Dan Roodt, Author at praag.co.za

Anglican Leader Blasts U.S.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, leader of the world’s Anglicans, has launched an attack on the United States, saying it has lost the high moral ground since the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Williams, a longtime critic of the war in Iraq, said in uncharacteristically blunt language: "We have only one hegemonic power at the moment. It is not accumulating territory, it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working."

Asked in an interview with the Muslim lifestyle magazine Emel, if he thought the United States had lost the high moral ground since the 9/11 attacks, he replied "Yes."

Drawing comparisons between British imperialism and the 21st Century United States, Williams said: "It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering and normalizing it.

"Rightly or wrongly, that is what the British Empire did — in India for example."

"It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put things back together again — Iraq for example."

топкарго кидалы

Playboy goes anti-Semitic

Israel Shouldn’t Get a Free Pass

Why can’t American Jews, particularly liberal Jews, think straight about Israel? American Jews can easily condemn the war in and occupation of Iraq, as well as the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the violations of civil rights there. Yet the same passion for peace, justice and human rights is muted when it comes to talking about unpleasant activities in the Israeli government. American Jews and many politicians who pander for Jewish votes are hurting Israel and the cause of peace by refusing to have an honest debate about our country’s historically one-sided position vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East conflict. An honest debate is underway within Israel itself, but in the US it’s impossible to be critical of Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic or worse.

Before I dive further into this, I should establish my bona fides for making this argument, which itself says alot about the terrain. I am a Jew. My father was born in what was then Palestine and fought in Israel’s war of independence. My father’s cousin was killed in that war. I lived in Israel for seven years, including the period of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. A cousin of mine was killed in that war, leaving behind a widow and two children. My step-grandfather, an ikd nab wgi was no threat to anyone was killed by a Palestinian who took an axe to his head while he was sitting quietly on a park bench. His murder was revenge for the massacre of dozens of peaceful Muslims the day before, slaughtered by an ultra-nationalist Israeli soldier as they knelt in prayer.

I care about Israel as I care about our country, but I wish to speak the truth about it. In 2006, when I ran in the New York Democratic primary for Senator because of incumbent Hillary Clinton’s support for the Iraq war, my campaign coincided with Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, a move triggered by the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. While campaigning I said that Israel had committed acts that violated the Geneva Conventions and international standards. Within an hour reporters from all four New York daily papers called me, alerted to my comments by my opponent’s operatives. Betraying their bias, the reporters had no idea my position would not be considered novel or radical in Israel where the country’s conduct in the war was a topic of hot debate. Indeed, the reporters need only have consulted Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.

Referring to last summer’s Lebanon bombing, B Tselem’s website states, “International humanitarian law…requires that the combating sides direct their attacks only against specific military objectives, take cautionary measures to prevent injury to civilians and refrain from disproportionate attacks, ie., attacks directed against legitimate targets but that are likely to cause excessive harm to civilians. Over the past week Israel has killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians in its attacks against targets in Lebanon. There is a concern that at least some of them were disproportionate attacks, which constitute war crimes”.

Here are some other inconvenient truths. Israel is holding 10,000 Palestinians in administrative detention where, according to B’Tselem, they are exposed to “moderate pressure”, a euphuism for torture. And while six Israeli soldiers and 17 civilians died last year, the Israeli military killed 660 Palestinians, roughly half of them innocent bystanders. So why is there such a lack of debate in the US?

Jews and non-Jews who can easily tell foreigners that being American is not the same as supporting the American government are incapable of making the same argument in Israel’s case. Elected officials won’t say anything because of the political cost or at least the perceived threat from Jewish voters. And there is residue from the Cold War, when Israel was seen as the region’s bulwark against the Soviet Union. Among Jews there is a reflexive “Israel right or wrong” attitude that is deeply rooted in the memory of the Holocaust. My own family lost people in the Holocaust. But the Holocaust should not be used as a moral shield to suppress honest criticism of Israel.

It’s also important to acknowledge that some critics of Israel undercut their own positions by painting a caricature of the country. Israel is a democracy, and like all democracies it has its flaws Nut the open debate heard in Israel is rarely heard in the regions’s other countries, most of which are ruled by dictators or generals. Israel has a very free rambunctious press” can the same be said about Egypt or Syria? Israel’s attorney general recently went after the country’s president for sexual harassment. We can’t even get Congress, not to mention the attorney general, to investigate the president for lying about a war.

These facts make Israel’s conduct even more troubling. The country’s democratic principles and societal fabric are being undermined by its role as an occupier. People who refuse to criticize Israel because of friendship are no friends to Israel. A true friend would not have stood by and remained silent as Israel dropped thousands of cluster bombs in Lebanon, leaving a million unexploded bomblets-small devices the size of a light socket that are still killing and injuring civilians-littered throughout the southern part of the country. A true friend would have taken Israel’s leaders to the woodshed and said, “Responding to Hezbollah is one thing, but turning Lebanon into rubble and embittering a new generation toward the existence of your country is madness”. Instead, politicians like Joe Lieberman and Clinton actually encouraged the bombing by uttering vigorous endorsements of Israel’s right to defend itself. A friend of Israel would not try to fan fears y tarring as anti-Semitic people who are critical of U.S. Middle East policy. Criticism of Israel may be painful to American Jews, but it is high time anyone, Jew or non-Jew, were able to raise questions about our one-sided policy without fear of a McCarthy like smear. A friend would argue strenuously that Israel’s moral fiber and security are weakened every moment it allows the so-called separation barrier in the West Bank to stand, in violation of international law. Whether Jews like the comparison or not, Jimmy Carter is correct in his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid when he describes the control over Palestinian’s movements as similar to South Africa’s apartheid system.

As a Jew, I have always been proud of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, which means roughly,”repairing the world.” I like to think it is hat brought so many Jews into the civil rights and labor movements in the 60’s and 70’s and in to the current antiwar movement. I feel great sorrow that Israel is an occupier of another people, and I believe Israel can never be whole or at peace until that occupation is ended in a just way. I also believe tikkun olam means we must never be silent.

Лобановский

Zimbabwe: die multikulturele utopie

Danksy ŉ 15 000-persentinflasiekoers, wat die huidige wêreldrekord is, het die meeste mense op aarde nou al van Zimbabwe gehoor. Verlede week is die vorige leier van die oud-Rhodesië, Ian Smith, in Kaapstad dood. Smith is in die laat sewentigerjare deur Brittanje verraai sodat Robert Mugabe die welvarendste staat in Afrika suid van die Sahara – benewens Suid-Afrika – kon oorneem.

Dit mag vreemd klink, maar toe ek onlangs oor Hillary Clinton opgelees het, het haar lewensverhaal my aan Zimbabwe laat dink. Sy was ŉ goeie, konserwatiewe meisie van Park Ridge, Illinois, wat die pad byster geraak het en in ŉ liberale en multikulturele feeks ontaard het. Gedurende haar eerste jaar aan Wellesley-kollege, was sy voorsitster van die Jong Republikeine. By 1968 se Republikeinse Nasionale Kongres in Miami het sy egter as ondersteuner van Nelson Rockefeller se kandidatuur ŉ intense renons in Nixon ontwikkel en ook “bedekte rassistiese boodskappe” by die kongres bespeur.

Die multikulturele gety het nie net vir die arme Hillary oorspoel nie, maar ook hele gebiede ter wêreld. In Suid-Afrika het die “stryd teen rassisme” gelei tot een van die mees diskriminerende stelsels wat daar nog ooit gesien is – maar wat tans teen blankes gemik is. Die konserwatiewe, pro-Westerse regerings wat voorheen deur blankes oorheers is, is vervang met radikale, Afrikanistiese bewinde wat ŉ wêreldwye derdewêreldrevolusie teen die Weste voorstaan.

In Zimbabwe is ekonomiese, opvoedkundige, vervoer- en gesondheidstelsels besig om vinnig in duie te stort soos wat die ekonomie na die steentydperk terugkeer. Skole het so te sê tot stilstand gekom en volgens ŉ onlangse berig in die Londense Daily Telegraph, word dele van die Universiteit van Zimbabwe tans in bordele omskep. Soos een vroulike student dit gestel het: “Wat sou u doen indien u ŉ skamele Z$2 miljoen (omtrent R14) per semester ontvang?”

Vir die meeste Amerikaners of Europeërs, behoort Zimbabwe tot ŉ vae versameling derdewêreldlande wat nie maklik op ŉ kaart te vind is nie. En tog is Mugabe se fanaties anti-blanke stelsel bloot die meer ekstreme manifestasie van die internasionale multikulturele beweging.

Zimbabwe is vir multikulturalisme dít wat Kuba vir kommunisme is: die suiwerste uitdrukking van die geloof. Die Marxistiese sekulêre godsdiens het Kuba destyds in ŉ kranklike Sowjetsattelietstaat verander. So suiwer was Castro se siening van kommunisme dat nie eens die ineenstorting van die Berlynse muur en die bevryding van Oos-Europa Kuba kon beweeg nie.

Die Eurokrate van Brussel hou van 8 tot 9 Desember hul spitsberaad in Lissabon waar Mugabe een van die genooide gaste sal wees, tesame met ŉ spul ander diktators en massamoordenaars uit Afrika. Verbasend genoeg het die Britse eerste minister, Gordon Brown, beswaar teen Mugabe se teenwoordigheid aangeteken.

ŉ Mens wonder waarom. Dit was juis Brittanje wat ekonomiese en militêre sanksies teen die ou Republiek van Rhodesië ingestel het en wat graag wou sien dat Kameraad Bob die land regeer. Die historikus Thomas Pakenham het in 1992 die Britse konsensus in sy boek The Scramble for Africa uitgedruk: “Oor die laaste tien jaar, het Zimbabwe voortdurend die skeptici se monde gesnoer… Die heersers van die nuwe staat, wat deur teëspoed in die tronk of in ballingskap gelouter is, het hul minderhede, swart en wit, met onverwagte selfbeheersing gehanteer.”

Dikwels word daar gesê dat Afrika geen mislukkings ken nie, slegs wisselende grade van sukses. Om jou staat te plunder, etniese suiwering teen jou blanke burgers toe te pas en om jou eie bevolking tot hongersnood en siekte te reduseer, verteenwoordig vooruitgang, solank as wat dit tot die ondergang van die Weste bydra.

Vele mense het teen dié tyd al gesê dat multikulturalisme net nog ŉ vorm van kommunisme is, maar onlangs het ek begin dink dat multikulturalisme dalk erger as kommunisme mag wees. Ná alles het Oos-Europeërs daarin geslaag om hul bevolkings op te voed, om hulle in ballet en klassieke musiek op te lei en op ŉ manier, sy dit dan op ietwat perverse wyse, tot die uitbreiding van die beskawing bygedra. Daarenteen neig multikulturalisme na barbarisme soos ons tans in Zimbabwe en Suid-Afrika kan waarneem. Anders as kommunisme, wat darem vir ons Prokofiëf en die strelende sosiaal-realistiese argitektuur van Nowa Huta in Krakow nagelaat het, is multikulturalisme suiwer vernietigend.

Yengeni glo effe grieperig

Voel nie lekker nie

Die departement van korrektiewe dienste het vandag bekend gemaak dat ’n moontlike oortreding van paroolvoorwaardes teen Tony Yengeni ondersoek word. Yengeni, voormalige ANC-hoofsweep, is op ’n klag van dronkbestuur in Kaapstad gearresteer. Manelisi Wolela, woordvoerder van minister Ngconde Balfour, het gesê dat die departement reeds met ’n ondersoek na die voorval begin het.

Yengeni se arrestasie kan daartoe lei dat sy parool teruggetrek word. Hy is Sondagaand in Goodwood, Kaapstad, aangekeer. Die arrestasie het gevolg op ’n insident toe Yengeni se swart BMW skielik uitgeswenk en op ’n verkeerseiland beland het. Polisielede wat op daardie stadium die area gepatrolleer het, het gestop om die saak te ondersoek en alkohol geruik. Toe hy gevra is of hy gedrink het, het Yengeni dit ontken en gesê dat hy griepmedisyne geneem het. Die polisie was egter nie oortuig nie, het hom gearresteer en bloedtoetse uitgevoer. Hy is vir vier ure by die Goodwood-polisiestasie aangehou en uiteindelik vrygelaat nadat R500 borgtog betaal is.

Yengeni is tans uit op parool nadat hy in 2003 skuldig bevind is op bedrog omdat hy die 47% afslag wat hy destyds op sy Mercedes Benz ontvang het, nie verklaar het nie. Hy het egter slegs ’n paar maande van sy vierjaarstraf uitgedien. Ingevolge die paroolvoorwaardes mag Yengeni tans geen dwelmmiddels of drank gebruik nie. Hy mag ook geen plek besoek waar drank bedien word nie.

Beide die Demokratiese Alliansie en die Vryheidsfront+ het ’n beroep op die regering gedoen om in die lig van hierdie voorval Yengeni se parool te heroorweeg.

uk roulette online topcargo

Is 8 000 Keniane werklik dood?

Mwai Kibaki

Volgens ’n groep Keniaanse regslui is meer as 8 000 Keniane al sedert 2000 tereggestel of doodgemartel. Die plaaslike polisie het dieselfde jaar met ’n klopjag begin teen lede van die verbanne Mungiki-sekte. Die Oscar-stigting beweer dat hulle 8 040 moorde gedokumenteer het en 4 070 ander gevalle aangeteken het waar slagoffers eenvoudig verdwyn het.

Eric Kiraithe, woordvoerder van die polisie, ontken egter die aantygings wat in die regslui se verslag gemaak word. Hy het die organisasie uitgedaag om name en besonderhede van slagoffers bekend te maak. Veiligheidsmagte het wel in Maart 2002, toe die Mungiki-sekte verban is na aanleiding van geweld in die krotbuurte van Nairobi, begin om lede van die sekte te teiken.

Waar die godsdienstige sekte eers uit jeugdiges bestaan het wat tradisionele rituele uitgevoer het, het die beweging volgens Keniaanse owerhede oor die jare verander in ’n bende wat sonder skroom afpersing en moord beoefen het. Vroeër vandeesmaand het die Keniaanse Nasionale Kommissie vir Menseregte die polisie daarvan beskuldig dat hulle tussen Junie en Oktober vanjaar 500 mans tereggestel het. Hierdie bewering is ook deur die polisie verwerp.

Die bewerings kom op die vooraand van die algemene verkiesing wat volgende maand in Kenia sal plaasvind. President Mwai Kibaki gaan poog om ’n tweede keer tot president verkies te word. Volgens meningspeilings gaan hy beslis wen. Hy is die kandidaat van ’n nuwe politieke alliansie genaamd die Party van Nasionale Eenheid.

Mosambiek nou baas van Cahora Bassa

Cahora Bassa

Mosambiek neem hierdie week beheer oor van die grootste dam in Afrika suid van die Sahara. Die dam het vir meer as drie dekades ná onafhanklikheid steeds in Portugal se hande gebly. President Armando Guebuza van Mosambiek, eerste minister Jose Socrates van Portugal, en sewe ander Afrika-staatshoofde sal môre die seremonie by die Cahora Bassa-dam bywoon.

“Ons gaan uiteindelik in staat wees om die dam te gebruik om aan die energiebehoeftes van ons land te voldoen,” het Guebuza gesê. Die oorname van die dam is moontlik gemaak aangesien Mosambiek uiteindelik Portugal se beherende aandeel kon koop.

Die dam is in die Tete-provinsie en strek tot by die punt waar die grense van Mosambiek, Zambië en Zimbabwe bymekaarkom. Luis Covane, segsman vir die Mosambiekse regering, meen dat die dam met sy produksiekapasiteit van meer as 2 000 megawatt belangrik is vir die ontwikkeling van “skoon energie” vir sowel Mosambiek as die res van suider-Afrika. Die Mosambiekse president het op sy beurt die hoop uitgespreek dat Mosambiek nou sy energieverskaffing kan uitbrei van buurlande Suid-Afrika en Zimbabwe om Zambië en Malawi ook in te sluit.

Sedert Mosambiekse onafhanklikheid in 1975 het Portugal steeds die beherende aandeel (82%) in die dam gehad. Die dam is geleë op die oewer van die Zambezi en is ná ’n bouproses van ses jaar in 1975 voltooi. Tydens die burgeroorlog in die land is die dam deur Renamo-rebelle gesaboteer en toe weer moeisaam herstel. Guebuza het die ooreenkoms tussen Portugal en Mosambiek, om beheer van die dam aan Mosambiek oor te dra, bestempel as “die finale hoofstuk in die geskiedenis van buitelandse oorheersing” in sy land. Die Mosambiekse regering moes Portugal ’n bedrag van $950 miljoen betaal om die Portugese aandeel van 82% uit te koop. Die laaste deel van die bedrag behoort vandag aan Portugal oorbetaal te word. Die geld is afkomstig van ’n internasionale fondsinsamelingsveldtog wat deur die Wêreldbank, Eskom en die Zimbabwiese kragverskaffer geloods is.

Hernude geweld naby Parys

Die polisiemotor op die toneel

Hernude geweld het Sondag in ‘n voorstad naby Parys, Villiers-le-Bel (Val-d’Oise), uitgebreek nadat twee tieners van onderskeidelik 15 en 16 in ‘n ongeluk met ‘n polisiemotor gedood is. Die polisiestasie van Villiers-le-Bel is aan die brand gesteek en die stasie van die aangrensende gemeenskap van Arnouville is geplunder volgens ‘n polisiewoordvoerder. Die tieners was albei seuns.

Teen 23h00 het "klein beweeglike groepies winkels, voetgangers en motoriste aangeval" om hulle te besteel, het dieselfde bron bevestig. Juweliersware uit ‘n pas geplunderde juwelierswinkel in Villiers-le-Bel is by een van die aanvallers gevind toe hy in hegtenis geneem is.

Die patrolliemotor was besig om ‘n roetinerit te onderneem, sonder blou waarskuwingsligte en het nie die toelaatbare spoed oortree nie. Net ná 17h00 het die motorfiets by ‘n kruising teen die polisievoertuig gebots, waarna die seuns op slag dood is. Die slagoffers het nie motorfietshelms aangehad nie.

‘n Inwoner in die omgewing het bykans ‘n uur later die polisie laat weet dat twee motors reeds uitgebrand is en dat tussen 50 en ‘n 100 "jeudiges", ‘n eufimisme vir swart en Arabiese inwoners, besig is om vullisdromme aan die brand te steek. Twee polisievoertuie, waaronder die kommissaris se motor, is uitgebrand.

Die vier polisiemotors wat inderhaas na die toneel gestuur is, moes omdraai nadat hulle deur die skare jeugdiges oorweldig is. ‘n Ooggetuie in die buurt het dit gadegeslaan en ‘n ander het bevestig dat motors oral aan die brand gesteek is en dat niemand in die omgewing toegelaat is nie.

"Die polisie kon dit nie waag om naby te kom nie. Die oomblik as hulle ‘n stormloop wil waag, dan sak die jeugdiges op hulle toe met alles wat hulle in die hande kan kry." Nòg die polisiemotor, nòg die motorfiets van die slagoffers kon van die toneel verwyder word.

Die feit dat die jeugdiges die gebied heeltemal gedomineer het, het die inwoners glo nog verder ontstel en dié wat gewoonlik "kalm" bly, was volgens een omstander buite op straat om "onreg" te skree.

Een polisieman het in die voorval ‘n kopwond opgedoen en is in die hospitaal opgeneem vir behandeling. Die burgemeester, Didier Vaillant, moes ook, nadat hy probeer het om die gemoedere te gaan kalmeer, onverrigter sake omdraai.

‘n Skare jeugdiges het met petrolbomme die brandstigting voortgesit, waarna hulle volgens ooggetuies "verdwyn het" in die noordelike rigting van die buurt.

Данильченко

Zuma-Mbeki-tweestryd kan tot konflik lei

’n Paar maande gelede het ek in ’n vorige rubriek beloof om drie toekomstige scenario’s vir Suid Afrika se onmiddellike toekoms uit te lê. Ek is geen toekomskundige nie en die volgende is bloot wat bekend staan as ’n ‘scenario’. Daar is geen versekering dat hierdie scenario sal uitspeel nie, maar gegewe die analise dink ek wel dat dit ’n waarskynlike verloop van ons onmiddellike toekoms binne die volgende twee jaar mag aandui.

Nóg Zuma nóg Mbeki gaan as verloorder die uitslag van die ANC presidentsverkiesing aanvaar. Selfs al aanvaar die verloorder die uitslag binne die eerste dag of twee, glo ek dat hy nie lank gaan terughou om die uitslag as „gekook“ te bestempel nie. Hulle is albei tipiese Afrika- ‚Groot Man’-leiers; Mbeki met sy pseudo-intellektuele beeld en Zuma op sy man-van-die-mense- („100% Zuluboy”-)manier.

Om die waarheid te sê, kan die een nie bekostig dat die ander wen nie. Behalwe dat Zuma deur ’n magsbeheptheid (in Afrikatradisie) aangespoor word, sien hy homself as die regmatige en natuurlike opvolger as ANC- en landspresident. Boonop is ’n oorwinning in die ANC-verkiesing die enigste manier hoe hy kan verseker dat hy uit die tronk bly. As president van die ANC sal hy genoeg invloed hê om die hofsaak teen hom te laat sloer en as hy eers president van die land word sal hy die saak op despotiese wyse tersyde laat stel. Meer as sy politieke oorlewing, maar ook sy persoonlike vryheid, hang daarvan af dat hy president van die ANC word.

Aan die ander kant is daar Mbeki wat met ander kwessies sit. Hoewel Mbeki sielkundig (en kultureel) die samestelling van ’n tipiese Afrika-despoot soos Mugabe het, het hy dit nog nie tot volle uitdrukking gebring nie. Tot en met die skorsing van Vusi Pikoli, waardeur hy die grondwet geïgnoreer het, het hy nog nie werklik as absolute despoot opgetree nie. Hy het nog nooit nodig gehad om so te handel nie, want tot op hede het die geweldige ANC-magsbasis hom van al die mag voorsien wat hy mog benodig.

Soos wat Zuma se gewildheid toeneem, kom Mbeki se bod vir ’n derde termyn as ANC-leier onder bedreiging. Mbeki kan ten alle koste nie toelaat dat Zuma ANC-president word nie. Ten eerste ly Mbeki aan ’n enorme minderwaardigheidskompleks, waarvoor sy pyprokende, pseudo-intellektuele, internasionale staatsmanbeeld as masker dien. Vir enige Afrikaleier is daar klaarblyklik enorme vernedering daarin om hetsy demokraties, hetsy ondemokraties van die troon verwyder te word. Met Mbeki se persoonlikheid sal hy eerder die Mugabe-roete volg as om die enorme vernedering van ’n neerlaag te hanteer, veral deur ’n persoon wat intussen sy aartsvyand geraak het.

Behalwe Mbeki se sielkunige samestelling is daar ook sy „prestasies“ wat alles ’n refleksie van sy behoefte is om as versiende, intellektuele en internasionale leier gesien te word. Organisasies soos Nepad, AU, PAP en ander beskou hy soos die goue medaljes wat deur ’n prima atleet uitgestal word. Indien Zuma oorneem, verloor Mbeki dus nie net sy mag ter plaatse nie maar ook sy invloed oor bg. inisiatiewe. In so ’n geval gaan Zuma beslis Mbeki se „suksesse“ vir homself opeien en alle mislukkings aan Mbeki (en apartheid) toeskryf.

Maar Mbeki se dilemma strek veel verder, heelwat verder. Zuma het ’n persoonlike vete teen Mbeki. In Zuma se ervaring volg Mbeki, veral d.m.v. sy apparatsjieks, ’n totale komplot teen hom, waarin hy al erge ontberinge moes verduur. Ongeag of al die hofsake teen hom legitiem, moreel en wettig is, of sy afsetting as Adjunk-President van die land die regte ding was, is hy totaal verneder. Vir ’n tradisionalis soos hy is iemand van sy statuur verhewe bo die reëls. Dus is al hierdie aksies teen hom niks minder as “vuilspel” deur Mbeki nie. Zuma haat dus nie net vir Mbeki oor wat reeds aan hom gedoen is nie, maar hy vrees ook dit wat Mbeki nog gaan aanvang solank hy oor mag beskik. Benewens die haat weens wat reeds gebeur het, is daar dus ook vrees en suspisie.

Sou Zuma daarin slaag om die verkiesing te wen, gaan hy vir seker nie vir Mbeki met rus laat nie. Zuma is ’n tradisionalis wat oor ’n baie lae opvoedingsvlak beskik en wat eng tradisionele Zuluwaardes aanhang. Die man het immers etlike vroue en talle kinders. Ook sy openbare optredes getuig van Bantoetradisies. Heel waarskynlik vorm dit nie deel van sy verwysingsraamwerk om met ’n oorwonne Mbeki blad te skud en te sê “laat ons die verlede vergeet” nie. Sy psigiese motivering, sy vertoon aan sy volgelinge en sy bevestiging as “Groot Man” vereis dat hy sy vernedering wreek. In die enge Afrika- tradisionele sin sal ’n leier maar papperig oorkom nadat hy so deur die modder gesleep en boonop amper van sy vryheid ontneem is en dit dan net daar laat.

So seker as wat Thabo Mbeki die president van ’n Afrikastaat is, net so seker is die feit dat hy homself reeds in korrupsie verdiep het. Wanneer Zuma president word, gaan hy beslis al Mbeki se geraamtes uit die kas grawe.

Met die verkiesing van Zuma as ANC-president gaan sy houding teen Mbeki deur nog ’n baie belangrike faktor bepaal word wat nie te make het met sy tradisionele waardes of psige nie. Daar is nog twee jaar tot die volgende algemene verkiesing. Dit wil sê terwyl Zuma dan president van die ANC is, is Mbeki president van die land. Twee jaar van ”oorvleueling” of “kohabitasie” soos die Franse dit noem; die situasie gaan onhoudbaar raak. In sy uiters invloedryke posisie as president van die ANC sal Zuma dit maksimaal moet benut om Mbeki te neutraliseer. Die teenoorgestelde geld ook.

Wanneer Zuma uiteindelik oorneem as president van die RSA eindig die vete nog nie. Dan sal hy uit sy pad gaan om elke struktuur en persoon wat Mbeki goedgesind was en nog mog wees, polities te neutraliseer. Maar, om dit te vergemaklik sal hy ten eerste die finaal onttroonde Mbeki van alle statuur, invloed en aansien stroop.

Beide Zuma en Mbeki het dus werklik rede om mekaar nie net te haat nie, maar ook om mekaar intens te vrees. Indien Mbeki ’n derde termyn as President van die ANC kon behaal, sou hy een van sy lojaliste as sy opvolger in die Uniegebou kon aanstel. Daardie persoon, iemand soos Phumzile Mlambo-Nguka, sou hy dan vanuit Luthuli-huis kon beheer. Hy sou kon sorg dat die NV Zuma agter tralies kry en hy sal in vrede, met die Zuma-faktor uitgewis, sy pyp kan rook.

Sou Zuma ná die Pietersburgkongres die ANC-presidentskap verkry, dan waai Thabo se pyprokend-rustig-agteroor-op-die-leuenstoel-met-rooi-telefoon-na-die-Uniegebou-droom, soos ’n wasige tabakwalm by die venster uit. Dit is my mening en ek mag verkeerd wees, dat hy nie die uitslag in so ’n geval gaan aanvaar nie. Hy gaan beweer die uitslag is gekook en dan gaan hy outokraties beheer oor die ANC en die land oorneem. Hiervoor gaan hy veral sy lojaliste, soos die Selebi’s wat hom baie skuld, in die veiligheidsmagte gebruik.

In so ’n geval gaan Zuma se gewildheid met rasse skrede vermeerder. ’n Populêre opwelling is dan onvermydelik. Die veiligheidsmagte gaan nie die situasie kan afdwing soos in die Zimbabwe-geval nie. Die wiggies wat „100% Zulu Boy“ nou reeds in die etniese krake van die groter beweging geplaas het, sal dan met mening ingedryf word. Die ANC as politieke entiteit sal aan skerwe spat en die samewlewing van die RSA gaan gewelddadig oopbars. Selfs die veiligheidsmagte sal na alle waarskynlik na gelang van etniese affiliasies opbreek. Die totale ANC-staat sal summier in duie stort en chaos sal heers.

Die blankes sal onvermydelik hierby ingesleep word. Selfs al sou ons aanvanklik as toeskouers op die rand probeer bly, is die kanse goed dat elemente binne die strydende faksies sou hoop dat, deur die klem na ons, die paaiboelie, te verskuif, dit die ANC en swart beweging in die algemeen weer sou verenig. Indien dit sou gebeur, sal ons nie ongedeerd daarvan afkom nie, maar die chaos sal te groot wees vir so ’n poging om swart eenheid, om nie eens te praat van swart hegemonie nie, te herstel.

In hierdie situasie sal iemand wat oor die organisatoriese middele en vermoë beskik om die magsvakuum te gryp en orde te herstel, na vore moet tree. Maar, soos ek dit reeds gestel het, hierdie is slegs ’n analise van ’n moontlike scenario. Om te weet wat werklik vir ons voorle, sal ons maar moet wag en sien.

мозаика для хамама

Ally of Bush defeated

Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, one of President Bush’s staunchest allies in Asia, suffered a comprehensive defeat at the hands of the electorate on Saturday, as his Liberal Party-led coalition lost its majority in Parliament.

He will be replaced by Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party leader and a former diplomat. “Today Australia looks to the future,” Mr. Rudd told a cheering crowd in his home state, Queensland. “Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward.”

Mr. Howard’s defeat, after 11 years in power, follows that of José María Aznar of Spain, who also backed the United States-led invasion of Iraq, and political setbacks for Tony Blair, who stepped down as Britain’s prime minister in June.

Mr. Howard conceded nearly two hours after the last polling booths closed in the west of the country.

“A few moments ago I telephoned Mr. Kevin Rudd and I congratulated him and the Australian Labor Party on a very emphatic victory,” Mr. Howard told a room of emotional supporters.

“I leave the office of prime minister with our country prouder, stronger and more prosperous than ever,” he said.

Returns for a small number of seats are yet to be compiled, but analysts estimate that over all the Labor Party gained 28 seats to win a comfortable 22-seat majority in the 150-seat lower house of Parliament, where governments are formed. Official results are expected within the next day or two.

Mr. Howard may suffer the indignity of losing his own seat, representing a district on Sydney’s north shore, which he has held for 33 years, to a former television anchor and rookie politician. He would be the first sitting prime minister to lose his seat since 1929.

It was a bruising campaign, and the Liberal Party has said it will challenge some results on the grounds that the Labor candidates had broken electoral law by failing to resign from government jobs before running for office. The Labor Party said it had broken no laws.

Mr. Rudd, 50, campaigned on a platform of new leadership to address broad concerns about the environment, health and education. He has said his first acts as prime minister would include pushing for the ratification of the Kyoto agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and negotiating the withdrawal of Australia’s 500 troops from Iraq.

Analysts said the leadership change was unlikely to bring a radically new foreign policy, although they expected a shift in emphasis in the relationship with the United States, Australia’s closest ally. “Australia will remain a close ally of the United States, and Rudd remains committed to the alliance,” said Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. But he noted that “if there is a Democratic administration elected next year, to some extent they would become closer.”

Mr. Howard has a strong personal relationship with Mr. Bush that is based on a similar socially conservative philosophy and a shared outlook on terrorism.

Australian opinion polls have shown that although Australians remain strong supporters of the so-called Anzus alliance — the security pact among Australia, New Zealand and the United States — they do not approve of Mr. Bush or the Iraq war.

The attempts by Mr. Howard’s coalition to stress its economic record apparently failed to impress voters. The Australian economy has had 17 years of continuous growth, lately driven by Chinese demand for Australian iron ore and coal. Mr. Howard had warned voters that a Labor victory would endanger the country’s prosperity.

Despite the coalition campaign, there was little distance between the parties on economic policy, and the defining characteristics came down to the personalities of the leaders. Mr. Howard was running for a fifth term, and many voters said they were ready for a change.

“Howard is out of touch,” said George Varvaressos, 52, who voted in eastern Sydney on Saturday morning. “It’s the arrogance of being in power for too long — he hasn’t been listening.”

If Australia’s strongest military and political alliance is with Washington, the fuel for its economy is coming from China. Mr. Fullilove says Mr. Rudd’s ability to manage the relationship among Canberra, Washington and Beijing will be crucial.

Mr. Rudd, 18 years younger than Mr. Howard, has a reputation as a cerebral student of policy, as opposed to the Liberal leader’s image of a hardened and aggressive political animal.

“He seems more personable, approachable. He doesn’t seem arrogant — yet — and I have respect for him,” said Marcelle Freiman, who voted for Mr. Rudd in eastern Sydney on Saturday.

Mr. Rudd’s dry image was altered by the news that he had visited a strip club during a trip to New York in 2003.

He was a diplomat in Beijing and speaks Mandarin. He impressed many with a fluent address to President Hu Jintao of China when Mr. Hu visited Australia in September.

Mr. Fullilove said Mr. Rudd’s experience regarding China was unlikely to make a significant difference to Australia’s relationship with the United States. “I would counsel against people assuming that because Kevin Rudd speaks Mandarin there would be a big rebalancing of the relationship in favor of Beijing,” he said.

прокурор Фильчаков

South Africa won’t condemn rape

South Africa’s refusal to condemn the use of rape as a means of achieving political or military objectives and its calls for the broadening of the definition to include “all forms of sexual violence in all its forms and manifestations” may sully its international image, analysts say.

Last week the United Nations General Assembly attempted to adopt a resolution to eliminate the use of rape as a weapon of war and intimidation but was thwarted by South Africa. It was reminiscent of South Africa’s refusal to discuss Zimbabwe at the UN Security Council and its vote that blocked a resolution demanding an end to human rights abuses in Burma.

Hannah Botsis, a political researcher at the South African Institute of Race Relations, questioned South Africa’s record on human rights since assuming its position at the Security Council. “It seems that South Africa wants to throw its weight around, that they want to be taken seriously. What is a pity is that they seem to be objecting to all the wrong issues.”

Botsis argues that there would be no harm in South Africa endorsing the resolution on rape as a weapon of war, and questions the motives behind the move. “If South Africa thinks that the United States is raising this resolution for political reasons, then South Africa could take that political issue up with the US elsewhere. Again South Africa has failed to come out strongly on the side of human rights … Is this about human rights or is it about being vocal against the Western world?” asks Botsis, pointing out that South Africa’s oppositional stance “does more harm than good”.

The Western media’s coverage of the issue has not helped Africa’s reputation, particularly in light of South Africa’s high levels of sexual violence, says Abdul Lamin, senior lecturer in international relations at Wits University.

“The reports coming out seem to suggest that South Africa condones sexual violence when in fact they are putting forward a principled argument,” Lamin said. “We should condemn rape wherever it is being perpetrated, including by the occupying forces of Iraq,” he added.

Rape under any circumstances is “a cause for concern” and should be condemned, says Lisa Vetten, researcher at the Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, adding that the international community should not lose sight of the bigger picture by targeting only specific states.

Adam Habib, deputy vicechancellor at the University of Johannesburg, points out that US-led resolutions have manipulated genuine human rights issues in order for it to push country-specific agendas “against people whom they dislike”.

Habib points to the fact that US President George W Bush specifically mentioned Burma and Sudan in endorsing the rape resolution but he has never acknowledged atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq.

Habib said while there was a definite human rights issue to be addressed, those who condemned South Africa’s actions at the UN were “not seeing the politics at play”.

Habib does concede, however, that “in opposing the [US’s] hidden agenda South Africa has opposed the resolution and that is a problem”.

“It presents an interesting dilemma. The answer is not to oppose the resolution but to revise it so that the language applies evenly across all countries,” he says, adding that this might be why South Africa has insisted on a redraft to address a broader definition of rape.

Democratic Alliance MP Sheila Camerer was part of a South African delegation to the Fourth World Conference on Women where the Beijing Declaration was signed and rape was recognised as a war crime. “I remember we worked long and hard on that declaration and the wording thereof … It had the UN’s ‘blessing’ and serves as an advisory which one hopes would be influential in the international court [setting],” she says.

Camerer says she finds it “strange” that South Africa had been a part of that declaration but was now calling for a broader consideration of rape. “Perhaps he [South African ambassador to the UN Dumisani Kumalo] doesn’t know about the declaration.”

South Africa’s position on Zimbabwe and Burma is simply about South Africa following the lead of India and China, says Francis Kornegay, a senior researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies. He explains that if South Africa failed to toe the line it would certainly jeopardise the bargaining power it has with the two emergent superpowers.

“Zimbabwe is on the doorstep of South Africa in the same way that Burma is close to China and India.”

topcargo отзывы