TAU SA: STAND TAKEN REGARDING THE NATIONAL LAND SUMMIT

TAU SA: STAND TAKEN REGARDING THE NATIONAL LAND SUMMIT:

27 – 31 JULY 2005

The Union’s Executive Committee decided to attend the National Land Summit facilitated by the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs at NASREC, Expo Centre, Rand Show Grounds, South Africa, as from 27 -30 July 2005 on certain terms.

TAU SA is attending and is participating in the proceedings of the Summit on the following pre-conditions:

1. TAU SA is participating in the National Land Summit by the auspices of its General Council and is therefore directly liable to the Council;

2. TAU SA is representing the concerns of commercial agriculture and the interests of its members;

3. TAU SA is not attending the Summit to join in events to celebrate the Freedom Charter;

4. TAU SA is participating in the deliberations in an exclusive way by taking part in discussions only, not in any other way of communication and also only by enhancing the principles by which it approaches agriculture;

5. TAU SA will not be approving any recommendations unless it has been condoned by TAU SA’s General Council and the Council has confirmed it as such in an explicit, written statement.

Mr Willem Lewies, Deputy President of TAU SA and Chairman of the TAU SA Property Rights Committee, presented the following speech at 14:00 at the National Land Summit today:

THE STATEMENT OF THE TAU SA ON LAND AND AGRARIAN REFORM

DELIVERED AT THE NATIONAL LAND SUMMIT AT NASREC, JOHANNESBURG ON 27^TH JULY 2005.

Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen

The TAU SA takes this opportunity to present the case of Commercial Agriculture and Land Reform to this Summit. The principles at stake are that of productive and sustainable agriculture to ensure food security in an economy based on private property rights and market forces, by farmers well acquainted with the ecology and environment of the South African region.

According to Government “(T)he main objective of the Summit is to find solutions to the Land and Agrarian problems and challenges …related to Land Redistribution and Restitution, Agrarian Reform, Land use and Human Settlement.” The moral issue raised is that of rights that imply that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that people shall share in the wealth of the country.”

Land Reform includes Land Redistribution and Restitution, Agrarian Reform, Land use and Human Settlement, which is also AgriBEE.

AIM

The aim of this presentation is to enlighten the Land Summit regarding the risks and dangers of Land Reform in the agricultural sector if implemented in an unscientific and irrational way without considering the context of sound economic principles.

MYTHS OF LAND REFORM

The myths on which Land Reform, as applied in the agricultural sector are based, create unstable ground for agriculture. These myths are propagated in rural communities and through public media.

Ø Myth no 1: In South Africa a minority of white landowners have all the land, leaving the majority of people without access to it and in miserable conditions;

Ø Myth no 2: The white landowners do not adequately cultivate their properties, thereby harming agricultural production and contributing to the fact that the majority of the population live in hunger and misery;

Ø Myth no 3; There is a great disparity in the distribution of wealth making the rich even richer and the poor even poorer, therefore the farmers are an untapped source of income;

Ø Myth no 4: Land reform will spread property ownership and increase production, employment, and the income of those who live in the rural areas;

Ø Myth no 5: Land Reform in South Africa is a prerequisite for economic growth and is not against free economy;

Ø Myth no 6: It is irresponsible to go ahead with the aims of this Summit otherwise there will be a general revolt of the poor masses leading South Africa into a social revolution with grave political, social and economic consequences.

These myths are based on the restructuring of the agricultural and economic history of South Africa to fit the purpose of the so called democratic political revolution. The re-writing of the history of land and property rights in the idiom of Socialism is now the main aim for the redistribution of land and to support Land Reform policy, irrespective of the facts and figures of the past. It’s also true that reality will prove these myths wrong and unfounded.

CONCEPTS IN CONTEXT

The context in which Land Reform is applied, is within a construct of the present government’s ideological and political position. This construct is defined in the following terms:

Ø Research by TAU SA on Land Reform shows that “Land Reform is the elimination of large and medium properties, of the system of wage compensation, and of share cropping. The corollary result is the elevation of the manual labourer to the status of independent tiller of a single family or even collective property, as in most land reform programmes”. This is in general the case with arable land.

Ø The implementation of the Land Reform programme in accordance with the ideological predisposition of Land Restitution and the BBBEE policy of the SA Government, will impact on the sustainability of food production, food security and competitiveness of Commercial Agriculture in the globalised economies, in an environment of food insecurity and economic decay in the Southern African region.

The agricultural and economical framework of commercial agriculture in regard to the need for agricultural produce is defined in the following terms;

Ø Commercial Agriculture is a high-risk and climatologically sensitive and responsible industry with a high strategic profile that impacts on the basic existence of every person by delivering sustenance to combat under-nourishment, malnutrition and famine and secure health on a sustainable competitive and commercial basis in globalised economies.

The interaction between these distinguished components as indicated emphasizes that the implications of the application of Land Reform should be determined by scientific and feasibility studies and put in a geo-political context.

Ø “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” (World Food Summit in 1996),

The essence of commercial agriculture in South Africa is to provide food security in an economic and sustainable way, in a destabilised political and economic environment.

THE GEO-POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

The following external force fields impacts on the sustainability of commercial agriculture (Research by Intersearch):

Poverty: Ben Roberts of the Human Sciences Research Council indicated that the aids pandemic had the potential to “severely undermine the likelihood of attaining many of the millennium goals, including the poverty target”. He argued that 70% of people in southern Africa live below the poverty line on less than $2 (R13) a day and 40% on less than $1 a day. Poverty continues to rise with 27% from 315 million to 400 million by 2015

Famine: Traditionally, famine was a result of drought. Now, HIV/AIDS has replaced drought as the main cause of famine. The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) calls it the “loss of intergenerational knowledge” and the result is the loss of local knowledge of agro-ecology and farming practices. This knowledge is usually transferred from mother to daughter, but “with the death of parents, the transfer of knowledge about seeds and cropping patterns is lost.” This short-circuits in knowledge transfer, cuts the vital link of societal survival. It seems that chronic food shortages could become part of the regional scene in the next ten years.

Food Aid: Countries bordering South Africa are all dependent on food aid from countries with strong and stable economies and high volumes of food production. Food aid is the result of the failure agricultural policies based on Land Reform and the direct or indirect socialisation of land. Food aid has enslaved and destroyed agricultural production in most of the countries.

Work and job losses: 75% of the people in Africa are without proper jobs and without any possibility of getting jobs. Job losses occur in agriculture as the impact of Land Reform is experienced in rural areas. The average wworld trade in agriculture, the main exports from Africa has decreased from 5.3% in 1948 to 1.8% in 2003 and is still sliding.

Land; The issue of land in its essence must be defined within the context of the principles of food production. Land is experienced by some black people as the basis of their riches. Other black middle class see land as a culmination of their riches and a piece of land to build a house. Commercial farmers see land as a means of production. The re-distribution of land outside the context as a means of production and economic competitiveness of commercial agriculture within the markets, is at stake and will eventually be eroded by Land Reform. The essence is that the competitiveness based on the knowledgeable experience of the farmer is not negotiable and can not be replaced once it left the agricultural sector and his land.

The Right to Private property: The issue on the right to private property of commercial agriculture is the essence of land redistribution through Land Reform and AgriBEE. The principle of private property is the basis on which the productiveness and competitiveness of commercial agriculture and the value chain of food security exists.

It is within this geo-political framework that the impact of Land Reform on agricultural production and food security should be validated.

THE ECONOMICS OF LAND REFORM

"Good agricultural practices are our (Food and Agriculture Organisation) way of translating all the wishful thinking on sustainable agriculture into very concrete recommendations for countries and production systems - and also for consumers so they know what they're buying”. (FAO – 2001).

This lays down the basis for sustainable commercial agriculture as the essence of food security. Economic growth, know how and entrepreneurs with high technology and information driven agriculture practices will be the farmers of the future. South Africa is already losing knowledgeable farmers from their land as a result of the policies and practices by Government in the quest for Land Reform, which we know from research was a futile experience in many countries.

The Government expects the Land Reform Programme and restitution to be the central pivot to alleviate poverty. In the mean time the degradation of the agricultural sector will be in no position to contribute to the upliftment of the rural areas. The loss in information and human capital in agriculture to the number of 12 000 commercial farmers will impact on the viability of the sector.

Louise O. Fresco of the FAO said the world is more complex than in the past, and it is being made ever more so by globalisation. This also applies to the policy of Land Reform. The following factors are of importance:

Ø The human resource vacuum increases through transition and transformation of existing structures;

Ø Systematic regression of the abilities of good governance, infrastructure and capacity in more than 40 years reaches a point of no return;

Ø 70% to 80% exports of the region is in agricultural products and do not penetrate the international markets irrespective of the trade barriers that are lifted;

Ø Foreign aid to the estimate R350 billion is necessary to kick start Africa economies;

Ø Land claims lodged will require R 17 billion to settle and will distort the agri-economy if the willing buyer, willing seller principle is disregarded.

The financial implication of Land Reform that includes land redistribution is more than the GNP can bear. Commercial agriculture and land is too scarce and a valuable strategic resource to risk in such a socialistic venture. South Africa does not have the luxury in time and resources to rectify the results of an experiment gone wrong.

LAND REFORM AS A PROCESS

Of the 84 900 000 hectare of land approximately 26 000, 000 hectare of arable land will be redistributed through land restitution. Agri BEE will take another 26 505 000 hectare. This leaves us with 32 395 000 hectare arable land. This excludes the communal land that is already in the possession of the State, previously part of the National States and still the basis of subsistence farming. This is the land that has to deliver food security to South Africa and the southern African region.

The process of land restitution is based on land claims. In spite of the procedures laid down by law, land claims is a major issue for land owners because the right to private property is at stake. The landowner is excluded from the process of the land claim until it is published in the Government Gazette. The marginalisation of the farmer as proprietor until the last moment is a distortion of the right of private property.

The process of Land Reform also jeopardise the civil rights of the farmer if the implementation of the act is forced onto the farming community as a political process without supporting the economic viability of the agrarian communities. Land claims and the constant threat of AgriBEE impacts on the psychological and social structures of the rural communities and creates a society in imbalance.

More agricultural land is available on the free market and approximately 2003 farms have already been offered to the Department of Land Affairs for possession. In the mean time more claims are published on agricultural land. It is unlikely that the commercial productive farms will continue its production after the claimants have possessed the farm. The question arises if the claimants are farmers, potential farmers or only subsistence farmers. Will they sustain the optimal ecologically balanced production potential of the land? According to resent examples it is unlikely that commercial agriculture will benefit from this process.

The process of Land Reform should enhance the commercial production of food and provide the structures and environment for black emerging farmers without discriminating against white commercial farmers.

COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY

TAU SA hereby emphasises that the future success of South Africa’s commercial agriculture and sustainable food production in globalised economies, will be determined by international economic and financial standards and regulations, and not by South African standards and a Land Reform Programme. TAU SA maintains the point of view that free economic and market forces must determine the development of Economic Empowerment in the agricultural sector.

The test for successful agriculture is when food is produced in quantity and quality on a commercial basis to impact on the basic existence of every person by delivering sustenance to combat under-nourishment, malnutrition and famine and secure health on a sustainable competitive and commercial basis in globalised economies.

With the collapse of the economies of the neighbouring states and the regression of social services the South African economy will have to grow with 6% to 7 %. This is unlikely if the loss in human capital through an aggressive transformation process and policy continues and the burden on services in rural areas escalates. The influx of illegal foreigners and the unprotected borders will eventually restrict the growth and put more stress on commercial agricultural land. This scenario is not far fetched if all the existing factors intertwine with a high risk industry like agriculture.

The terrain of agriculture is a highly sensitive area, therefore:

Ø Commercial Agriculture is a high-risk and climatologically sensitive and responsible industry with a high strategic profile that impacts on the basic existence of every person by delivering sustenance to combat under-nourishment, malnutrition and famine and secure health on a sustainable competitive and commercial basis in globalised economies.

The relation between commercial agriculture and sustainable food production and security is determined by the position of Government. On the intervention of government through Land Reform the following quote gives the necessary insight:

Ø “Plans aiming at a more or less equal distribution of the soil among the farming population are, under the conditions of the market economy, merely plans for granting privileges to a group of less efficient producers at the expense of the immense majority of consumers. The operation of the market tends to eliminate all those farmers whose cost of production is higher than the marginal cost needed for the production of that amount of farm products the consumers are ready to buy. It determines the size of farms as well as the methods of production applied. If the government interferes in order to make a different arrangement of the conditions of farming prevail, it raises the average price of farm products.” (Ludwig von Mises, Austrian Economist),

To preserve a sustainable commercial agriculture sector Government must re-think its position on Land Reform, agricultural production and food security in a globalised economy.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion TAU SA’s position on Land Reform can not change from the stance that Land Reform and the BBBEE framework for Agriculture will jeopardise the property rights, production and competitiveness of commercial agriculture in a sensitive and high risk industry to the detriment of food production and food security.

What will befall South Africa is summarised by the following quote if this Land Summit does not address these issues in a rational and scientific way:

“After decades of mismanagement and corruption, most African states become hollowed out. They are no longer instruments capable of serving the public good. Indeed, far from being able to provide aid and protection to their citizens African governments and the vampire-like politicians who run them are regarded by the populations they rule as yet another burden they have to bear in the struggle for survival” (Meredith, M.; 2005. p.668).

TAU SA - Tel: 012 804 8031

Fax: 012 804 2014

E-mail: eiendom@tlu.co.za

"So Bob, how much should we give you?"

According to the BBC, Mugabe is now seeking financial aid from none other than communist China and South Africa. One can not help but ask why these two countries would pay to see Mugabe stay in power.

The ANC government of South Africa seems all too eager to assist Mugabe by financing his reign of terror. After all, they share a common ideology, namely ridding Africa of "white settlers". The ANC government of SA argues that it is in South Africa's financial interest to ensure that "Zimbabwe succeeds". But truthfully, this is by far one of the ANC's worst fallacies to date. Robert Mugabe's reign in Zimbabwe has been nothing but bad news for both the Zimbabwean and South African economies. Mbeki's silence on issues such as the Zimbabwean landgrabs and the recent demolition of more than 200 000 homesteads and shacks have had a very negative impact on foreign investment in South Africa.

China on the other hand, has a much more monetary motive: if Mugabe loses power over Zimbabwe, they lose control over Zimbabwe's mineral wealth (See: "Who funds Africa's opressors").

Both China and South Africa have clearly undermined the rest of the world's sanctions against the tyrant, Robert Mugabe. It is clear what the rest of the world needs to do: firstly, take more aggressive action against Mugabe, or bear whatever tragedy that takes place next in Zimbabwe, on their conscience. Secondly, realize that Mbeki's ANC are a bunch of communist tricksters who only pretend to care about human rights when it suits them (As mentioned, they clearly don't care about human rights, which is evident by their undermining of sanctions against the Mugabe regime).

Sources and related articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4712633.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4692639.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4031969.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3804629.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4713961.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4713961.stm

Updated: Related articles
See Jan Lamprecht's www.africancrisis.org

An interview with Deirdre Fields, part 1

American Dissident Voices broadcast for the week of June 12 - June 18, 2005
listen to the broadcast (mp3)
download the broadcast (mp3)
real audio download

by Kevin Alfred Strom

AS WE'VE DISCUSSED on this program several times before, there is an almost unknown genocide of White people happening right now in South Africa -- a country which once was a technologically advanced First World nation under White rule, but which is rapidly descending into chaos and savagery under Black rule.

Today we are pleased to welcome to our microphones Mrs. Deirdre Fields, who (ILLUSTRATION -- Two executioners of lives now in California but who is
Whites in South Africa: left, Nelson probably the premiere activist in the
Mandela; right, Joe Slovo, the former's United States on behalf of White
Jewish handler and mentor.) South Africans.

Kevin Alfred Strom: Welcome to the program, Deirdre.

Deirdre Fields: Thank you, Kevin; it's a great pleasure to be here.

KAS: It was wonderful to hear you speak so passionately and so well at the European American conference last month in New Orleans. My only complaint was that your speech should have been quite a bit longer.

DF: Well, I was lucky to get the time.

KAS: Can you tell us a little bit about your background and how you came to be so well-informed about South Africa?

DF: Well, I am a South African. I'm an Afrikaner. My ancestors go back to several very prominent leaders in South Africa. So I guess we've always been involved in politics. Actually, even one of my Mother's cousins was a cabinet minister for many years. So this has been very important to us. We've had that political awareness.

I studied politics myself; I have a degree in international politics. And, if you know the supreme players and the object of the game, one can easily make sense of what one observes taking place, and make accurate predictions, regardless of the efforts of the media and governments to muddy the waters.

I became particularly vocal when I began my overseas travels. I was so astounded at how little people knew about South Africa, and what total propaganda they had believed, and how misconceived their perceptions were –and I would of course set the record straight.

KAS: I can remember back in the 1970s the propaganda was almost incessant -- in every medium here in the US; newspapers, television, radio -- about the incredible "evil" of the so-called Apartheid regime in South Africa, the White government there. And most of these hosts and writers in the media considered the racial policies of that government to constitute a real emergency -- we had to "do something" to bring down this White government. Was it during this period that your awareness was developing?

DF: Absolutely. The whole world had sanctions against us. We were told how we were "oppressing our Blacks" and we looked at our accusers and asked "How are we oppressing them?" They had the highest living standard in the whole of Africa.

And the whole basis of the complaint was that we had "stolen the land from the Blacks." And that's erroneous. We did not. The Blacks were not there before us. The first White settlers arrived in 1652. This was under the aegis of the Dutch East India Company of Holland. At that time there were only Bushmen and Hottentots -- neither of which are Negroes. Bushmen are Sanids and Hottentots are Khoisanids; they are not Negroids. The Hottentots died out in 1715 and 1717 in two smallpox epidemics, and what is left of them exists only in the Colored [mixed] population; the Bushmen migrated to South West Africa (Namibia) where the Blacks are killing them today..

The first Blacks (the Nguni peoples) didn't come down to our part of Africa until the late 1700s, when they came from the Central African-Uganda area. Blacks really started to swarm into South Africa only after gold and diamonds were discovered. And that was due to Cecil Rhodes and his diamond and gold mining cronies who were importing Black labor from all over. These Blacks came in, worked on contract, and after, say, three years, they were just let loose. And this is how they came to be in South Africa. Today, the country belongs to them. This is a good lesson for both America and Europe: immigration of unrelated, dissimilar peoples into a white nation will eventually result in the whites being outbred, ousted from all power, and eventually being genocided. We whites, the smallest population group in the world, have to have safe homelands where we can be secure amongst ourselves, and have our genepool protected, intact and unpolluted. This is a basic requirement for survival. Failing this, extinction glares us in the eye.

Up until the handover to the ANC, there were something like nine different Black ethnic groups in South Africa, none of which gets on with the others.

Under the system of Grand Apartheid as devised by Dr. Verwoerd, we tried to give each one of those ethnic groups self-determination -- and we actually gave them parts of our territory in order to draw them out of the White mainland. We gave them homelands like Bophuthatswana [pop. 2.5 million], which was composed of Tswanas. They come from Botswana, which is a huge country on our borders. They were brought to a high degree of independence, and Bophuthatswana was the seventh richest country in Africa before they were reintegrated into South Africa when our country was handed over to the ANC. They then reabsorbed all these independent Black nations.
[ http://www.worldstatesmen.org/South_African_homelands.html ]

KAS: So, basically, South Africa had a policy of separate development -- but it was not a policy of genocide against Blacks.

DF: Oh, absolutely not -- in fact, quite the opposite. Their numbers burgeoned under White rule because they had the benefit of our White medicine. Also, we stopped them from hacking each other to pieces. That was largely successful, but not completely. Wherever they were in proximity to each other there was still conflict. Our South African surgeons were frequently the best in the world because they had practice that was unavailable anywhere else. In a place like Soweto -- a big Black township, although the different tribes lived in different sections, they would come into contact with each other, and attack one another.

KAS: Yes. I can remember, not only in the 70s but all the way through the 80s and part of the 90s, the endless demonstrations in front of the South African embassy. Even some celebrities, such as Amy Carter, would demonstrate there. And there was a sense of urgency, promoted I think mainly by the media. We were told it really was an "emergency." We had to bring down this "evil" White government.

However now we have a situation in which we hardly ever hear anything at all about South Africa in the media. Apparently, everything there must be fine. Since they voted in the new constitution 11 years ago, now that there is a Black ANC government, clearly there's no emergency anymore and everything is all right -- at least according to the so-called American media. Do you agree with that?

DF: Absolutely not. The beauty of the South African situation is that it shows up the hypocrisy of the New World Order. Yes, you're quite right, there was a sense of urgency that the "hateful" Apartheid regime needed to be removed, because we were "oppressing the Blacks."

Well, today, South Africa, especially Johannesburg, is the rape and murder capital of the world. There is terrific lawlessness. In fact, total lawlessness: You’re even afraid to call the police because you never know if the police are going to attack you or not. For a White person, it's particularly bad -- but it's extremely bad for the Blacks too. They have been unable to sustain the country; it's rapidly becoming a Third World country.

Soon after Mandela took power, we had this insurgence of Blacks from all over Africa -- so that we gained over 20 million people. They're squatters; they're on people's land. The ANC is not doing anything to protect the landowners, who are being murdered. There is a policy of genocide going on right now in South Africa which is almost totally ignored by the media.

KAS: That's a strong word to use -- genocide. What evidence is there that genocide is taking place and that genocide is the intention of the current rulers of South Africa?

DF: You had a youth leader of the ANC who adopted as his motto "Kill a farmer; kill a Boer." That was his motto. The ANC also uses the slogan “one settler, one bullet.”

KAS: Now 'Boer' means 'farmer' in Afrikaans, the language of many of the White South Africans, correct?

DF: Yes.

KAS: And ANC stands for African National Congress. That was the Black Marxist party which was handed power in 1994. And you're telling me that their actual open slogan used by one of their leaders was "Kill a farmer; kill a Boer"?

DF: Yes, absolutely. And since then there have been between 1,700 and 1,800 murders -- brutal murders -- of Afrikaner farmers. Now these murders are usually without any monetary motive. Some of the earlier ones we had pictures of, but since then there's been an ANC policy that pictures are not to be released and these stories are not to be covered because they "incite racial hatred" or whatever. Afrikaners have been protesting in the streets about this.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2677 ]

I'll just give you an example of what is happening: A farmer would go out to work his land. Then these terrorists would come to the farmhouse and attack the wife, kill her and sometimes rape her. And then they'd wait in the house until the children came home, and kill them. Then they'd wait again until the farmer himself came home, and they would murder him. And there were different degrees of atrocities. Sometimes they'd chop the head off, sometimes they'd chop the hands off. There was one poor person who had his hands cut off, and he was castrated, and then burned to death. They had babies -- six-month-old babies -- wrapped up in newspaper and then burnt alive. There's been a whole slew of murders of elderly Whites -- like one old farmer and his wife... they shot the man, who was probably trying to defend his wife; they got hold of her, tied her to a tree, and tortured her for hours on end with boiling water before they finally slit her throat.

KAS: Sick. And you say there is no monetary motive in some of these cases.

DF: Often they wouldn't take anything. Sometimes they'd take a boom box, or sometimes a TV or VCR. But usually nothing much.

In Natal, they broke into a house where everybody was sleeping. They murdered the father and mother and I think one of the children. And there was a young boy -- a teenager about 13. They held him and forced him to watch his parents being murdered. Then they made him open the safe, from which they stole the weapons. After that they took him in a little pickup truck out into the bundoo where there's nothing at all -- took him out and then thrust their AIDS-infected tongues in his mouth. And left him to find his own way back.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4778 ]

And there are so many rapes these days. If all things were equal, there should be a huge outcry about the lack of rights for women in South Africa, because we are now the rape capital of the world. This is not only for Whites, but for Blacks as well. AIDS is rampant, and the Blacks are very superstitious: The witch doctors have told them -- and they believe -- that if they rape a virgin, then they will be cleansed of their AIDS. So, they are doing this to children. Even little babies have been gang-raped. You'd think there would be an international outcry about this.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4075 ]

KAS: Who's behind these farm murders? Who's planning them? Who's encouraging them? And why do you call it genocide?

DF: It's genocide because Blacks are going after a group -- White people -- who are identifiable by their race, their skin color. And most of the farmers are Afrikaners. So they're going after that group specifically. This is also part of their plan to "redistribute" the land. This also happened in Rhodesia, which is now Zimbabwe. They drove off all the White farmers, but they didn't murder them as much as they're doing in South Africa. They basically just drove them off the land. And that has received some publicity. But in South Africa they're actually murdering them.
So if your skin is White you are a target. You have to be very careful. I have lost several friends already, who've been murdered there. If you have Blacks committing murder on Whites, on a specific group, then you have to say it's genocide. And nobody's doing anything about it.

In fact, I have a very interesting case that is quite damning of the ANC and their complicity in all this. It's the case of Rick Theron and his common law wife Estelle van Dyk, who had a farm where they retrained racehorses. When they bought the farm it had a couple of squatters on it, living in some of the outbuildings. But Theron and his wife really needed that space for their own servants. So they tried to negotiate with the squatters and get them off. After a time, they were actually successful, and the squatters moved.

Then the ANC came along, and told these squatters "You don't have to leave." And they brought them back onto the property in Government trucks! You can imagine what that did to the attitude of these invaders: "This is our place; you can't do anything about it."

Then there were cars driving around the property at all hours of the night, driving right past their house and making a noise. So the couple would complain. They would complain to the ANC. And they left a paper trail. All the time. Without any success.

The numbers of these squatters just burgeoned. They started pulling down the buildings that were there. They just took them apart, removing various parts of the buildings. They even started taking things off the house. They threatened the servants, told them they were going to kill them. There were parts of the couple's property that they could no longer use because it was too dangerous. The squatters told the couple many times that they were going to kill them.

So Theron and his wife complained, over and over again, to the ANC. They described one interview they had with an ANC official. They said she could hardly look them in the eyes. They were told "You're racists. You're just part of the oppressors."

The wife replied "I've been a nurse. I spent my whole time under the so-called Apartheid regime nursing Blacks in Soweto. I never did anything to oppress anybody."

KAS: If you're White, it's very, very difficult, I understand, to get the police or the other authorities to help you. You're almost helpless against these marauding gangs.

DF: Absolutely. The upshot of the story for this couple is that Rick was finally killed by these invaders. He was outside when they butchered him. Rick was hacked to pieces with an ax and Estelle barricaded herself in the house. The squatters tried to hack down her door and she shot through the door but missed, and one of the attackers shot her through a window. The keys of their 4x4 were on the kitchen table, but neither the 4x4 nor anything else was taken.

So they were murdered. But they did leave that paper trail. And it shows how the ANC was backing up the squatters and how they totally supported everything that was going on.

KAS: Now you told me before the program that this attempt to commit genocide against the Boers is not the first attempt.

DF: No. The first attempt was in 1899 to 1902, during what the British called the Boer War -- the Afrikaners called it the English War. And that is, of course, what it was. At the time of the discovery of gold there, the two Boer republics, the Transvaal and the Free State, had been recognized as independent states by international law. So Britain couldn't gerrymander the border as she had done upon the discovery of diamonds.

KAS: So this was very much like the war of American independence 120 years before.

DF: Yes, there are many similarities. In fact our whole history is very similar.

So gold was discovered in the heartland of the Transvaal, and the Brits of course wanted to have control of it. There were some important gold mine owners; perhaps the most significant among them was Cecil John Rhodes. This is a man who had a vision of One World Government under Anglo-Saxon control. Unfortunately, he was sponsored and financed by Rothschild – Baron Rothschild, who was not an Anglo-Saxon.

KAS: He was a Jew...

DF: Yes, he was a Jew. The major gold mine owners were all Jews -- other than Rhodes who was English, but the representative of Rothschild. Their names were Alfred Beit, Julius Wernher, Barney Barnato, Sammy Marks and Solly Joel. They had links with all the international financiers.

And Paul Kruger, who was the president of the Transvaal at the time, was very opposed to this whole bunch of people. The Afrikaners were strong Calvinists and considered that money was the source of all evil. And they could not stand these English-speaking materialists and opportunists who had invaded their land. I mean, we had just purchased that land with our blood, sweat, and tears!

We didn't even have a standing army or anything like that. We were very much a pioneer republic.

So the financiers fronted the money to build up propaganda against the Afrikaners, and the whole character of the Afrikaner was smeared and totally destroyed. And they finally whipped Britain up into a war.

As I said, we didn't have a standing army. And Britain sent out a quarter of a million troops. So how could you fight when you don't have an army? This is really where guerrilla warfare got off the ground. They would ambush the Brits and then run to the nearest farm, change horses, and gallop away to fight again another day. So the British realized that they couldn't win with a conventional war. I think in the whole war, four years, they were only able to kill 3,000 men in the field, so they devised a new plan.

I think it a pro pos to explain here that Rhodes’ major business partner was Baron Nathaniel Rothschild who had financed him to the tune of some One and a half million Pounds. Soon afterwards (with Barney Barnato, who was financed to the tune of some Five and a half million Pounds), he formed the De Beers Consolidated Mines. The Rothschilds appointed Sir Carl Meyer (also a Jew) as their watchdog director, while Sir Alfred Beit (Jew) became Life Governor.

All these mining companies were enmeshed: The Rothschild’s together with the Mosenthals, in London and South African Exploration Co. also had a financial interest in the enormously powerful firm of Wernher Beit and Co., which owned huge tracts of land and gold mines in South Africa. I’ll quote here from J.B. Taylor of Wernher Beit & Co. in his book A Pioneer looks back,( 1939, p. 109): “When Beit realized that it would be necessary to obtain the support of international financiers and bankers in order to raise all the capital required for the gold mining industry, he decided to broaden the market by giving participation to the Rothschilds of Germany, Austria, and France.”

Baron Nathaniel Rothschild also facilitated a meeting between Rhodes and the leading politicians of Britain at his residence at Tring Park (Daily Telegraph, 8th January, 1935), in order to further the behind-the-scenes manipulation obtain a strangle-hold on South African diamond and gold mines through the British, and

The new strategy they devised was a scorched earth policy, which included the first concentration camps in the history of Western civilization. Incredibly, Milner himself was reported as saying that ‘the purpose of the Scorched Earth Policy and the imprisonment of the Afrikaans families in Women’s Concentration Camps was to annihilate the great Afrikaner nation forever and ever. Amen.’

The policy was actually carried out by, Lord Milner, Lord Kitchener and his “Kindergarten,” and Lord Roberts. Kitchener was so close to the Rothschilds that later on, during In the First World War, Alfred Rothschild, Nathaniel’s brother, paid him daily visits at the War Office. Milner also had close ties to the Rothschild family.

They burnt down all the houses and the crops in the field, took whatever animals they could, killed the rest, and then took the women and children and put them in concentration camps. They were taken out on long journeys in all kinds of weather -- in the blazing African sun, in open cattle trucks. They were put in concentration camps whose locations were purposely chosen to be bad for the health of the prisoners.

KAS: You have said that these were the first concentration camps in the history of Western civilization.

DF: That's right -- and they were for women and children only. Typhus broke out in the camps and one fifth of the population died. And there were other deliberate things.

For instance, my own great-grandmother was in a concentration camp, and they were given flour with ground glass in it. They were given bully beef with little metal fishhook-type things in it. My great-grandmother had a whole big bag full of these fishhooks that she'd fished out. And they have exhibits in the Vroue Monument in Bloemfontein, too.
See http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm


According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield."

KAS: This is another story that Americans have not been told.

DF: No, they've never heard it.

The captives were given bad rations -- rotten meat, and so forth. We have pictures of children that look like Bergen-Belsen inmates, from typhus. We received no war reparations, not even an apology when the Queen was apologizing to everybody for what the British had done to them, including the Australian Aborigines but they refused to apologize to us because we were then as now, an obstacle to the New World Order – and the international financiers.

But there were a couple of Bittereinders -- Boers who continued to fight even after most of the people had surrendered. They fought so hard because the British were demanding unconditional surrender. They kept on fighting until they negotiated a better treaty. Afterwards, in 1910, we achieved Union and self-rule and so forth to complete independence under Dr. Verwoerd -- which, for the British, pretty much undid all the gains of the war.

And today we have the same people, the same moneyed elite, still trying to get rid of the Afrikaner.

This whole One World Government got a real spurt in South Africa through the diamond and gold mines and through Rhodes and the Rothschilds. As I said before, Rhodes had this idea of creating a cabal, a secret society, to take over the world for the British. But then he left as his executor -- Rothschild. So there were two purposes going at the same time; one group thought they were creating something for the British, and then you had Rothschild and his group, who were basically achieving their own separate ends, slowly subverting British rule.

A direct connection with the present fall of the Afrikaner dates back to the De Beers Consolidated Mines, of which the Jew Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, (the father of Harry Oppenheimer who financed the ANC) later became the Chairman. And Harry Oppenheimer actually boasted after the handover of power to Mandela that he, Oppenheimer, had really been "the quiet engine running the ANC for all these years."


KAS: Now it's widely perceived that the present government of South Africa is a "Black government." But you told me, and I believe you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans, that the ANC government does include a strong Jewish influence. Can you elaborate on that?


DF: There are about 11 Communist Jews who are in the cabinet and in other high positions in South Africa; many were appointed as soon as Mandela gained power. Joe Slovo was the most important. He was a Lithuanian Jew who was also a KGB colonel. He really brought the ANC to power. The ANC was a nondescript little group when he came in with the South African Communist Party (SACP) and took over. He wielded a great deal of power. He sort of swapped positions all the time, whether it was the ANC or the SACP or the Umkhonto we Sizwe which was the military arm of the ANC – the

terrorist arm. He finally wrote the constitution of South Africa. He has died in the meantime.

The Communist Jews included in Mandela's cabinet and other high positions were:

Gil Marcus - SACP, Vice President of the S.A. Reserve Bank
Trevor Manuel - Minister of Finance (Colored)
Alec Erwin - Minister of Trade and Finance
Ronnie Kasrils - Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry
Helena Dolny - Communist, former wife of Joe Slovo, Executive director of the Land Bank

Prof. Louise Tager - chairman of Spoornet (RSA's railway system)
Michael Katz - the ANC-SACP's chief consultant on taxation
Meyer Kahn - managing director of the police service

Many of these are still in office. Three of the 11 Constitutional Court Judges are Jewish: Richard Goldstone; Arthur Chaskelson; Albert Sachs.

The (spurious) official opposition party, the Democratic Party (DP), is controlled by Jews: Tony Leon was supported by Helen Suzman, Harry Schwartz, and was always financed by the Jewish mining magnate Harry Oppenheimer. Since Oppenheimer's death, his son Nicki heads the financial enterprise from London, and presumably still supports the DP. Ironically, the "official opposition" is the same party which throughout the Oppenheimer years was constantly lobbying for concessions to the ANC.

KAS: So you have South Africa's probably richest man, the Jewish mining billionaire, stating that he was the power behind Marxist revolution. To most people, that would just blow their minds. It's inconceivable.

DF: That's right. This shows again the connection between Communism and capitalism.
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4788 ]
[ http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4797 ]

***

Be sure to be with us next week for the second part of our interview with South African expatriate and truth-teller extraordinaire Deirdre Fields, who will show us the tremendous and terrible lesson that the death and destruction of South Africa holds for White America.

***

If we join together, we can avoid such death and destruction and build a clean, safe, secure, and progressive world for our children. Won't you help us by joining National Vanguard today? If you're unable to join, you can still financially support our efforts and remember us in your estate planning. For further information on National Vanguard, write to Post Office Box 5145, Charlottesville VA 22905, or visit http://www.nationalvanguard.org/ and click on the "join" link at the top of the page. We appreciate your support.

Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.

***

(We've added to the above text some links and additional detail provided to us by National Vanguard researchers and by Mrs. Fields herself, subsequent to the original interview.)

Mbeki's hipocrisy

Mugabe is at it again. His newest atrocity: bulldozing the domiciles of thousands of people, leaving scores homeless and starving. His comrades in crime, the African Union (which includes Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa), have unsurprisingly failed to criticize Zimbabwe's infringement of human rights.

It is ironic that Thabo Mbeki's ANC, who are celebrating the 50th anniversary of their Freedom charter, are refusing to criticize the Zimbabwean situation. South Africa recently supported the African Union's claim, namely that the Zimbabwe situation is a matter of "internal legislation" which should not be interfered with. This attitude of the ANC seems to be very contradictory with their calls for international sanctions and interference in South African politics a few decades back, during the apartheid era.

South Africa's (more specifically: the ANC's) continuous refusal to criticize Robert Mugabe's reign of terror, prove that they are not the saintly knights of human rights they claim to be.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4620977.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4618341.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4111218.stm

48% increase in black suicides in SA since apartheid ended in 1994...

June 14 2005 - Sapa -- Black South Africans are so stressed about their present living conditions under the ANC-regime that they are taking their own lives in unprecedented numbers. This past decade has seen a 48% increase in suicides among black people as more South Africans than ever before.

http://allafrica.com/publishers.html?
passed_name=Sunday%20Times&
passed_location=Johannesburg

Nowhere is this more harshly evident than in Umtata, in the Eastern Cape - the capitol of Thabo Mbeki's own Xhosa tribe's homeland -- where an academic found a suicide rate at 30 per 100,000 people -- almost twice the World Health Organisation's estimated global average of 16 per 100 000."More and more people are committing suicide," said Professor Banwari Meel, who has published five papers on suicide in the Umtata region."Female suicide in particular is increasing. In the last five years it has increased at least threefold."

http://allafrica.com/publishers.html?
passed_name=Sunday%20Times&
passed_location=Johannesburg

Do the ANC benefit if AIDS-sufferers die sooner?

The South African government, more specifically, President Thabo Mbeki and Minister Manto Tshabalala Msimang, are notorious for their controversial and misguided statements concerning HIV/AIDS. The South African government (which is governed by a two-thirds ANC majority) has also been reluctant to supply anti-retrovirals to AIDS-patients. This 'apathy' of the SA government often baffles even the most resolute ANC-supporters.

To better conceive the motivation behind the ANC's dubious behaviour, one must bare in mind that South Africa has the highest AIDS-infection rate in the world. Here is a summary of South Africa's current(2003) AIDS status, as provided by UNAIDS:

• Adults between the ages of 15 and 59 have a prevalence rate of 21.5%
• There are 5100 000 adults between the ages of 15 and 59 living with HIV

Thus, out of a population of roughly 40 Million people, about 5 Million will die due to AIDS within the next ten to twelve years. During that period, the number of people infected with AIDS will increase considerably. Thus it can be said, bearing in mind the damning statistics, that South Africa's AIDS-status is beyond critical.

The ANC draw most of their support from the country's black population (blacks make up 70% of the country's population), which means that the ANC might quite possibly sustain a substantial blow to their support-base due to AIDS-related deaths.

It can also be said that the longer an AIDS-sufferer lives, the bigger the chances are that such a person might infect another.

There is no doubt that the ANC is doing everything they can to stop the spread of the disease. This can be seen by their arduous awareness-campaigns. However, the government's reluctance to provide anti-retroviral drugs to AIDS-sufferers, and recent reckless comments on HIV/AIDS by both the minister of health, Manto Tshabalala Msimang and the state president, Thabo Mbeki, shows a tendency of reckless behaviour towards those that are already infected with HIV.

What are the chances that they are intentionally trying to shorten the lifespan of AIDS-sufferers, and thereby the likelyhood of them spreading the disease?

Discussion forums for Africa!

Disaster Africa now has brand-new discussion forums! The permanent link to the forums is situated on the right-hand-side of the page, under "Tools & Functions".

Is this the start of a Zimbabwean civil war?

More than 22,000 people have been arrested in the recent crackdown on Zimbabwe's shantytowns, a police spokesman has told state media.

Click here to read more...

Deadly proof...

Here is some facts, as sent to us by the highly renowned reporter, Adriana Stuijt, to support the claims of the previously placed letter:

Black South Africans do not want to farm...
- 'Give us urban houses and urban jobs, not farms'

by Adriana Stuijt, secretary, Foundation for Afrikaner-asylumseekers International (http://www.afrikanerfuture.info) .

Afrikaner farmers have been saying this for the past ten years, but the ANC-regime's relentless ethnic-cleansing campaign to get all Afrikaners out of the countryside under the guise of "land reform" has marched on regardless -- and caused more than 1-million lost jobs among black farm workers.

Now a new study by the Centre for Development and Enterprise has confirmed that the entire "land reform" programme has been a sham from the start: namelythat most black South Africans do not even want to farm.

* But they do want jobs, houses and effective services in urban areas, according to a new study by the Centre for Development and Enterprise.

"Urban housing reform" next?

What will be next -- will all Afrikaners now also be ethnically-cleansed from their urban homes, this time under the guise of "city housing reform"?

* The Xhosa-ruled ANC-regime is already cleansing Afrikaners out of the entire public sector and job market -- exactly as did the Nazis to the Jews in Nazi-Germany and its occupied territories under the Nazis "Neurenberg racial purity laws".
* Under Nazi-rule, Jews also were not allowed to hold jobs in the public or private sector, nor were they allowed to own land or indeed any private property whatsoever, and they could only run a business with a "Aryan co-partner" as a front.
* This is also what is happening to the Afrikaner in South Africa today, under the ANC regime's so-called "black economic empowerment" programme...

Read report here...

* Also see:

ANC's Neurenberg laws are called "Umrabulo"
- from the ANCs own website, we read how Afrikaners are being cleansed from all public life in South Africa:

http://www.anc.org.za/

"Empowerment charters are a site of struggle
While empowerment charters are highly contested terrains, they present new possibilities to enhance empowerment, improve implementation and monitoring, and develop empowerment as a central component of the national transformation agenda, writes Andy Brown.

The imperatives of economic transformation and empowerment as a condition of national liberation have been a fundamental tenet of ANC policy since the time of the Freedom Charter. While the scope of the concept has shifted over time and varying terminology used to describe its elements, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) has evolved as a central component of transformation.

Measures to redress the imbalances of the past are not only moral and political; our economy will not sustain growth while the majority are excluded from meaningful participation in productive activities and while there are high levels of poverty and unemployment. While BEE is not the panacea for transformation and poverty eradication, it can address a number of the challenges confronting us as part of an overall growth and development plan.

Black Economic Empowerment has developed to incorporate a wide range of interventions and strategies, many of which have been implemented by government over the past ten years. These include improving the capacity of our education system, land reform, rural development, small and medium enterprise (SME) support, skills development, access to finance for business, and preferential procurement.

More recently, government has proposed a comprehensive approach within which the private sector should implement BEE. Greater certainty has been given on definitions and measurement indicators, to enable the implementation of company BEE strategies. Sectors have also been encouraged to design transformation charters.

Black Economic Empowerment is therefore aimed at addressing a number of systemic problems in our economy. These include the narrow base and concentrated nature of ownership and control, inadequate investment in skills development, low levels of entrepreneurship, limited investment in underdeveloped areas and high unemployment.

As we learn from its implementation challenges our understanding of BEE will deepen and the policy is likely to continue to evolve. Despite the differing views, debate on BEE is essential to assist in the evolution of the concept. The need for inclusive engagement is particularly evident where charters are concerned.

Many critics, however, appear to have difficulty in appreciating the value creation that protagonists of BEE believe in. On one hand the approach of most companies, either bound by charters or under pressure by procurers of service, is compliance driven. On the other, increasingly vociferous concerns are raised about the narrow base of BEE, questioning how progressive and broad based BEE truly is.

GOVERNMENT POLICY REFLECTS ANC PRIORITIES

The ANC's Stellenbosch Conference in 2002 resolved to support the broad-based BEE process (see below). These ANC positions directly led to the adoption by government of the Broad-Based BEE Strategy and Broad-Based BEE Act in 2003. Both the strategy and the Act are based on numerous policy discussions and resolutions adopted by the ANC on BEE, as well as the considerations of the BEE Commission (BEECom) report.

Government has defined broad-based BEE as the economic empowerment of all black people including women, workers, youth, people with disabilities and people living in rural areas through diverse but integrated socio-economic strategies. The government's strategy outlines a number of state-led BEE programmes and includes a balanced scorecard, against which enterprises and sectors can design BEE strategies and measure progress made in achieving empowerment. The current version of the scorecard has three core elements:

* Direct empowerment: ownership and control;
* Human resource development; and
* Indirect empowerment: procurement, enterprise development and corporate social investment.

Government has released a draft code of practice, which includes a revised scorecard.

* The new code provides significantly more detail on measurement indicators, weightings and targets.
* As it is finalised, it is hoped that terminology such as direct and indirect empowerment will be discarded as it gives the impression that enterprise development or other residual elements are less directly empowering than ownership.

The Broad Based BEE Act is enabling rather then prescriptive. It provides for the establishment of the BEE Advisory Council, the publishing of codes of practice and the gazetting of transformation charters. The challenge in implementation of the Act is that it does not compel the private sector to set empowerment plans and report on progress. Although said to be the subject of a future code of practice, the absence of a legislated reporting requirement may lessen its impact.

Notably the Act does give substantially more definition to Broad-Based BEE and its objectives. Firmly turning away from a very narrow definition, BEE is understood in its broadest sense as the economic empowerment of all black people through diverse but integrated socio-economic strategies.

Both the strategy and the Act argue that economic growth and empowerment are complementary and related processes and that if we do not implement BEE, "the stability and prosperity of the economy in the future may be undermined". In other words, the inclusion of black people in economic activities is seen as a necessary element of a growth strategy.

The role of the private sector, particularly in relation to the complementary nature of BEE and growth, may not have been sufficiently emphasised. Unless we understand that BEE is fundamental to the development and growth of our economy, businesses will continue to implement it half-heartedly, not appreciating the real value beyond short term gains of compliance and not fully understanding the benefits of implementing all aspects of BEE well in their own companies.

The inability of the private sector to implement BEE in an integrated and holistic manner may restrict the broad-based impact of BEE and hamper its potential to foster growth.

The South African Communist Party (SACP) has recently argued that the language of the Freedom Charter has been replaced by 'black economic empowerment', which according to the SACP is "a clear divergence, if not contradiction". The same document aligns BEE to 'Black Advancement' and the "co-option of the few to a project of deracialised capitalism".

This characterisation misrepresents the role of black business in meaningful advocacy on transformation of the economy and in the development of a BEE policy. Most critics of BEE, while supporting broad based BEE imperatives, seldom draw adequate distinctions between policy, practice and the various role players. The resultant perception that BEE as a policy framework involves only the transaction activities of black people in business and that it therefore results in black enrichment is incorrect and misrepresents the evolution of the concept in ANC and government policy.

ENGAGING THE CHARTERS

In June this year we celebrate 50 years of the Freedom Charter. Will the charters being drafted today match up to the spirit of the Freedom Charter and more importantly, will they have the desired impact on the will of all South Africans to transform our society?

Initially mooted by the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME), the BEE Commission (BEECom) and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), transformation charters are negotiated agreements between stakeholders, aimed at driving transformation in the economy.

Charters have added impetus to BEE. They present the possibility of establishing a transformation framework beyond the parameters of how the private sector has implemented BEE to date. Charters provide opportunities to address a range of challenges confronting the economy on a sector-by-sector basis, while enhancing stakeholder commitment.

Characterised by contested views as to how broad-based the charter should be, they are an important site of struggle.

Charters are provided for by the Broad-Based BEE Act. The mining, liquid fuels and financial sectors have already gazetted charters in terms of the Act, while more are expected in transport, property, construction, the accounting and legal professions, health, agriculture, wine, cosmetics, information and communications technology (ICT), advertising and tourism. The experience of the earlier charters is formative and ongoing review is essential. There are some obvious challenges, which need to be addressed to improve on outcomes.

The charters are drafted in the sprit of negotiation; they do contain standards albeit agreed to in a contested environment. Often, those better resourced with time and skills, as well as financial capacity, come out ahead. Hence the imperative of inclusive charter discussions.

Development of charters has been a contentious issue with confusion reigning among black and white business, organised labour and government about who drives and who constitutes negotiating partners. Until recently most have not effectively involved community and organised labour in their drafting.

In the case of the Mining Charter, the Department of Minerals and Energy initially drove the process, bringing in business and labour later on. The consequence of less inclusive development was negative and impacted on the final charter. This is evident in the scorecard, which is more vague in its commitments than would have been desired by government and labour constituencies.

The Financial Sector Charter was led by business in consultation with government, but with limited participation from labour and social partners. The inadequate consultation threatened to undermine the legitimacy of the charter after it was signed. These stakeholders were interested parties in this charter and they had actively driven campaigns to transform the financial sector. They should have been included as negotiating partners. Today, however, they have equal representation in the oversight structure, the Financial Sector Charter Council.

The ICT, transport, tourism, construction and property charters are being driven by steering committees. Government is playing an active role and Nedlac has been briefed on most of these charters.

Charters are not negotiated at Nedlac. However, a minimum requirement is that charters should be tabled at Nedlac, participation invited and a final report sought from Nedlac for submission to the respective minister on conclusion of a charter, as is done with significant legislation or policy.

Organised labour and community representatives have been invited to participate as negotiating partners in the transport, construction and property charters. The ICT charter steering committee was recently reconstituted to ensure better representation of all stakeholders. Black business is participating in most of the charters through chambers and professional bodies.

While it is not always easy to involve everyone, the inclusion of any stakeholder who is affected by a sector, who would sign a charter and who could implement a charter, should be sought. The absence of representative, inclusive and empowered stakeholder participation in negotiations compromises the potential impact of charters and limits their broad-based scope.

MORE THAN NARROW CHANGE

Charters often encompass diverse and large sectors, where the nature and the varying types of firms within it necessitate establishing a common threshold or industry mean on which to set targets. While transformation is built in, the mechanisms don't always capture the interests of all stakeholders. Similarly, the scope and content of charters is difficult to define and its broad-based nature contested.

The indicators of the BEE scorecard - which include ownership, control, employment equity, skills development, targeted procurement, enterprise development and corporate social investment - are always considered. But BEE is about more than narrow change. It must follow that companies and sectors should understand their role and contribution to transformation in the economy and accordingly define relevant indicators for inclusion in the charter.

In line with this, some charters have introduced additional residual indicators. The Mining Charter included beneficiation and mining community development. The ICT charter has incorporated bridging the digital divide and access to ICT. The Financial Sector Charter (FSC) addressed access to transaction banking and savings products and targeted investment in areas of national priority.

In the construction and transport sectors the charters are expected to address job sustainability, workplace conditions and enterprise development. In the property sector stakeholders are discussing the extent to which the charter can include access to and use of property.

The weightings allocated to the various aspects of BEE in some of the more recent charters are indicative of this shift to incorporate broader transformation issues. Many scorecards increasingly place less emphasis on ownership than on the other indicators, with most allocating ownership between 15 and 18 points out of a total of 100 points.

While the recent charter frameworks are attempting to broaden the scope, greater emphasis should be placed on growth generating activities and job creation. For instance, to date few charters effectively address enterprise development, many locating the measurement of performance in enterprise development within procurement. In most competitive economies small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood, creating labour-intensive employment, innovation and increased competition. Adequate solutions in this area should bring large-scale benefits to all. To accommodate all these aspects of BEE, especially in diverse and large sectors, innovation in both qualitative and quantitative instruments and in scorecard design is fundamental.

Most important, given some of the challenges, well constructed reporting, monitoring and review mechanisms are critical. Without reporting, progress can never be evaluated and little is left to implement.

PARTICIPATION FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Some believe that charters set defined goals and parameters that are cast in stone and must never change. This is not true. From year to year various aspects of our economic landscape will change and our understanding of particular issues should deepen. These factors could influence the outcomes of charters and we must therefore provide for adjustment of mechanisms by oversight structures when necessary as well as ongoing assessment of the extent to which its implementation meets the intentions and spirit of the charter. In the FSC for example, current research shows that some of the employment equity targets are already easily achievable and the council is debating a review. Such reviews and adaptability of the mechanisms must be recognised.

Perhaps the most difficult challenge confronting the implementation of BEE through charters is the approach of most companies to empowerment obligation s. Few have recognised the benefits of BEE beyond meeting tender or licensing criteria. They therefore do not appreciate the value creating potential of the various components of BEE to an individual business nor the benefits to the economy in general. Charters must become innovative tools to transform workplaces, promote productive environments and grow.

There is vast global experience that demonstrates that economies that increase the participation of people in production and address developmental requirements are more likely to become competitive.

Given the flexible approach to BEE implementation, its success is chiefly dependant on sufficient commitment among companies and industries, champions in government, participation from organised labour and community structures, and effective officials and systems.

There is evidence of growing government success in implementing BEE programmes, including targeted procurement, local economic development and SME support. Examples of private sector progress in implementing BEE, especially through charters, and evidence of real benefits to a wider base would certainly add impetus.

Black Economic Empowerment is firmly located within the national development agenda. The consultative nature, inherent partnership potential and monitoring framework provided by charters adds tremendous impetus to this. While mindsets take time to change, charters provide a framework within which stakeholders can embrace BEE in their sectors and in so doing extend its transformative outcomes.

Andy Brown is a consultant specialising in economic empowerment policy and strategy.

Resolution of the ANC 51st National Conference on Black Economic Empowerment

NOTING THAT:

Despite our efforts, South African society remains characterised by vast racial and gender inequalities in the distribution of and access to productive assets, wealth, income, skills and employment.

Fronting of Afrikaner-owned businesses:

Little progress has been made in achieving greater operational participation and control in the economy by black people, and we have instead seen the rise in so-called 'fronting'.

This limited participation of black people in the economy limits our ability to expand the productive base, sustain economic development, eradicate poverty and contribute to a better life for all, political, social and economic requirement of this country's collective future.

* BEE is defined in its broadest sense as an integrated and coherent socio-economic process located in the context of the RDP. Its benefits must be shared across society, and impact as widely as possible.

THEREFORE RESOLVES:

That Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is a moral, political, social and economic requirement of this country's collective future.

BEE is defined in its broadest sense as an integrated and coherent socio-economic process located in the context of the RDP. Its benefits must be shared across society, and impact as widely as possible.

That the indicators for success are overall equity in incomes, wealth, increasing levels of black participation - including black women and youth -in the ownership, the extent to which there is operational participation and control of the economy and the extent to which there has been transfer and possession of skills and a retention of assets by the BEE beneficiaries.

To ensure that BEE is broad based, supportive of collective ownership programmes by working people and communities, in the form of collective enterprises and cooperatives, supportive of the creation of an entrepreneurial class, the accumulation of assets by the poor and with a focus on the development of rural economies.

That the ANC will mobilise its membership to mobilise communities in general, and targeted groups in particular - women, institutions working with children, people with disabilities, youth and the elderly - to take up the BEE opportunities and to participate in the debate.

That an essential component of BEE is the involvement of black business people, especially women, in the ownership, control and management of productive capital in all sectors of the economy as well as skilled occupations.

In pursuing this objective the ANC will work with the emergent black capitalist class to ensure joint commitment and practical action to attain increased investment, job creation, employment equity and poverty alleviation.

That the government must intensify its support for small, medium and micro enterprises as a critical component of BEE and ensure that such support reaches them.

That the ANC at all levels must continuously monitor progress in empowering black people, especially black women, youth, children, the elderly and people living with disabilities and ensure government arrives at quantitative targets in order to measure BEE.

That the ANC supports the establishment of a BEE Advisory Council representing all major stakeholders to champion BEE.
To promote the design and implementation of broad based sector or industry empowerment programmes with clearly defined targets, based on agreements between stakeholders.

To enhance the effective use of government's instruments such as licensing, procurement, state asset restructuring and provision of finance, to target BEE.

To ensure government designs an enabling regulatory framework including operational guidelines to promote certainty in the implementation and regulation of BEE.

To ensure that Municipal Integrated Development Plans factor in BEE at community levels and ensure that local government communicates opportunities for BEE.