By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 06 July 2007
As the Summit of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government came to an end on 03 July 2007 in Accra, Ghana, one of the former colleagues of the heads of African states, former Liberian president Charles Taylor, appeared for the first time in court at The Hague, facing criminal charges ranging from murder to rape.
As the United States publication, the Los Angeles Times, put it: “Taylor pleaded not guilty to 11 charges that he controlled and armed rebels who killed, raped, mutilated and enslaved civilians during Sierra Leone's civil war, which ended in 2002”.
Taylor’s trial raises serious questions that the people of African decent, both at home and across the diaspora, need to grabble with, for the trial itself of the former Liberian leader suffers from two serious deficiencies.
Firstly, the trial is premised on selective justice. One need not to be a historian or a legal expert to realise that, up to so far, only heads of poor states are held accountable for war and related crimes. The rich and the powerful seem immune from this law.
Considering the recent wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan etc, one wonders whether or not there are no sufficient legal grounds to charge United States President George W. Bush and his ally, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, of war and related crimes.
If yes there are sufficient legal grounds to charge the two, the question then is who, of all the nations of the world, is capable of standing up to power? It is clear that those who bankroll many of the nations of the world in the name of aid are immune from the sort of justice unleashed against Taylor.
Secondly, the authoriries (whoever they are) at the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, were politically smart in choosing presiding officers, with the judge being a black woman.
The selection of the judge raises questions as to whether the decision of the authorities at The Hague was informed by an attempt to hide the extend of Western pressure in what seemed like a near-abduction of Taylor from his country.
The details of the pseudo-abduction were later related by Libyan leader Muammar AlGhattafi in a speech welcoming the election of new Liberian leader Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, at a dinner during the latter’s official visit to Libya.
AlGhattafi told Johnson-Sirleaf that he considers Taylor “as having sacrificed [his residency] for the sake of Liberia, because on 11 August 2003 he voluntarily gave u power in favour of his deputy and he went into exile in Nigeria, ending a civil war that lasted 14 years”.
AlGhattafi expressed his opposition to Taylor’s trial, adding that: “Our brother, [former Nigerian President] Olusegun Obasanjo, offered asylum to Taylor in Nigeria, and Taylor, accordingly, handed power over to his deputy”.
AlGhattafi correctly pointed out that the violation of Taylor’s asylum “represents a dangerous precedent like that of Hissene Habre, the former president of Chad, who is under threat of being handed over to an international court”.
The circumstances surrounding Taylor’s transfer to The Hague are as controversial and unsatisfactory as is the legal team defending him.
There should be no question about the need to hold war criminals accountable for their actions, but if this applies only to leaders of poor countries, then the world in general and poor countries in particular, must oppose this selective justice.
The sooner Africa unites and forms institutions of governance, including her own continental courts of law, the better the chances of having a truly independent bloc of African states under the envisaged United States of Africa.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Book Review: The Mystery of Capital
Book: The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
Author: Hernado de Soto
ISBN: 0-552-99923-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete
What distinguishes Peruvian author and economist Hernado de Soto from the rest is the intensity of his research and the wealth of personal experience he boasts.
De Soto puts these two qualities to good use in his book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else”.
The author blames, amongst other things, red tape in the public sector, lack of information and the inability by poor “Third World” countries to bring what he calls “dead capital” into the mainstream economy.
In Egypt, for example, the author says his research has established that: “To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require 6 to 11 years of bureaucratic wrangling, maybe longer”!
This, according to De Soto, “explains why 4.7 million Egyptians have chosen to build their dwellings illegally. If, after building his home, a settler decides he would like to be a law-abiding citizen and purchase the rights to his dwelling, he risks having it demolished, paying a steep fine and serving up to ten years in prison”.
On growing urbanisation and why many developing countries struggle to cope, De Soto says “extralegal ventures [such as illegal occupations of land, unregistered small businesses in the inner cities, etc; reviewer’s own example] have already overtaken government efforts to provide housing for migrants and the poor”.
The book is quite fascinating, more so when one tries to compare the examples the author uses to the situation here in South Africa.
Author: Hernado de Soto
ISBN: 0-552-99923-7
Reviewer: Madibeng Kgwete
What distinguishes Peruvian author and economist Hernado de Soto from the rest is the intensity of his research and the wealth of personal experience he boasts.
De Soto puts these two qualities to good use in his book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else”.
The author blames, amongst other things, red tape in the public sector, lack of information and the inability by poor “Third World” countries to bring what he calls “dead capital” into the mainstream economy.
In Egypt, for example, the author says his research has established that: “To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require 6 to 11 years of bureaucratic wrangling, maybe longer”!
This, according to De Soto, “explains why 4.7 million Egyptians have chosen to build their dwellings illegally. If, after building his home, a settler decides he would like to be a law-abiding citizen and purchase the rights to his dwelling, he risks having it demolished, paying a steep fine and serving up to ten years in prison”.
On growing urbanisation and why many developing countries struggle to cope, De Soto says “extralegal ventures [such as illegal occupations of land, unregistered small businesses in the inner cities, etc; reviewer’s own example] have already overtaken government efforts to provide housing for migrants and the poor”.
The book is quite fascinating, more so when one tries to compare the examples the author uses to the situation here in South Africa.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
The idea of the US of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s
By Madibeng Kgwete: Posted on 04 July 2007
There are two problematic issues emanating from the media’s coverage of the recent African Union summit, which took place in Accra, Ghana, from 01 to 03 July 2007.
Firstly, there is a generally false notion doing the rounds regarding the idea of the United States of Africa. It is widely reported that African leaders have “rejected Libyan leader Muammar al-Ghattafi’s proposal for the formation of a union government for the African continent”.
The idea of the United States of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s. As the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, correctly puts it: “The phrase ‘United States of Africa’, was mentioned first by Marcus Gavey in his poem 'Hail, United States of Africa' in 1924”.
“Garvey's ideas”, according to Wikipedia’s correct version of events, “deeply influenced the birth of the Pan-Africanist movement which culminated in 1945 with the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England, attended by W.E.B. Du Bois, Patrice Lumumba, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah”.
It is therefore incorrect to keep saying that the idea of the US of Africa is “al-Ghattafi’s”. Ironically, even Wikipedia contradicts itself by saying: “The latest meeting of the African Union, which began on July 1, 2007 [in Accra], was called with a purpose of discussing Gaddafi's idea [own emphasis] of a federation of African states”.
The second problematic issue is the notion that, by disagreeing on al-Ghattafi’s push for the urgent formation of the union government, African leaders have effectively “rejected” the idea. That is not accurate, as the resolutions of the summit suggest.
Amongst other things, the Accra summit resolved to “rationalise and strengthen the Regional Economic Communities, and harmonise their activities”, “conduct immediately, an Audit of the Executive Council”, “establish a ministerial Committee to examine the contents of the Union Government concept and its relations with national governments”, etc.
There are two problematic issues emanating from the media’s coverage of the recent African Union summit, which took place in Accra, Ghana, from 01 to 03 July 2007.
Firstly, there is a generally false notion doing the rounds regarding the idea of the United States of Africa. It is widely reported that African leaders have “rejected Libyan leader Muammar al-Ghattafi’s proposal for the formation of a union government for the African continent”.
The idea of the United States of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s. As the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, correctly puts it: “The phrase ‘United States of Africa’, was mentioned first by Marcus Gavey in his poem 'Hail, United States of Africa' in 1924”.
“Garvey's ideas”, according to Wikipedia’s correct version of events, “deeply influenced the birth of the Pan-Africanist movement which culminated in 1945 with the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England, attended by W.E.B. Du Bois, Patrice Lumumba, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah”.
It is therefore incorrect to keep saying that the idea of the US of Africa is “al-Ghattafi’s”. Ironically, even Wikipedia contradicts itself by saying: “The latest meeting of the African Union, which began on July 1, 2007 [in Accra], was called with a purpose of discussing Gaddafi's idea [own emphasis] of a federation of African states”.
The second problematic issue is the notion that, by disagreeing on al-Ghattafi’s push for the urgent formation of the union government, African leaders have effectively “rejected” the idea. That is not accurate, as the resolutions of the summit suggest.
Amongst other things, the Accra summit resolved to “rationalise and strengthen the Regional Economic Communities, and harmonise their activities”, “conduct immediately, an Audit of the Executive Council”, “establish a ministerial Committee to examine the contents of the Union Government concept and its relations with national governments”, etc.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Quiet Diplomacy
Why South Africa refuses to take tough action against its neighbour, Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 02 July 2007
This is the first in a series of articles focussing on the rarely explained reasons behind South Africa's reluctance to take tough action against Zimbabwe, a country the United States Secretary of State Condolezza Rice once described as "an outpost of tyranny".
The finished work will be included in one comprehensive essay, titled "QUIET DIPLOCAY: Why South Africa Refuses to Take Tough Action Against Zimbabwe". This article focuses on "The role of the colonial master", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are bound not only physically by borders. The two Southern African countries are bound also by a common colonial history, a common struggle for independence and freedom from colonial Britain and, quite significantly, by the fact that whatever difficulties that face one affect the other.
The story of the two countries, penned down in great but not absolute detail in this book, is much more complex than what many analysts and critics seem to believe. Even more complex are the turning points at each of the two countries’ paths to independence, freedom and democracy.
South Africa gained its independence from Britain on 31 May 1961. Zimbabwe gained independence from the same colonial master almost twenty years later, on 18 April 1980. However, South Africa’s earlier independence was more of a blow to the majority black population that a victory. Confirmation of this is contained in the fact that the new democratic South Africa does not celebrate independance day.
Whilst the end of British rule in Zimbabwe marked the beginning of self-governance and the emergence of freedom, with Robert Mugabe elected as the first indigenous leader, the end of Britain’s colonial administration in South Africa signalled no positive change for the country’s black majority population.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 02 July 2007
This is the first in a series of articles focussing on the rarely explained reasons behind South Africa's reluctance to take tough action against Zimbabwe, a country the United States Secretary of State Condolezza Rice once described as "an outpost of tyranny".
The finished work will be included in one comprehensive essay, titled "QUIET DIPLOCAY: Why South Africa Refuses to Take Tough Action Against Zimbabwe". This article focuses on "The role of the colonial master", which will form part of a chapter in the finished work.
South Africa and Zimbabwe are bound not only physically by borders. The two Southern African countries are bound also by a common colonial history, a common struggle for independence and freedom from colonial Britain and, quite significantly, by the fact that whatever difficulties that face one affect the other.
The story of the two countries, penned down in great but not absolute detail in this book, is much more complex than what many analysts and critics seem to believe. Even more complex are the turning points at each of the two countries’ paths to independence, freedom and democracy.
South Africa gained its independence from Britain on 31 May 1961. Zimbabwe gained independence from the same colonial master almost twenty years later, on 18 April 1980. However, South Africa’s earlier independence was more of a blow to the majority black population that a victory. Confirmation of this is contained in the fact that the new democratic South Africa does not celebrate independance day.
Whilst the end of British rule in Zimbabwe marked the beginning of self-governance and the emergence of freedom, with Robert Mugabe elected as the first indigenous leader, the end of Britain’s colonial administration in South Africa signalled no positive change for the country’s black majority population.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Why rush US of Africa whilst colonial pattern persists?
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”.
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”.
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)
