Cape Town, South Africa
27 February 2006 03:16
The Democratic Alliance has renewed its call on President Thabo Mbeki to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry into certain aspects of the arms deal.
DA public accounts spokesperson Eddie Trent said on Monday he has again written to Mbeki "in an attempt to jog his memory" of an alleged meeting he had with French arms company Thomson-CSF senior executives in Paris in 1998 when he was deputy president.
Trent said he wrote the letter in view of Mbeki's statement in an interview with the Sunday Independent newspaper that he "honestly cannot recall" whether he met the senior executives during a highly sensitive stage of the arms-procurement process.
"I have also sent him the contents of two encrypted faxes which appear to confirm that such a meeting did in fact take place, in a complete violation of normally accepted tender procedures."
In his letter to Mbeki, Trent said the first of these faxes was from Pierre Moynot to M Denis and B de Bollardiere, all Thomson-CSF employees.
In this fax, dated November 28 1997, reference was made to the "person responsible for the shortlist".
The fax also referred to the fact that this person "repeated that he had obtained the assurance from the deputy president that we would be awarded the combat system and sensors".
The second fax was from B de Bollardiere (senior vice-president of Thomson-CSF) to the then South African ambassador to France, Barbara Masekela.
In this fax, De Bollardiere thanked Masekela for arranging a meeting between the "deputy president of your government, Mr Thabo Mbeki, with Messrs Jean-Paul Perrier, Michel Denis, and myself".
Trent asked Mbeki to clarify whether any assurance was given to Thomson-CSF that it would be awarded the corvette combat suite contract, and whether a meeting of the nature referred to in the second fax did in fact take place.
"If indeed the contents of these documents are either false or misleading, it would appear to be in the national interest that they should be publicly disputed," he wrote.
"Despite the government's protestations to the contrary, there are still a number of outstanding questions relating to the arms deal.
"I would therefore like to repeat my call for you to establish a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate firstly the outstanding issues surrounding executive interference in the drafting of the auditor general's arms deal report, and secondly the information contained in the faxes referred to above," Trent wrote. -- Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
'We always vote but our lives don't improve'
Durban, South Africa
28 February 2006 07:38
The rural community of Ndwedwe, north of Durban, has no electricity, running water and tarred roads, says an area headman.
"We were promised development a long time ago. Government officials always come and address us with the chief, especially during the elections, but nothing happens," Shangase headman Phenyamadoda Mchunu says while waiting on a dusty road to catch a taxi.
"We wash ourselves in the [Mdloti] river. The women also wash their clothes in the river. The water is dirty; it's easy to get sick."
The community, which mainly lives in mud rondavels, often enquires about the slow pace of delivery, but they are told there is no money.
"[Minister of Finance] Trevor Manuel has just presented his Budget. We know money has been made available by the government, but it does not reach us. The question is what happens to it."
Mchunu says he sees no point in voting in the local government elections on Wednesday.
"Tell me one reason why I should vote. We always vote but our lives don't improve," he says, wiping his brow in the early-morning heat.
Unlike Mchunu, other community members say they will not forfeit their vote.
Sikhathi Makhanya, of Thafamasi, says: "I am going to vote so that the people I elect can hear my grievances. That is the right we fought for."
Makhanya says many feel the area is being neglected by the municipality and its councillors.
"Our councillor is too lazy to visit us and hear our needs. All she does is drive around to council meetings.
"She gets money for nothing," he says to the laughter of a small group of men sitting around him on wooden benches.
There are many elderly who qualify for government grants but do not receive them.
"Social department officials have never visited our old people who are unable to walk long distances to the public offices. Their families are starving because the government has neglected them."
A few hundred metres from Makhanya's home lives another Makhanya family.
Albert Makhanya and his wife are both unemployed and live with their three children. If lucky, they earn R10 a day from selling peanuts and crisps.
"We were promised proper houses by the government since 2002. We have registered about three times to get a house.
"When [Nelson] Mandela was president, he was asked by a listener on Ukhozi FM what happened to all the promises. He answered sometimes you have to lie in order to get a woman."
However, Albert says he will cast his ballot in the hope that it will bring him a brighter future. -- Sapa
Source: http://www.mg.co.za/
28 February 2006 07:38
The rural community of Ndwedwe, north of Durban, has no electricity, running water and tarred roads, says an area headman.
"We were promised development a long time ago. Government officials always come and address us with the chief, especially during the elections, but nothing happens," Shangase headman Phenyamadoda Mchunu says while waiting on a dusty road to catch a taxi.
"We wash ourselves in the [Mdloti] river. The women also wash their clothes in the river. The water is dirty; it's easy to get sick."
The community, which mainly lives in mud rondavels, often enquires about the slow pace of delivery, but they are told there is no money.
"[Minister of Finance] Trevor Manuel has just presented his Budget. We know money has been made available by the government, but it does not reach us. The question is what happens to it."
Mchunu says he sees no point in voting in the local government elections on Wednesday.
"Tell me one reason why I should vote. We always vote but our lives don't improve," he says, wiping his brow in the early-morning heat.
Unlike Mchunu, other community members say they will not forfeit their vote.
Sikhathi Makhanya, of Thafamasi, says: "I am going to vote so that the people I elect can hear my grievances. That is the right we fought for."
Makhanya says many feel the area is being neglected by the municipality and its councillors.
"Our councillor is too lazy to visit us and hear our needs. All she does is drive around to council meetings.
"She gets money for nothing," he says to the laughter of a small group of men sitting around him on wooden benches.
There are many elderly who qualify for government grants but do not receive them.
"Social department officials have never visited our old people who are unable to walk long distances to the public offices. Their families are starving because the government has neglected them."
A few hundred metres from Makhanya's home lives another Makhanya family.
Albert Makhanya and his wife are both unemployed and live with their three children. If lucky, they earn R10 a day from selling peanuts and crisps.
"We were promised proper houses by the government since 2002. We have registered about three times to get a house.
"When [Nelson] Mandela was president, he was asked by a listener on Ukhozi FM what happened to all the promises. He answered sometimes you have to lie in order to get a woman."
However, Albert says he will cast his ballot in the hope that it will bring him a brighter future. -- Sapa
Source: http://www.mg.co.za/
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Turning the financial screw on the Afrikaner
Johan van Vlaams, MajorityRights.com, Original article
I have just read an article about SA Nedbank’s new discount share scheme that only targets black South Africans.
Black South African citizens are defined by the SA Financial Sector Charter as Africans, Indians and coloureds. This condition is in all Nedbank’s ads for the Eyethu Investment Scheme. Questions about how, in case of doubt, the bank will determine which would-be clients are undesirably white stay unanswered. The question is not theoretical. Many coloureds have a light skin (in Afrikaans). Any that receive a white classification, however, will find that they aren’t even allowed to invest their money in a favourable way. It is racism and reminiscent of the yellow stars in Nazi Germany, with the difference that whites don’t need a star to be recognised in South Africa.
The scheme also reminds us, if we needed reminding, that the ANC’s policies such as Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Affirmative Action (AA) are Marxist by nature. The idea is to transfer wealth from white to black rather than generate new wealth to empower black South Africans. Whites who still have a job pay double the taxes of blacks at same the income level. The ANC, meanwhile, demands that 85% of all jobs go to blacks - not as an average for the whole country but even in those regions with a white majority. In many job ads one reads “BEE only”. South African companies argue that it is the South African ANC government that forces them into this. But nothing can diminish their moral complicity in the new racism against whites.
The South African People’s (race) Registration Law, dating from the apartheid era, is officially abolished, of course. But it is in widespread use all the same and applies, for example, to education. The result of such universal discrimination is economically devastating not only for the whites but, since white productivity is strangled, for South Africa as a whole.
Over and above all this economic warfare against the Afrikaner, is a determined culture war. The ANC is intensely anti-Afrikaans, although somewhat hilariously it dares to claim the opposite, even ”wishing the Afrikaners much success” on the recent anniversary (in Afrikaans) of the founding of their own language in 1875. But that’s just typical ANC window-dressing.
Afrikaner Buks van Rensburg has written an interesting essay (in English) about this cultural genocide, and about the Judenräte mentality (called Afrikaner decadence) of much of the Afrikaner intellectuals. There only is one aspect on which I disagree with Mr van Rensburg. Those Afrikaners who have decided to fully Anglicise have in fact already made their choice - they are just waiting for the right moment to join the white emigration, and to leave South Africa for ever.
So what, besides simple racial revenge, is the cause of such malignity towards Afrikaners?
The Afrikaners are, in fact, the only possible source of white resistance against the ANC’s economic plundering … and, therefore, the Afrikaners must suffer the complete undermining of their institutions, from primary and secondary schools to universities and businesses. I don’t know if any MR readers will remember the Volkskas, the bank built from the pennies brought to school by impoverished Afrikaner kids in the 1920’s and 30’s. Now it is defunct. Afrikaner farmers must submit themselves to the discriminatory practices of the Land Bank and the other government-related institutions mandated to “assist” farmers. They are assistance towards ruin, of course - and worse - by land reform and invasions apparently driven by the agendas of foreign NGO’s as much by ANC warlords.
So no one should be surprised if the mainstream Afrikaner view is that white apartheid has simply been replaced by black racism. How do you expect people to think when they have been deceived into a world where not merit but only the colour of your skin matters (in Afrikaans).
At worst deception, at best window-dressing is a seminal feature of South African economic and political life. A good deal of it no doubt serves the purpose of self-deception as far as the ANC is concerned. But the really critical component is deceiving the rest of the financial and political world. The Reserve Bank (SARB), for example, silences criticism with wonderfully rosy statements about macro-economic stability and strong growth. However, you might find this article by Mandla Maleka more trustworthy. Mandla was, by the way, named by Reuters among the top ten SA economists in 2002 and 2004, and was director at the SA National Treasury etc, etc.
They can’t both be right. Oh yes, South Africa is reported to have been upgraded by three rating agencies on the back of strong growth and a disciplined approach to economic thinking. But it is growth based on greed, and the discipline is a phantom. Whites are squeezed on every front and blacks just can’t be got to save - despite the highest real interest yields in the world.
The light will finally go out in South Africa the day the world community realises this … if it is not also bent on self-deception. For example, you can read an expert analysis of South Africa’s Jekyll and Hyde economy here. But … why does Reuters contrive to overlook black racism when it is so manifestly the key to understanding what’s going on?
I have just read an article about SA Nedbank’s new discount share scheme that only targets black South Africans.
Black South African citizens are defined by the SA Financial Sector Charter as Africans, Indians and coloureds. This condition is in all Nedbank’s ads for the Eyethu Investment Scheme. Questions about how, in case of doubt, the bank will determine which would-be clients are undesirably white stay unanswered. The question is not theoretical. Many coloureds have a light skin (in Afrikaans). Any that receive a white classification, however, will find that they aren’t even allowed to invest their money in a favourable way. It is racism and reminiscent of the yellow stars in Nazi Germany, with the difference that whites don’t need a star to be recognised in South Africa.
The scheme also reminds us, if we needed reminding, that the ANC’s policies such as Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and Affirmative Action (AA) are Marxist by nature. The idea is to transfer wealth from white to black rather than generate new wealth to empower black South Africans. Whites who still have a job pay double the taxes of blacks at same the income level. The ANC, meanwhile, demands that 85% of all jobs go to blacks - not as an average for the whole country but even in those regions with a white majority. In many job ads one reads “BEE only”. South African companies argue that it is the South African ANC government that forces them into this. But nothing can diminish their moral complicity in the new racism against whites.
The South African People’s (race) Registration Law, dating from the apartheid era, is officially abolished, of course. But it is in widespread use all the same and applies, for example, to education. The result of such universal discrimination is economically devastating not only for the whites but, since white productivity is strangled, for South Africa as a whole.
Over and above all this economic warfare against the Afrikaner, is a determined culture war. The ANC is intensely anti-Afrikaans, although somewhat hilariously it dares to claim the opposite, even ”wishing the Afrikaners much success” on the recent anniversary (in Afrikaans) of the founding of their own language in 1875. But that’s just typical ANC window-dressing.
Afrikaner Buks van Rensburg has written an interesting essay (in English) about this cultural genocide, and about the Judenräte mentality (called Afrikaner decadence) of much of the Afrikaner intellectuals. There only is one aspect on which I disagree with Mr van Rensburg. Those Afrikaners who have decided to fully Anglicise have in fact already made their choice - they are just waiting for the right moment to join the white emigration, and to leave South Africa for ever.
So what, besides simple racial revenge, is the cause of such malignity towards Afrikaners?
The Afrikaners are, in fact, the only possible source of white resistance against the ANC’s economic plundering … and, therefore, the Afrikaners must suffer the complete undermining of their institutions, from primary and secondary schools to universities and businesses. I don’t know if any MR readers will remember the Volkskas, the bank built from the pennies brought to school by impoverished Afrikaner kids in the 1920’s and 30’s. Now it is defunct. Afrikaner farmers must submit themselves to the discriminatory practices of the Land Bank and the other government-related institutions mandated to “assist” farmers. They are assistance towards ruin, of course - and worse - by land reform and invasions apparently driven by the agendas of foreign NGO’s as much by ANC warlords.
So no one should be surprised if the mainstream Afrikaner view is that white apartheid has simply been replaced by black racism. How do you expect people to think when they have been deceived into a world where not merit but only the colour of your skin matters (in Afrikaans).
At worst deception, at best window-dressing is a seminal feature of South African economic and political life. A good deal of it no doubt serves the purpose of self-deception as far as the ANC is concerned. But the really critical component is deceiving the rest of the financial and political world. The Reserve Bank (SARB), for example, silences criticism with wonderfully rosy statements about macro-economic stability and strong growth. However, you might find this article by Mandla Maleka more trustworthy. Mandla was, by the way, named by Reuters among the top ten SA economists in 2002 and 2004, and was director at the SA National Treasury etc, etc.
They can’t both be right. Oh yes, South Africa is reported to have been upgraded by three rating agencies on the back of strong growth and a disciplined approach to economic thinking. But it is growth based on greed, and the discipline is a phantom. Whites are squeezed on every front and blacks just can’t be got to save - despite the highest real interest yields in the world.
The light will finally go out in South Africa the day the world community realises this … if it is not also bent on self-deception. For example, you can read an expert analysis of South Africa’s Jekyll and Hyde economy here. But … why does Reuters contrive to overlook black racism when it is so manifestly the key to understanding what’s going on?
Monday, January 30, 2006
DA questions cost of SA's support for Iran
Cape Town, South Africa
30 January 2006 03:49
South African support for Iran -- and Iran's opposition to a plan to have it referred to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear programme -- is a decision that will not come "without a significant cost", says opposition Democratic Alliance chief whip Douglas Gibson.
The DA MP said in a statement on Monday: "There is a very real possibility that by supporting Iran, that the government now runs the risk of alienating a significant section of world opinion and precisely those countries which are our biggest trading partners."
It was reported in national South African newspapers on Monday that Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, made a surprise visit to South Africa where he appeared to win guarded South African support -- together with Cuban and Malaysian support -- to oppose Western plans to refer Iran to the Security Council about its nuclear programme.
South Africa, Cuba and Malaysia's foreign ministers were at Hermanus at the weekend to discuss an upcoming Non-Aligned Movement summit.
Gibson said: "It appears that President [Thabo] Mbeki has decided that supporting Iran is worth the cost of alienating some of South Africa's most important strategic allies, such as Germany, France, Britain, the United States and the European Union itself."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has adopted "a very determined stance" against nuclear proliferation generally, and Iranian nuclear ambitions specifically. She has accused Iran of having crossed a "red line".
Gibson said further: "Without the support of these vitally important countries, there is little chance that South Africa will be able to achieve the level of economic growth that is critical to roll back unemployment.
"The reality is that those states most directly affected by Iran's nuclear programme, including Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States, are firmly opposed to an Iranian nuclear capacity for the simple reason that it directly affects their national security.
"In recent times, Iran has done little to indicate to the world that it is a responsible actor in world affairs, as its belligerent attitude to Israel's existence has so clearly illustrated.
"Therefore, the excuse given by the South African government and Iran's other allies that everybody is entitled to a nuclear programme under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes does not hold much water.
"In the midst of this complex geopolitical context, South Africa has to tread carefully. South Africa would be much better served to move beyond its policy of accommodation with Tehran, no matter its actions and join the broader global community in sending a message to Iran that it cannot embark on provocative actions such as unilaterally removing the seals on its facilities for enriching uranium and expect to get away with it.
"Bitter historical experience has shown that the government has made a habit of choosing to support the pariahs of the world, including Sudan, Libya and Zimbabwe.
"It is therefore high time that we learned from past mistakes and used our considerable moral authority on the question of nuclear disarmament for the greater good of international peace and stability, rather than simply protecting at any cost an increasingly dangerous actor on the international stage," Gibson stated. -- I-Net Bridge
30 January 2006 03:49
South African support for Iran -- and Iran's opposition to a plan to have it referred to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear programme -- is a decision that will not come "without a significant cost", says opposition Democratic Alliance chief whip Douglas Gibson.
The DA MP said in a statement on Monday: "There is a very real possibility that by supporting Iran, that the government now runs the risk of alienating a significant section of world opinion and precisely those countries which are our biggest trading partners."
It was reported in national South African newspapers on Monday that Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, made a surprise visit to South Africa where he appeared to win guarded South African support -- together with Cuban and Malaysian support -- to oppose Western plans to refer Iran to the Security Council about its nuclear programme.
South Africa, Cuba and Malaysia's foreign ministers were at Hermanus at the weekend to discuss an upcoming Non-Aligned Movement summit.
Gibson said: "It appears that President [Thabo] Mbeki has decided that supporting Iran is worth the cost of alienating some of South Africa's most important strategic allies, such as Germany, France, Britain, the United States and the European Union itself."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has adopted "a very determined stance" against nuclear proliferation generally, and Iranian nuclear ambitions specifically. She has accused Iran of having crossed a "red line".
Gibson said further: "Without the support of these vitally important countries, there is little chance that South Africa will be able to achieve the level of economic growth that is critical to roll back unemployment.
"The reality is that those states most directly affected by Iran's nuclear programme, including Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States, are firmly opposed to an Iranian nuclear capacity for the simple reason that it directly affects their national security.
"In recent times, Iran has done little to indicate to the world that it is a responsible actor in world affairs, as its belligerent attitude to Israel's existence has so clearly illustrated.
"Therefore, the excuse given by the South African government and Iran's other allies that everybody is entitled to a nuclear programme under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes does not hold much water.
"In the midst of this complex geopolitical context, South Africa has to tread carefully. South Africa would be much better served to move beyond its policy of accommodation with Tehran, no matter its actions and join the broader global community in sending a message to Iran that it cannot embark on provocative actions such as unilaterally removing the seals on its facilities for enriching uranium and expect to get away with it.
"Bitter historical experience has shown that the government has made a habit of choosing to support the pariahs of the world, including Sudan, Libya and Zimbabwe.
"It is therefore high time that we learned from past mistakes and used our considerable moral authority on the question of nuclear disarmament for the greater good of international peace and stability, rather than simply protecting at any cost an increasingly dangerous actor on the international stage," Gibson stated. -- I-Net Bridge
Saturday, January 28, 2006
The Threat From South Africa
By Cliff Kincaid | March 16, 2005
President Bush has issued a statement on "Ten Years of Democracy in South Africa," conveniently ignoring the fact that South African President Thabo Mbeki is a Marxist who has surrounded himself with followers of radical Islam. The other curious omission is that while the president complimented "South Africa's commitment to progress at home and around the world," evidence is emerging that South Africa has played a role in nuclear weapons proliferation, including to Iran. The evidence is contained in a hot new book, Iran's Nuclear Option: Tehran's Quest for the Atom Bomb, by journalist Al Venter.
Some people forget that the white government of South Africa produced 6 atomic bombs. Those were reportedly destroyed when a black majority government took over. But remnants of South Africa's nuclear program remained. The white government had cooperated with Israel but that cooperation was terminated after Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa. That's apparently when the Iranian mullahs stepped in.
Venter, an international correspondent for nearly 30 years, was presented with an ethical dilemma in 1997 when he met with Dr. Waldo Stumpf, head of South Africa's nuclear program. He says Stumph told him a story-off the record-about the atomic energy minister for Iran arriving with a shopping list of nuclear materials for a nuclear bomb. At the time, Venter was working for the Jane's Information Group. He was shocked by the story of Iran's search for a nuclear bomb but was constrained in telling it because it had been given to him off the record. He considered it a story that could change the course of history. "The world has a right to know," he concluded.
After consulting with his editor, who said it was a matter of conscience, Venter went public with an article in Jane's International Defense Review, causing an international sensation. Newspapers in France and Britain picked up the story and Venter was denounced in South Africa. Another journalist confirmed the story, but Nelson Mandela, then South African president, assured the Clinton Administration that no such meeting had taken place. On December 4, 1997, then-State Department spokesman James Rubin accepted the South African explanation and expressed "high confidence" in South Africa's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Venter says that if his story had been taken more seriously back then, in 1997, the problems we are facing in Iran today might have been avoided. But the Clinton Administration was determined to give South Africa a pass. And it looks like the Bush Administration is continuing the same policy, even while raising the alarm about the Iranian nuclear program.
Venter says that South Africa under Mandela and now Mbeki is actively assisting the Iranian nuclear program. His book contains examples of such cooperation, such as assistance to Iran by South African scientists and arms companies. And he says that Mbeki, like Mandela, has surrounded himself with followers of radical Islam who see the U.S. as the main enemy.
The Washington Post and New York Times have recently run stories about an Iranian nuclear connection to Pakistan's top nuclear expert, A. Q. Khan, dating back to 1987. As the Times indicated, however, Iran appears to have taken up only parts of the deal offered by the Khan network. It looks like Iran had another place to turn-South Africa.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2760_0_2_0_C/
President Bush has issued a statement on "Ten Years of Democracy in South Africa," conveniently ignoring the fact that South African President Thabo Mbeki is a Marxist who has surrounded himself with followers of radical Islam. The other curious omission is that while the president complimented "South Africa's commitment to progress at home and around the world," evidence is emerging that South Africa has played a role in nuclear weapons proliferation, including to Iran. The evidence is contained in a hot new book, Iran's Nuclear Option: Tehran's Quest for the Atom Bomb, by journalist Al Venter.
Some people forget that the white government of South Africa produced 6 atomic bombs. Those were reportedly destroyed when a black majority government took over. But remnants of South Africa's nuclear program remained. The white government had cooperated with Israel but that cooperation was terminated after Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa. That's apparently when the Iranian mullahs stepped in.
Venter, an international correspondent for nearly 30 years, was presented with an ethical dilemma in 1997 when he met with Dr. Waldo Stumpf, head of South Africa's nuclear program. He says Stumph told him a story-off the record-about the atomic energy minister for Iran arriving with a shopping list of nuclear materials for a nuclear bomb. At the time, Venter was working for the Jane's Information Group. He was shocked by the story of Iran's search for a nuclear bomb but was constrained in telling it because it had been given to him off the record. He considered it a story that could change the course of history. "The world has a right to know," he concluded.
After consulting with his editor, who said it was a matter of conscience, Venter went public with an article in Jane's International Defense Review, causing an international sensation. Newspapers in France and Britain picked up the story and Venter was denounced in South Africa. Another journalist confirmed the story, but Nelson Mandela, then South African president, assured the Clinton Administration that no such meeting had taken place. On December 4, 1997, then-State Department spokesman James Rubin accepted the South African explanation and expressed "high confidence" in South Africa's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Venter says that if his story had been taken more seriously back then, in 1997, the problems we are facing in Iran today might have been avoided. But the Clinton Administration was determined to give South Africa a pass. And it looks like the Bush Administration is continuing the same policy, even while raising the alarm about the Iranian nuclear program.
Venter says that South Africa under Mandela and now Mbeki is actively assisting the Iranian nuclear program. His book contains examples of such cooperation, such as assistance to Iran by South African scientists and arms companies. And he says that Mbeki, like Mandela, has surrounded himself with followers of radical Islam who see the U.S. as the main enemy.
The Washington Post and New York Times have recently run stories about an Iranian nuclear connection to Pakistan's top nuclear expert, A. Q. Khan, dating back to 1987. As the Times indicated, however, Iran appears to have taken up only parts of the deal offered by the Khan network. It looks like Iran had another place to turn-South Africa.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2760_0_2_0_C/
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Afrikaner nation's claim to an own state
Here is an interesting chronology on the Afrikaner's claim to an own autonomous state:
http://www.praag.org/chronologie.afrikaner_nation.htm
http://www.praag.org/chronologie.afrikaner_nation.htm
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The farce of "Reconciliation Day"
- and the mounting pressure on South African whites
"I would not be surprised if eventually we all have to line up and have our ID books stamped, or something, to prove that we attended a "Reconciliation Day' ceremony."
___________________________________________________________
Shaun Willcock
December 16 is "Reconciliation Day" in South Africa. It is a public holiday. In the "good old days", before South Africa was taken over by Nelson Mandela's racist, Communist-controlled African National Congress (ANC) and driven into the ground, when the country was still well-governed by conservative Afrikaners, December 16 was known as "The Day of the Vow". It was a day held sacred in the hearts of Afrikaners, for way back in December 1838, as the pioneering Voortrekkers faced what looked like probable extinction at the hands of the mighty Zulu army, they took a vow that if God would grant them victory, they would for ever afterwards keep the day of the victory sacred, as a day of thanksgiving for their deliverance.
And sure enough, on December 16, although vastly outnumbered by Zulu warriors, those hardy Afrikaners were mightily victorious at what became known as the Battle of Blood River: a defining moment in South Africa's turbulent history. When the Zulus finally fled, some 3000 lay dead, but not one Trekker had been killed. The Scriptures do not support their contention that future generations of Afrikaners were bound before God to keep the day sacred, although it is certainly very true that God did indeed give them victory that day, not because they were God's special people but because He in His sovereignty had purposed for them to be victorious, and to go on to eventually govern this mighty country.
However, when the ANC came to power, they could not stomach the fact that the Afrikaners continued to commemorate the Battle of Blood River on December 16, the Day of the Vow: a commemoration of a great victory by vastly outnumbered white settlers over the most powerful black nation in Africa. And so the ANC determined to do something about it. Their solution? To declare December 16 a public holiday to be called "Reconciliation Day", thereby claiming the day for all South Africans, and also rubbing the noses of the Afrikaners in the dirt, by very subtly declaring, as it were, "You are now expected, by your new masters, to accept that your own leaders, and the Afrikaner nation in general, oppressed the black people of this country, and you are now required to quit honouring your own heroes and your own history and your own victories, and instead you are now going to be forced to 'reconcile' with your black neighbours whom you so wronged."
For let there be no doubt about this: the ANC's so-called "Reconciliation Day" is nothing less than another opportunity for the ANC leaders to berate the Afrikaners, and whites in general, year after year; to accuse them of not doing enough for the blacks; of not being willing to "share their wealth" and to "embrace change" in SA; and to demand that they not only ignore their own history, but actually express sorrow for it in fact; and to accept the re-writing of history which the ANC is undertaking all the time, portraying the whites as the personification of evil and the blacks as the oppressed, suffering good guys. Bottom line: this whole concept of "reconciliation" is a lie, a farce, it isn't happening and as things stand now it can't truly happen, because the ANC is demanding reconciliation on its terms: "We blacks are all the innocent victims here; you whites are the bad guys; you must change, you must make amends for what your forefathers supposedly did, you must come to us on our terms, grovelling at our feet and humbly accepting whatever crumbs we deign to toss your way." And another reason why "reconciliation" is a farce, is because whites are being told to "reconcile" with Communist terrorists, people who conducted an armed revolution, who bombed and tortured and necklaced* people to get their way and come to power. Whites are expected to be "reconciled" with these unrepentant thugs!
Well, ever since the ANC's "Reconciliation Day" came into effect, many Afrikaners have ignored all this nonsense, and have quietly continued with their old "Day of the Vow" celebrations anyway. And this makes the ANC powers-that-be spitting mad. Every year, various top-ranking government ministers use the opportunity of "Reconciliation Day" to criticise and vilify the whites. As in Zimbabwe and every other African country after its "independence" from white rule, whites in SA have become the convenient scapegoats behind which the ANC seeks to hide its own ineptitude and incompetence, its utter inability to properly govern this country, and its own deep-seated racist prejudices.
This year, whites were treated to the vitriol of Essop Pahad, the Minister in the Presidency. He said that white South Africans who fail to attend national reconciliation celebrations or national holidays, represent an entrenchment of racist attitudes and prejudices. "Whenever we mark our national days," he said, "you will find that perhaps well in excess of 90% of people who attend these events are Africans. We have to address the question as to why significant sections of our population do not find it interesting, convenient or necessary enough to attend these functions... as part of the process of creating a non-racial South Africa" (The Witness, December 16, 2005).
It is easy enough to answer his speech (and we will overlook for now his reference to black South Africans as "Africans", the implication being that white South Africans are not Africans): 1) The reason why over 90% of those who attend the celebrations of SA's national days are black, is because probably at least 90% of the ANC is black, and because it is an organisation committed to black advancement, and because it is blatantly anti-white in its attitudes and its policies. Why on earth would whites attend such rallies, when they well know that the ANC uses those occasions to berate them, criticise them, belittle them, blame everything on them? Whites no longer feel that they have any place in SA, any future. They are pushed aside, attacked, hated, condemned, their history, culture, language, etc., are all crushed and derided, their wives and children raped, their husbands and grandfathers tortured and murdered. Plus, of course, large numbers of whites are still conservative and anti-Communist, and hold the ANC and its Communist masters in contempt. In a word, they have nothing to celebrate! 2) The reason why most white South Africans would not attend political rallies, etc., held on national days, even if they liked the ANC (and most whites will never like the ANC), is because there is a huge difference between blacks and whites in this regard. The heavily-politicised blacks actually appear to enjoy flocking to huge open-air rallies, and sitting for hours in the baking sun listening to lengthy speeches by their political leaders. The whites, on the other hand, have no tradition, no history of doing such a thing, not even when there was a white government! For them, a national holiday is a day for sitting quietly at home with their families, or going to the beach or a dam, to swim, fish, or just relax in the sun.
But the pressure is on. The ANC, like its Marxist buddies throughout the continent, could very well eventually reach the stage where attendance at their rallies will be compulsory. All over Africa, the masses have to sit through endless speeches by their political leaders, and woe betide them if they do not show up! It may come here too. I would not be surprised if eventually we all have to line up and have our ID books stamped, or something, to prove that we attended.
In his own speech on "Reconciliation Day", President Thabo Mbeki, addressing a crowd gathered at "Freedom Park" in Pretoria to mark the national day, said: "We need to confront what may be an uncomfortable question, whether as South Africans, black and white, we are under the same flag and under the same anthem marching separately - even pretending at times that the other does not exist" (Weekend Witness, December 17, 2005). The new flag we can live with - at least it is fairly non-political. The new anthem - for Christians at least - is a different matter, as it is the revolutionary anthem of the ANC and of various other terrorist organisations that came to power in southern Africa through the barrel of a gun. That, plus its pseudo-Christian lyrics, make it unacceptable to Christians in SA.
But yes indeed, we are marching separately. What, though, is the reason for this? It is the ANC government's own racist attitude towards white South Africans, doing all in its power to reduce them to second-class citizens in the land of their birth, and thus enforcing a new form of apartheid, where black South Africans enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, and white South Africans count for nothing. Mbeki went on: "We clearly need to ask ourselves whether we have done what we need to do to overcome the stereotypes that were entrenched over many years by racist policies of the past, or [whether] we still quietly pander to those stereotypes." Of course he was referring to whites.
It is always the whites who are expected to change, the whites who are the bad guys, the whites who are the racists. And by constantly harping on about these things, Mbeki and the ANC do a great job of hiding the fact that they, themselves, are the real racists. It is the ANC's own deeply racist policies that are driving white South Africans out of the country, and reducing those who remain to insignificance. It is the ANC's own prejudices and lies which cause blacks to stereotype all whites as racists.
Mbeki went on to add that South Africans must break down the racial walls that divide them, and then said that wealth distribution represents one such wall, and the rich became rich through the sweat and toil of others, many of whom remain poor. Mbeki in the past has defined "the rich" as white and "the poor" as black. In other words, then, what he was saying was that the wealthy white South Africans must redistribute their wealth to the poor black South Africans. This is classic Marxist economics, of course. "Wealth redistribution" means, in ANC doublespeak, taking what whites have earned and giving it to blacks. It has already begun, of course, with the farm expropriations. Note too how he conveniently overlooks the fact that today in SA, vast numbers of blacks have become obscenely wealthy - including himself.
The pressure is on. For over eleven years, since the ANC took power, whites have been increasingly and deliberately marginalised. The ANC has made it very clear that they are not welcome here, unless they toe the ANC line. The ANC, in line with Marxist organisations everywhere, believes that the entire country must be turned into one vast slave labour camp, where the entire population, zombie-like, follows every dictate of the leaders, believes every statement they make, accepts their version of history, never questions their utterances, and (in the case of the whites) like a dog that is kicked by its owner, comes grovelling back with the attitude of, "We are not worthy of your benign rule. We deserve to be ground underfoot, for we are such curs, and we have behaved so badly, and all we ask is to be allowed to sit whimpering at your feet, where we belong." This is their goal, and they are going all out to achieve it. For whites in South Africa, it's been an incredibly rocky ride, and it's going to get even rockier. Make no mistake about it.
10-Jan-2006 08:30
* For non-South African readers: the "necklace" was a method of execution used by the so-called "liberation movement" whereby mostly black town councillors seen as collaborators, those suspected of being traitors and so on, had a petrol-filled tyre placed around their necks which was then ignited. Approximately 400 people were burnt alive in this way.
Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel, and lives in South Africa.
www.praag.org
"I would not be surprised if eventually we all have to line up and have our ID books stamped, or something, to prove that we attended a "Reconciliation Day' ceremony."
___________________________________________________________
Shaun Willcock
December 16 is "Reconciliation Day" in South Africa. It is a public holiday. In the "good old days", before South Africa was taken over by Nelson Mandela's racist, Communist-controlled African National Congress (ANC) and driven into the ground, when the country was still well-governed by conservative Afrikaners, December 16 was known as "The Day of the Vow". It was a day held sacred in the hearts of Afrikaners, for way back in December 1838, as the pioneering Voortrekkers faced what looked like probable extinction at the hands of the mighty Zulu army, they took a vow that if God would grant them victory, they would for ever afterwards keep the day of the victory sacred, as a day of thanksgiving for their deliverance.
And sure enough, on December 16, although vastly outnumbered by Zulu warriors, those hardy Afrikaners were mightily victorious at what became known as the Battle of Blood River: a defining moment in South Africa's turbulent history. When the Zulus finally fled, some 3000 lay dead, but not one Trekker had been killed. The Scriptures do not support their contention that future generations of Afrikaners were bound before God to keep the day sacred, although it is certainly very true that God did indeed give them victory that day, not because they were God's special people but because He in His sovereignty had purposed for them to be victorious, and to go on to eventually govern this mighty country.
However, when the ANC came to power, they could not stomach the fact that the Afrikaners continued to commemorate the Battle of Blood River on December 16, the Day of the Vow: a commemoration of a great victory by vastly outnumbered white settlers over the most powerful black nation in Africa. And so the ANC determined to do something about it. Their solution? To declare December 16 a public holiday to be called "Reconciliation Day", thereby claiming the day for all South Africans, and also rubbing the noses of the Afrikaners in the dirt, by very subtly declaring, as it were, "You are now expected, by your new masters, to accept that your own leaders, and the Afrikaner nation in general, oppressed the black people of this country, and you are now required to quit honouring your own heroes and your own history and your own victories, and instead you are now going to be forced to 'reconcile' with your black neighbours whom you so wronged."
For let there be no doubt about this: the ANC's so-called "Reconciliation Day" is nothing less than another opportunity for the ANC leaders to berate the Afrikaners, and whites in general, year after year; to accuse them of not doing enough for the blacks; of not being willing to "share their wealth" and to "embrace change" in SA; and to demand that they not only ignore their own history, but actually express sorrow for it in fact; and to accept the re-writing of history which the ANC is undertaking all the time, portraying the whites as the personification of evil and the blacks as the oppressed, suffering good guys. Bottom line: this whole concept of "reconciliation" is a lie, a farce, it isn't happening and as things stand now it can't truly happen, because the ANC is demanding reconciliation on its terms: "We blacks are all the innocent victims here; you whites are the bad guys; you must change, you must make amends for what your forefathers supposedly did, you must come to us on our terms, grovelling at our feet and humbly accepting whatever crumbs we deign to toss your way." And another reason why "reconciliation" is a farce, is because whites are being told to "reconcile" with Communist terrorists, people who conducted an armed revolution, who bombed and tortured and necklaced* people to get their way and come to power. Whites are expected to be "reconciled" with these unrepentant thugs!
Well, ever since the ANC's "Reconciliation Day" came into effect, many Afrikaners have ignored all this nonsense, and have quietly continued with their old "Day of the Vow" celebrations anyway. And this makes the ANC powers-that-be spitting mad. Every year, various top-ranking government ministers use the opportunity of "Reconciliation Day" to criticise and vilify the whites. As in Zimbabwe and every other African country after its "independence" from white rule, whites in SA have become the convenient scapegoats behind which the ANC seeks to hide its own ineptitude and incompetence, its utter inability to properly govern this country, and its own deep-seated racist prejudices.
This year, whites were treated to the vitriol of Essop Pahad, the Minister in the Presidency. He said that white South Africans who fail to attend national reconciliation celebrations or national holidays, represent an entrenchment of racist attitudes and prejudices. "Whenever we mark our national days," he said, "you will find that perhaps well in excess of 90% of people who attend these events are Africans. We have to address the question as to why significant sections of our population do not find it interesting, convenient or necessary enough to attend these functions... as part of the process of creating a non-racial South Africa" (The Witness, December 16, 2005).
It is easy enough to answer his speech (and we will overlook for now his reference to black South Africans as "Africans", the implication being that white South Africans are not Africans): 1) The reason why over 90% of those who attend the celebrations of SA's national days are black, is because probably at least 90% of the ANC is black, and because it is an organisation committed to black advancement, and because it is blatantly anti-white in its attitudes and its policies. Why on earth would whites attend such rallies, when they well know that the ANC uses those occasions to berate them, criticise them, belittle them, blame everything on them? Whites no longer feel that they have any place in SA, any future. They are pushed aside, attacked, hated, condemned, their history, culture, language, etc., are all crushed and derided, their wives and children raped, their husbands and grandfathers tortured and murdered. Plus, of course, large numbers of whites are still conservative and anti-Communist, and hold the ANC and its Communist masters in contempt. In a word, they have nothing to celebrate! 2) The reason why most white South Africans would not attend political rallies, etc., held on national days, even if they liked the ANC (and most whites will never like the ANC), is because there is a huge difference between blacks and whites in this regard. The heavily-politicised blacks actually appear to enjoy flocking to huge open-air rallies, and sitting for hours in the baking sun listening to lengthy speeches by their political leaders. The whites, on the other hand, have no tradition, no history of doing such a thing, not even when there was a white government! For them, a national holiday is a day for sitting quietly at home with their families, or going to the beach or a dam, to swim, fish, or just relax in the sun.
But the pressure is on. The ANC, like its Marxist buddies throughout the continent, could very well eventually reach the stage where attendance at their rallies will be compulsory. All over Africa, the masses have to sit through endless speeches by their political leaders, and woe betide them if they do not show up! It may come here too. I would not be surprised if eventually we all have to line up and have our ID books stamped, or something, to prove that we attended.
In his own speech on "Reconciliation Day", President Thabo Mbeki, addressing a crowd gathered at "Freedom Park" in Pretoria to mark the national day, said: "We need to confront what may be an uncomfortable question, whether as South Africans, black and white, we are under the same flag and under the same anthem marching separately - even pretending at times that the other does not exist" (Weekend Witness, December 17, 2005). The new flag we can live with - at least it is fairly non-political. The new anthem - for Christians at least - is a different matter, as it is the revolutionary anthem of the ANC and of various other terrorist organisations that came to power in southern Africa through the barrel of a gun. That, plus its pseudo-Christian lyrics, make it unacceptable to Christians in SA.
But yes indeed, we are marching separately. What, though, is the reason for this? It is the ANC government's own racist attitude towards white South Africans, doing all in its power to reduce them to second-class citizens in the land of their birth, and thus enforcing a new form of apartheid, where black South Africans enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, and white South Africans count for nothing. Mbeki went on: "We clearly need to ask ourselves whether we have done what we need to do to overcome the stereotypes that were entrenched over many years by racist policies of the past, or [whether] we still quietly pander to those stereotypes." Of course he was referring to whites.
It is always the whites who are expected to change, the whites who are the bad guys, the whites who are the racists. And by constantly harping on about these things, Mbeki and the ANC do a great job of hiding the fact that they, themselves, are the real racists. It is the ANC's own deeply racist policies that are driving white South Africans out of the country, and reducing those who remain to insignificance. It is the ANC's own prejudices and lies which cause blacks to stereotype all whites as racists.
Mbeki went on to add that South Africans must break down the racial walls that divide them, and then said that wealth distribution represents one such wall, and the rich became rich through the sweat and toil of others, many of whom remain poor. Mbeki in the past has defined "the rich" as white and "the poor" as black. In other words, then, what he was saying was that the wealthy white South Africans must redistribute their wealth to the poor black South Africans. This is classic Marxist economics, of course. "Wealth redistribution" means, in ANC doublespeak, taking what whites have earned and giving it to blacks. It has already begun, of course, with the farm expropriations. Note too how he conveniently overlooks the fact that today in SA, vast numbers of blacks have become obscenely wealthy - including himself.
The pressure is on. For over eleven years, since the ANC took power, whites have been increasingly and deliberately marginalised. The ANC has made it very clear that they are not welcome here, unless they toe the ANC line. The ANC, in line with Marxist organisations everywhere, believes that the entire country must be turned into one vast slave labour camp, where the entire population, zombie-like, follows every dictate of the leaders, believes every statement they make, accepts their version of history, never questions their utterances, and (in the case of the whites) like a dog that is kicked by its owner, comes grovelling back with the attitude of, "We are not worthy of your benign rule. We deserve to be ground underfoot, for we are such curs, and we have behaved so badly, and all we ask is to be allowed to sit whimpering at your feet, where we belong." This is their goal, and they are going all out to achieve it. For whites in South Africa, it's been an incredibly rocky ride, and it's going to get even rockier. Make no mistake about it.
10-Jan-2006 08:30
* For non-South African readers: the "necklace" was a method of execution used by the so-called "liberation movement" whereby mostly black town councillors seen as collaborators, those suspected of being traitors and so on, had a petrol-filled tyre placed around their necks which was then ignited. Approximately 400 people were burnt alive in this way.
Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel, and lives in South Africa.
www.praag.org
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The legacy of Nelson Mandela
"I don’t differentiate between terrorism and war. I can’t see the difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both are prepared to take innocent lives for political purposes, and historically the way you deal with threats of violence is to get to the root of it. You can take many examples — for instance, Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Mrs Thatcher called him a terrorist, and indeed he was. I spoke in Trafalgar Square in 1964 at the time of the Rivonia trial, when he was imprisoned for violent campaigns against the apartheid regime. The next time I met him he had a Nobel Peace Prize and was President of South Africa." - Tony Ben
It is ironic that someone who is directly responsible for the deaths of several innocent civilians, someone who committed several acts of terrorism (and never denounced violence), who wrote a book on "How to be a good communist" and who are friends with several communist dictators (like Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe) who are responsible for several human rights offences, should also happen to be the proud owner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Here is why Disaster Africa does not share the world-media's petrarchan love of this self-proclaimed communist and terrorist:
'Madiba magic' pre-1994 (Rivonia and Churchstreet bombings):
'Madiba magic' post-1994 (Farm murders):
Sources:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/goodcom.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1990/mw19900701stud.html
http://www.rense.com/general56/ssu.htm
http://www.africancrisis.org/default2.asp
Opposition hails AU report on Zimbabwe
Cape Town, South Africa
04 January 2006 05:55
An African Union (AU) report condemning Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's human rights record has been hailed by South Africa's official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA).
The report of the African Union's Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights -- meeting in Banjul, The Gambia -- has urged Mugabe to allow an AU delegation to go on a fact-finding mission to his country.
It also expressed concern at the continuing violations and the deteriorations of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. It said there was a "growing culture of impunity".
The report referred to the violations of fundamental and collective rights resulting from forced evictions being carried out by the Zimbabwe government.
The commission found that Mugabe's government was responsible for violating the African Union charter -- which Zimbabwe had signed -- and the United Nations declaration of human rights.
In a statement on Wednesday, DA national chairperson Joe Seremane, a member of Parliament, said there was a growing consensus among the African community of nations "that human rights, accountability and good governance must be placed above the politics of tyranny".
Seremane noted that the report called for an end to internal displacements caused by government evictions, the repeal of several repressive laws and free access for international aid groups.
The DA said South African President Thabo Mbeki must take stock of these findings and adjust South Africa's strategy for dealing with Zimbabwe accordingly.
"We must use whatever diplomatic means are at our disposal, whether multilaterally through the AU and United Nations, or unilaterally, to pressure the Mugabe regime into ceasing its attacks on human rights and the rule of law. South Africa must unequivocally condemn the human rights abuses as well as the muzzling of the media and free political activity in Zimbabwe, even if only to affirm our own democratic values. If we fail to do so we will have failed the people of Zimbabwe, as well as ourselves," said Seremane. - I-Net Bridge
04 January 2006 05:55
An African Union (AU) report condemning Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's human rights record has been hailed by South Africa's official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA).
The report of the African Union's Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights -- meeting in Banjul, The Gambia -- has urged Mugabe to allow an AU delegation to go on a fact-finding mission to his country.
It also expressed concern at the continuing violations and the deteriorations of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. It said there was a "growing culture of impunity".
The report referred to the violations of fundamental and collective rights resulting from forced evictions being carried out by the Zimbabwe government.
The commission found that Mugabe's government was responsible for violating the African Union charter -- which Zimbabwe had signed -- and the United Nations declaration of human rights.
In a statement on Wednesday, DA national chairperson Joe Seremane, a member of Parliament, said there was a growing consensus among the African community of nations "that human rights, accountability and good governance must be placed above the politics of tyranny".
Seremane noted that the report called for an end to internal displacements caused by government evictions, the repeal of several repressive laws and free access for international aid groups.
The DA said South African President Thabo Mbeki must take stock of these findings and adjust South Africa's strategy for dealing with Zimbabwe accordingly.
"We must use whatever diplomatic means are at our disposal, whether multilaterally through the AU and United Nations, or unilaterally, to pressure the Mugabe regime into ceasing its attacks on human rights and the rule of law. South Africa must unequivocally condemn the human rights abuses as well as the muzzling of the media and free political activity in Zimbabwe, even if only to affirm our own democratic values. If we fail to do so we will have failed the people of Zimbabwe, as well as ourselves," said Seremane. - I-Net Bridge
ANC 'has thrown away moral compass'
Donwald Pressly | Cape Town, South Africa
05 January 2006 04:20
The decision to allow former deputy president Jacob Zuma to campaign for the ruling African National Congress in the upcoming local government poll is "deeply hypocritical", said the official opposition Democratic Alliance on Thursday.
It was reacting to a statement from ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe, who said Zuma would be allowed to campaign as a member of the ANC.
Acting DA leader Joe Seremane said on Thursday that Motlanthe's statement "confirms once again that the governing party has thrown away its moral compass".
Also on Thursday -- at a press conference concerning this weekend's launch of the ANC's local government election campaign on Sunday -- ANC deputy secretary general Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele said there was "no contradiction" between earlier statements about Zuma and "Comrade Jacob Zuma's participation in the local government election".
Although the position being taken about Zuma remains blurred, it is apparent that he can canvass and participate in campaigns -- but may not pronounce from a public podium.
Motlanthe was merely quoted as saying that Zuma would campaign under stringent conditions.
Meanwhile, Seremane said South African President Thabo Mbeki had stated previously that corruption in municipalities should be rooted out and had condemned the self-seeking spirit in the ANC.
"Given that Zuma is facing serious corruption charges, which have already cost him his position as deputy president [of South Africa], the decision to allow him to campaign is entirely hypocritical."
Motlanthe's announcement raises questions too about how seriously the ANC leadership regards the rape charge against Zuma and it casts doubt on the sincerity of the ruling movement's rhetoric on moral regeneration "and other such high-sounding posturing".
"Zuma's appearance on the campaign trail will only serve to remind voters of the moral decay that runs through the ANC, from its senior ranks down to its mayors and councillors. It will also promote a culture of tolerance toward corruption and maladministration in our country," said Seremane.
Zuma will be in court on February 13 -- just 10 days after Mbeki delivers his State of the Nation address at the opening of Parliament -- to defend himself against an allegation that he raped a 31-year-old woman in his Johannesburg home in November.
He will face two counts of corruption resulting from a finding by Durban High Court Judge Hilary Squires that he had a "generally corrupt relationship" with his financial adviser Schabir Shaik, who was found guilty of corruption last year.
Zuma's corruption trial begins on July 31.
Shortly after the his appearance in a magistrate's court on the rape charge last year, the national working committee of the ANC recommended to the national executive committee "that he should not act or pronounce in the capacity of deputy president of the ANC for the duration of this trial".
Zuma was dismissed as deputy president of South Africa in June last year, but remains the ruling movement's second-in-command. -- I-Net Bridge
05 January 2006 04:20
The decision to allow former deputy president Jacob Zuma to campaign for the ruling African National Congress in the upcoming local government poll is "deeply hypocritical", said the official opposition Democratic Alliance on Thursday.
It was reacting to a statement from ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe, who said Zuma would be allowed to campaign as a member of the ANC.
Acting DA leader Joe Seremane said on Thursday that Motlanthe's statement "confirms once again that the governing party has thrown away its moral compass".
Also on Thursday -- at a press conference concerning this weekend's launch of the ANC's local government election campaign on Sunday -- ANC deputy secretary general Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele said there was "no contradiction" between earlier statements about Zuma and "Comrade Jacob Zuma's participation in the local government election".
Although the position being taken about Zuma remains blurred, it is apparent that he can canvass and participate in campaigns -- but may not pronounce from a public podium.
Motlanthe was merely quoted as saying that Zuma would campaign under stringent conditions.
Meanwhile, Seremane said South African President Thabo Mbeki had stated previously that corruption in municipalities should be rooted out and had condemned the self-seeking spirit in the ANC.
"Given that Zuma is facing serious corruption charges, which have already cost him his position as deputy president [of South Africa], the decision to allow him to campaign is entirely hypocritical."
Motlanthe's announcement raises questions too about how seriously the ANC leadership regards the rape charge against Zuma and it casts doubt on the sincerity of the ruling movement's rhetoric on moral regeneration "and other such high-sounding posturing".
"Zuma's appearance on the campaign trail will only serve to remind voters of the moral decay that runs through the ANC, from its senior ranks down to its mayors and councillors. It will also promote a culture of tolerance toward corruption and maladministration in our country," said Seremane.
Zuma will be in court on February 13 -- just 10 days after Mbeki delivers his State of the Nation address at the opening of Parliament -- to defend himself against an allegation that he raped a 31-year-old woman in his Johannesburg home in November.
He will face two counts of corruption resulting from a finding by Durban High Court Judge Hilary Squires that he had a "generally corrupt relationship" with his financial adviser Schabir Shaik, who was found guilty of corruption last year.
Zuma's corruption trial begins on July 31.
Shortly after the his appearance in a magistrate's court on the rape charge last year, the national working committee of the ANC recommended to the national executive committee "that he should not act or pronounce in the capacity of deputy president of the ANC for the duration of this trial".
Zuma was dismissed as deputy president of South Africa in June last year, but remains the ruling movement's second-in-command. -- I-Net Bridge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)