By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 30 May 2007
In his letter in The Star newspaper, http://www.thestar.co.za/, “We need a United States of Africa” (Letters, May 30, 2007), Mncebisi Mashingoane makes some highly significant observations about the need for more awareness, particularly among young South Africans, regarding Africa Day, celebrated annually across the African continent on 25 May.
Relying heavily on Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s pan-Africanist philosophy, Mashingoane rightly opines that: “Because of South Africa ’s late arrival in the fold of independent African states, we need to double our efforts to raise awareness about the significance of Africa Day among the population”.
Mashingoane then spoils everything else he says by arguing, quite narrowly, that: “A national programme aimed at combating xenophobia would be the best tribute to Africa Day in South Africa , as xenophobia (in our country) has become the primary adversary of the ideal of African unity”.
Narrowing down the whole ideal of African unity to some “national programme aimed at combating xenophobia” is to counter the very pan-Africanist philosophy that the likes of Dr. Nkrumah so selflessly dedicated their lives.
Because the sweeping perception that South Africans are generally xenophobic cannot be proven to be correct, we the African people therefore need to think broadly enough to realise that better political unity and economic cooperation must be our first priorities towards the envisaged United States of Africa.
So far, our leaders have done relatively well in working towards political unity and closer economic cooperation. For example, Nepad, though not functioning at its full potential as yet, has been a great stepping stone towards African economic solutions to African economic challenges.
The African Union, also not functioning at its full potential as yet, has proven to be a useful platform towards common African positions on critical international matters, ranging from as controversial as the situation in Zimbabwe to as celebratory as the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa .
We should not rush to forming a United States of Africa if such a bloc is not going to be viable in the foreseeable future, nor should we be so narrow as to place perceived xenophobia as the key towards continental unity. We must be realistic and truly independent in our thinking.
The biggest obstacle to African unity at the moment is Africa ’s dependence on its former colonial and imperialist masters for so-called aid. We need to ask ourselves whether our former masters “aid” us to be economically independent or to keep us as closely tied to them as we currently are.
The so-called “aid”, I would like to argue, is another form of debt, which we will be expected to pay back in some unspecified non-monetary terms: and this may mean keeping our markets and resources (both material and human) open for exploitation.
For as long as we rely on our former masters for “aid”, the United States of Africa will remain a pie in the sky. We can fix everything else, including the supposed xenophobia cited by Mashingoane, but if we continue to rely on the West for “aid”, we aren’t going anywhere.
Dr. Nkrumah wrote in his book, Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, that: “In order to make it attractive to those upon whom it is practiced, [neo-colonialism] must be shown as capable of raising their living standards, but the economic object of neo-colonialism is to keep those standards depressed in the interest of developed countries”.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Tony Blair's walk of shame
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 10 May 2007
The ongoing illegal carnage in Iraq has just claimed yet another high-profile career – that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has announced that he will step down from his position on 27 June this year following perennial pressure from his Labour Party comrades.
Blair started ruining his career by joining forces with United States President Gorge W. Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard in the invasion of Iraq, ostensibly searching for some “weapons of mass destruction”.
Announcing his decision to support the US’s “coalition of the willing”, as Bush tried to romanticise it, Blair told British MPs that the “new world faces a new threat: of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy”.
Blair further told the baffled MPs: “My judgment, as Prime Minister, is that this [terrorist] threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before”.
Four years after the invasion of Iraq, it has come clear that both the “weapons of mass destruction” and the “threat” Blair referred to were fictional. And, for this deadly invention, Blair’s career, like that of his accomplices in the US (Collin Powell, John Bolton) had to end in shame, justifiably so.
Perhaps the greatest demagogue to have presided as British Prime Minister, Blair should be remembered for his hypocrisy, for he:
(a) preached clean governance in poor countries and then stopped the investigation into allegations of corruption in the British-Saudi Arabia arms deal;
(b) spoke eloquently about peace in Africa, particularly Sudan, and then went on to invade Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.
Reporting on Blair’s departure, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) quoted Blair's election agent and close friend John Burton as having said that he expected the outgoing Prime Minister to continue as an MP until the next general election, “unless he was offered a major international job”.
Based on Blair’s terrible record, made worse by the war-mongering that characterised his leadership, Blair cannot be trusted to hold any other “major international job” and speak on behalf of the people of the world.
If he does not qualify to finish his term as British Prime Minister, he should therefore not qualify for any other “major international job”.
The ongoing illegal carnage in Iraq has just claimed yet another high-profile career – that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has announced that he will step down from his position on 27 June this year following perennial pressure from his Labour Party comrades.
Blair started ruining his career by joining forces with United States President Gorge W. Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard in the invasion of Iraq, ostensibly searching for some “weapons of mass destruction”.
Announcing his decision to support the US’s “coalition of the willing”, as Bush tried to romanticise it, Blair told British MPs that the “new world faces a new threat: of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy”.
Blair further told the baffled MPs: “My judgment, as Prime Minister, is that this [terrorist] threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before”.
Four years after the invasion of Iraq, it has come clear that both the “weapons of mass destruction” and the “threat” Blair referred to were fictional. And, for this deadly invention, Blair’s career, like that of his accomplices in the US (Collin Powell, John Bolton) had to end in shame, justifiably so.
Perhaps the greatest demagogue to have presided as British Prime Minister, Blair should be remembered for his hypocrisy, for he:
(a) preached clean governance in poor countries and then stopped the investigation into allegations of corruption in the British-Saudi Arabia arms deal;
(b) spoke eloquently about peace in Africa, particularly Sudan, and then went on to invade Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.
Reporting on Blair’s departure, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) quoted Blair's election agent and close friend John Burton as having said that he expected the outgoing Prime Minister to continue as an MP until the next general election, “unless he was offered a major international job”.
Based on Blair’s terrible record, made worse by the war-mongering that characterised his leadership, Blair cannot be trusted to hold any other “major international job” and speak on behalf of the people of the world.
If he does not qualify to finish his term as British Prime Minister, he should therefore not qualify for any other “major international job”.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Calls to prosecute Mugabe smack of hypocrisy
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 07 May 2007
Among some of the several bewildering arguments he makes in his column, “Zim will need a TRC when Mugabe goes” (The Star: Opinion & Abalysis), columnist Max Du Preez suggests that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe should be tried for war crimes when he quits office.
Such a call is neither new nor originally Du Preez’s. It is a call made in Washington and London ostensibly to ensure justice for the victims of the Matabeleland massacre, which took place between 1983 and 1984 – just three years into Mugabe’s leadership as Prime Minister.
The killing of “as many as 25 000 civilians” in the southern province of Matabeleland by Mugabe’s North Korean-trained troops during the massacre warrants prosecution for Mugabe “and his henchmen”, according to Du Preez.
The arguments the columnist make would be strong had he not deliberately omitted the fact that, up to this far, calls for prosecution of former leaders for war crimes are only made when the leader is African or has presided over a poor country.
Currently, the United States and Britain , aided by Australia and other partners, are engaged in an illegal war in Iraq , maiming civilians and physically dividing the country into ethnic territories. Yet the likes of Du Preez won’t call for the prosecution of the untouchable emperors responsible for this illegal carnage.
In Britain, which is the erstwhile colonial master of many African countries (including South Africa and Zimbabwe), the best Prime Minister Tony Blair could do about his country’s involvement in the evil slave trade was to express “deep sorrow” – and no one called for vengeance.
Here in South Africa , we witnessed, no later than last year, the apartheid Minister of Law and Order, Adrian Vlok, apologising for ordering the killing of innocent black people during apartheid. If he really wants to see justice being done, why didn’t Du Preez call for Vlok’s prosecution?
Vlok chose Director-General in the Presidency, who is also one of his victims, Rev. Frank Chikane, to perform a religious feet-washing gesture, quoting John 13: 1 – 7 in the New Testament: “I have sinned against the Lord and against you. Please forgive me!”
Vlok was forgiven, not only by Chikane, but by the other black victims of the apartheid regime he so passionately served. And the best our neo-liberals could do was to call upon Vlok to reveal other atrocities committed under his command – a call he couldn’t heed up to this day. And still, there were no calls for vengeance.
Again here in South Africa , apartheid kingpin P.W. Botha died last year without having been punished for crimes committed by his apartheid government. Still, Du Preez and other neo-liberals wouldn't call for Botha’s prosecution.
In Sudan , the state-sponsored Janjawid militia is reported to have been responsible for the killing of many people in the war-torn Darfur region, yet no one is calling for the prosecution of President Omar Al-Bashir.
The hypocrisy of those calling for selective justice in Zimbabwe is so baffling that it would be proper to call for an explanation from Du Preez, as one of its advocates, to explain why he deliberately omitted mention of the fact that other suspected war criminals have died walking freely – and some still walk freely.
The fact that Du Preez calls upon the people of Zimbabwe to establish a truth and reconciliation commission similar to South Africa ’s whilst advocating vengeance against Mugabe makes the arguments he makes in his column all the cheaper.
Among some of the several bewildering arguments he makes in his column, “Zim will need a TRC when Mugabe goes” (The Star: Opinion & Abalysis), columnist Max Du Preez suggests that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe should be tried for war crimes when he quits office.
Such a call is neither new nor originally Du Preez’s. It is a call made in Washington and London ostensibly to ensure justice for the victims of the Matabeleland massacre, which took place between 1983 and 1984 – just three years into Mugabe’s leadership as Prime Minister.
The killing of “as many as 25 000 civilians” in the southern province of Matabeleland by Mugabe’s North Korean-trained troops during the massacre warrants prosecution for Mugabe “and his henchmen”, according to Du Preez.
The arguments the columnist make would be strong had he not deliberately omitted the fact that, up to this far, calls for prosecution of former leaders for war crimes are only made when the leader is African or has presided over a poor country.
Currently, the United States and Britain , aided by Australia and other partners, are engaged in an illegal war in Iraq , maiming civilians and physically dividing the country into ethnic territories. Yet the likes of Du Preez won’t call for the prosecution of the untouchable emperors responsible for this illegal carnage.
In Britain, which is the erstwhile colonial master of many African countries (including South Africa and Zimbabwe), the best Prime Minister Tony Blair could do about his country’s involvement in the evil slave trade was to express “deep sorrow” – and no one called for vengeance.
Here in South Africa , we witnessed, no later than last year, the apartheid Minister of Law and Order, Adrian Vlok, apologising for ordering the killing of innocent black people during apartheid. If he really wants to see justice being done, why didn’t Du Preez call for Vlok’s prosecution?
Vlok chose Director-General in the Presidency, who is also one of his victims, Rev. Frank Chikane, to perform a religious feet-washing gesture, quoting John 13: 1 – 7 in the New Testament: “I have sinned against the Lord and against you. Please forgive me!”
Vlok was forgiven, not only by Chikane, but by the other black victims of the apartheid regime he so passionately served. And the best our neo-liberals could do was to call upon Vlok to reveal other atrocities committed under his command – a call he couldn’t heed up to this day. And still, there were no calls for vengeance.
Again here in South Africa , apartheid kingpin P.W. Botha died last year without having been punished for crimes committed by his apartheid government. Still, Du Preez and other neo-liberals wouldn't call for Botha’s prosecution.
In Sudan , the state-sponsored Janjawid militia is reported to have been responsible for the killing of many people in the war-torn Darfur region, yet no one is calling for the prosecution of President Omar Al-Bashir.
The hypocrisy of those calling for selective justice in Zimbabwe is so baffling that it would be proper to call for an explanation from Du Preez, as one of its advocates, to explain why he deliberately omitted mention of the fact that other suspected war criminals have died walking freely – and some still walk freely.
The fact that Du Preez calls upon the people of Zimbabwe to establish a truth and reconciliation commission similar to South Africa ’s whilst advocating vengeance against Mugabe makes the arguments he makes in his column all the cheaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
