough choices, such as following the footsteps of the major industrial powers (which would lead to disregard for international laws and regulations) or succumbing to external pressure.

The former option is unlikely to materialise, while the latter has seen mixed reactions, ranging from extreme radicalism by countries such as Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe, to a limited degree of consensus by the likes of Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal.

The World Economic Forum’s The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 ranks Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as “the world’s most competitive economies” above major traditional powers such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.

The Group of 8 leading industrial nations, also known as the G8, has, after its 2006 annual meeting, announced that they will continue to work in partnership with Africa in order to settle conflicts and develop “African anti-crisis capabilities”, ensure “good and responsive governance”, invest in people, foster growth, provide financing for development and promote “mutual ownership and accountability”.

However, cynics such as Ted Grant and Alan Woods, writing in the article, Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis, argue that: “The main aim of these debt relief initiatives is, on the one hand, to make sure the bankers get their money back and on the other to lift these highly indebted countries to a point were they are able to ask for more loans!”

If that is truly the main aim of the “debt relief initiatives”, then the success of NEPAD and other similar programmes on the African continent is tight up to what is clearly a new method of domination and control. Africa’s destiny won’t be decided by Africans as yet, it seems.

We poor Africans seem to have no other choice but to rely on our previous slave-masters to achieve the progress envisaged in programmes such as NEPAD.

When blamed for double-standards, the same countries that have denied the African people freedom for ages always have answers ready to defend themselves. The current Western leaders, we are told, were not there during the slave trade and should therefore not be held accountable for other people’s “mistakes”.

The fact that current Western leadership continues to remote-control the African continent through so-called “debt relief” initiatives is enough indication that Africa’s destiny is still far from being determined by Africans.

New US decision-makers, same old imperialist policies

By Madibeng Kgwete: written on 08 November 2006

The defeat of United States President George W. Bush’s Republican Party in the recent midterm elections has been welcomed from various corners of the world, including Britain, where Bush has drawn most support for his widely-criticised “war on terror”.

The new Democratic majority in the US Congress is expected to bring about a shift in the superpower’s foreign policy, bearing in mind the US’s damaged international reputation, resulting primarily from the war against Iraq, denialism over climate change, the undermining of the United Nations, hostile role in trade negotiations, etc.

Those hoping for a new paradigm shift in US foreign policy would better ask themselves whether the Democrats have a problem with US world dominance, or just the ruthless manner in which the Republicans have stamped US authority on the international stage.

Just like the Republican Party, sometimes referred to as the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Democratic Party places security high on its agenda, stating on its website that it has a security plan “that is comprehensive -- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq”.

Just like Bush, the Democrats are eager to expand US domination, but have a more moderate plan to go about expanding the same imperialist agenda whose aggressive implementation has reduced Bush’s conservatives to a congressional minority.

Whatever purposes the Democrats will use their new congressional powers for, one can be sure of one thing: all decisions with international implications will be geared towards preserving US interests, shielding the world power from economic and military competition.

The US congressional power is in new hands, but the mission is the same old one of domination and control, of military power and hanging on to undemocratic votes in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, etc.

For as long as the Democrats believe that there is a way of “ensuring success” out of the war in Iraq, one is adamant that the liberals are equally committed to domination, even through such extreme measures as military occupation.

Throughout his path to the 2004 presidential victory, Bush successfully managed to portray and ridicule Democratic Party leader John Kerry as inconsistent with regard to the war in Iraq.

Introducing Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, Governor George Pataki said of Kerry’s alleged flip-flopping: “He was for the war [against Iraq] and then he was against the [same] war. Then he was for it but he wouldn’t fund it. Then he’d fund it but he wasn’t for it”.

The allegations against the Democrats, though made in the context of competing for voters, create a strong impression that, with them as the new decision-makers in the US Congress, all that may change is the tactics, but the strategy remains the same.

One of the US’s own academics, Prof. Samuel Huntington of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, suggests in his paper, “The Lonely Superpower”, that: “It is in U.S. interests to take advantage of its position as the only superpower in the existing international order and to use its resources to elicit cooperation from other countries to deal with global issues in ways that satisfy American interests”.

We should not be surprised when the US fails to retreat in its campaign to unilaterally rule the world despite new leadership in Congress: the country only has new faces, with the same old mission to dominate.

Bush’s new strategy for more mayhem in Iraq

By Madibeng Kgwete, posted on: 11 January 2007

United States President George W. Bush has just recently outlined his new “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”, admitting, for the first time, that: “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me”.

The consequences of failure in Iraq, according to Bush, are that “radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons”.

It is very interesting how Bush, of all elements, hastened to implicate Iran and Syria in his failures. The US president may very well be signaling his next target after Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and now Somalia. The war-mongering Bush just won’t stop fighting, it seems.

Also very interesting is how Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, jumped to Bush’s defence, as reported in the Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald.

According to the newspaper, Howard said after Bush announced his new strategy that: “An American or Western defeat in Iraq would give an unbelievable boost to terrorism."

Since launching its mission in 2003 -- initially searching for “weapons of mass destruction” -- till today, now in search of Al-Qaeda terrorists, the US has largely been at the receiving end of Iraqi extremists, with the US having just buried its 3000th soldier killed in the war. Now we are in 2007 and there is still hope for victory!

Effective as the White House propaganda machine may be, we should not be fooled into believing that there can be any victor out of Bush’s “war on terror”. The war has already done so much damage to America’s reputation that any hope of victory should be described as pipe-dreaming.

The only solution to the Iraqi stalemate would be an American admission that its exportation of democracy through the barrel of the gun would not work. The US has had smarter presidents from which Bush should have gotten a few valuable tips.

While outlining his Iraq strategy, Bush also spoke of mobilizing “talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny”. Yet the biggest tyranny is the US itself.

What Bush has just outlined as the new Strategy for Victory in Iraq has already failed before implementation. That is because the initial invasion of Iraq was based on lies, that there are “weapons of mass destruction” in that country. We should have been told the truth in the first place.

Bush and his allies should have heard freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi saying: “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil is permanent”.