Skrywer: Dan Roodt
Republiekwording op 31 Mei 1961 in foto’s
Een van die mees historiese datums in ons land is 31 Mei en veral 31 Mei 1961 toe Suid-Afrika teen die verwagting in ‘n republiek geword het. In hiedie unieke foto-essay wat ‘n leser aan ons gestuur het, kan ons vandag nog die patriotiese opwinding van daardie reënerige dag 46 jaar gelede ervaar.
Met erkenning aan mnr. Carel de Lange vir die skyfies wat sy vader destyds geneem en vir die nageslag bewaar het.
Die Ou Raadsaal in oranje-blanje-blou
Maak reg vir Sowetodagpropaganda
In aanloop tot 16 Junie (sogenaamde Jeugdag) het die regime reeds met sy jaarlikse intensifisering van haatpropaganda teen die Afrikaner begin. In die week wat verby is, is Snuki Zikelala, hoofuitvoerendebeampte van die SAUK, genooi om op SABC3 se Three Talk die biografie van Albert Luthuli te bespreek. Die pseudo-intellektule snert wat hierdie diktotariele staatsmediahoof kwytgeraak het was niks minder as die verdere aanwakker van rassehaat nie. Hierdie ANC-kommisaris in die Sowjetsin, wat beter bekend is vir die opstel van joernalistieke swartlyste, is waarskynlik die hoofdryfveer agter die SABC se blankehaatpropaganda.
Verlede jaar is 16 Junie ook voorafgegaan deur die beeldsending van anti-witmateriaal. Die aard daarvan was meer rassisties as die jaar tevore. Hierdie aanhitsing deur die SAUK het sekerlik ’n rol gespeel in die dramatiese opswaai in geweldsmisdaad sowat ’n maand na 16 Junie.
Met die huidige stand van sake in die land is die vooruitsig vir ’n meer versoenende benadering deur die ANC se uitsaai-arm (SAUK) gering. Daar is verskeie krisisse binne die ANC sowel as in die breë samelewing waarvan die aandag afgelei moet word. Tussen die ANC en sy alliansievenote heers groot spanning, daar is die presidensiële opvolgkwessie, verder is die swart publiek vanjaar nog meer ontevrede met die regering se nie-dienslewering op plaaslike en nasionale vlak. Onluste kom sporadies voor en tans heers daar ’n massastaking deur veral swart staatsamptenare.
Intussen stroom meer as 100 000 onwettiges per maand die land in en raak druk op die ekonomie en infrastruktuur onhoudbaar. Mededinging onder die armstes om werk en oorlewing is ook op breekpunt. Die gevolg is die onbeheersde misdaadsituasie wat blyk net verder te verdiep. Die onstellendste is die manier waarop veral blankes onder besonders wreed en moorddadige gedrag deurloop. Lg. situasie is waarskynlik reeds in ’n groot mate die regstreekse gevolg van die regime se demonisering van witmense.
Om die aandag van die ANC se krissise en die swart gemeenskap se desperaatheid af te trek, kan mens vanjaar verwag dat die SAUK ten minste met dieselfde intensiteit as verlede jaar die blanke as die boosdoener gaan uitwys. Dit is egter baie waarskynlik dat dit in ’n selfs erger graad sal geskied. Verlede jaar se blankehaatpropaganda het gewissel van die subtiele tot die mees blatante en het tot na 16 Junie geduur.
Televisiekykers kan hul gereed maak vir ’n stewige dosis van oorsentimentele en emosionele herskouings van Sowetodag en ander blanke ‘vergrype’, sowel as die beeldsending van films soos Amistad (asof Afrikaners verantwoordelik was vir die Amerikaanse slawehandel), Cry Freedom, Missisippi Burning en vele ander rolprente wat die blanke as diabolies uitbeeld. By verre die meeste van hierdie Hollywood-vervaardigde films, wat u in die volgende weke sal sien, het niks met Sowetodag te make nie, maar is gul in hul uitbeelding van wit boosaardigheid. Dat hierdie ou films nou al tot vervelens uitgesaai is, is irrelevant, want as jy swart is sal dit elke keer op jou emosies inspeel en verlossing van jou minderwaardigheidsgevoelens bied. Immers is jy nie die oorsaak van jou ellende nie…
Wat egter meer kommerwekkend is, is wat alles op swart radiostasies, wat nie deur blankes beluister word nie, uitgesaai en gesê word. Propaganda is egter nie alleen tot die uitsaaimedia beperk nie. Daar is ook die gedrukte media. Selfs nog meer kragtig, is die massasaamtrekke waar sprekers onbeperk staan in terme van die gal wat gebraak kan word. Boonop weet ons almal hoe maklik swartes in ’n kollektiewe emosionele beswyming meegevoer kan raak.
Dat ’n stortvloed van propaganda wat die blanke en veral die Afrikaner as die skurk en gevaar te midde van die huidige situasie uitbeeld, gevaarlik is, is seker nie nodig om te verduidelik nie. Die huidige situasie waarna hier verwys word, is nie alleen die misdaadvlaag nie, maar ook die onluste, stakings, ens. Afrikaners moet hulself regmaak vir ’n verdere toename in geweldsmisdaad, omdat elke swarte sal ‘weet’ dat ek en u die oortreder en die teiken is wat reggesien moet word. Die vraag is nou net: Gegewe die huidige onstabiliteit in die swart gemeenskap en die geweldsmisdaad wat reeds op breekpunt staan, hoeveel verder kan die massas se aandag nog “áfgelei” word, alvorens die situasie doodeenvoudig in ’n totale rasseoorlog oorkook?
The Conservative Mind
The left prides itself on, and frequently boasts of, its superior appreciation of the complexity and depth of moral and political life. But political debate in America today tells a different story.
On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.
One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty. The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty. Yet the tension within often compels conservatives to wrestle with the consequences of change more fully than progressives–for whom change itself is often seen as good, and change that contributes to the equalization of social conditions as a very important good.
To be sure, some standard-order issues remain easy for both sides. Democrats instinctively want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, establish government supervised universal healthcare, and impose greater regulation on trade. Just as instinctively Republicans wish to extend the Bush tax cuts, find market mechanisms to broaden health care coverage and reduce limitations on trade.
But on non-standard issues–involving dramatic changes in national security and foreign affairs, the power of medicine and technology to intervene at the early stages of life, and the social meaning of marriage and family, the partisans show a clear difference: the left is more and more of one mind while divisions on the right deepen.
Consider Iraq. The split among conservatives has widened since Saddam was toppled in the spring of 2003. Traditional realists continue to put their trust in containment, and reject nation-building on the grounds that we lack both a moral obligation and the requisite knowledge of Arabic, Iraqi culture and politics, and Islam. Supporters of the war still argue that, in an age of mega-terror, planting the seeds of liberty and democracy in the Muslim Middle East is a reasonable response to the poverty, illiteracy, authoritarianism, violence and religious fanaticism that plagues the region.
In contrast, Democrats today are nearly united in the belief that the invasion has been a fiasco and that we must withdraw promptly. Indeed, rare is the Democrat (Sen. Joe Lieberman was compelled to run as an Independent) who does not sound like a traditional realist denying both America’s moral obligation to remain in Iraq and its capacity to bring order to the country.
Consider also abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research. Here too, the right is torn, with the social conservative wing opposed to both, and the small government, libertarian wing supporting both. No such major divisions are in evidence on the left. Rare is the progressive man or woman who opposes abortion rights, or who regards the destruction of embryos as the taking of human life, or even as a dangerous precedent corroding our respect for the most vulnerable among us.
And look at same-sex marriage. Again, the right is rent by serious difference of opinion. A crucial segment of those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 think that the Constitution should be amended to protect the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Another crucial segment of the Republican coalition rejects alteration of the Constitution to advance debatable social policy, preferring that states function as laboratories of innovation.
Meanwhile, on the left, despite ambivalence among the rank and file, all that remains to be decided at the elite level is how and in what ways to endorse same-sex marriage. Few doubt that presidential candidate John Kerry’s opposition to same-sex marriage in 2004 was driven more by political calculation than moral conviction. And rare is the man or woman of the left who, in public debate, identifies competing principles and goods that ought to cause hesitation or doubt about same-sex marriage’s justice or benefits to the nation.
This absence on the left of debate or dissent about moral and political ends has been aided and abetted by many of the party’s foremost intellectuals, who have reveled in denouncing George W. Bush as a dictator, in declaring democracy in 21st-century America all but illegitimate, and in diagnosing conservatism in America as in the grips of fascist sentiments and opinions.
A few months ago, Hoover Institution research fellow Dinesh D’Souza published a highly polemical book, "The Enemy at Home," which held the cultural left responsible for causing 9/11 and contended that American conservatives should repudiate fellow citizens on the left and instead form alliances with traditional Muslims around the world. Conservatives of many stripes leapt into the fray to criticize it. But rare is the voice on the left that has criticized Boston College professor and New Republic contributing editor Alan Wolfe, former secretary of labor and Berkeley professor Robert Reich, New Republic editor-at-large and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Peter Beinart, Berkeley professor George Lakoff, and New York University law professor Ronald Dworkin–all of whom have publicly argued in the last several years that conservatives form an enemy at home.
One explanation of the unity on the left is its belief that today’s divisive political questions have easy answers–but because of their illiberal opinions and aims, conservatives are unable to see this and, in a mere six years, have brought democracy in America to the brink. This explanation, however, contradicts the vital lesson of John Stuart Mill’s liberalism that political questions, as opposed to mathematical questions, tend by their very nature to be many-sided. Indeed, it contradicts the left’s celebration of its own appreciation of the complexity and depth of politics.
Another explanation is that blinded by rage at the Bush administration and resentment over its own lack of power, the left has betrayed its commitment to grasp the many-sidedness of politics, and, in the process, has lost appreciation of modern conservatism’s distinctive contribution to the defense of a good, liberty, which the left also prizes. Indeed, the widespread ignorance among the highly educated of the conservative tradition in America is appalling.
In contrast to much European conservatism, which harks back to premodern times and the political preeminence of religion and royalty, in America–which lacked a feudal past to preserve or recover–conservatism has always revolved around the preservation of individual liberty. Of course modern conservatism generally admires virtues embodied in religious faith and the aristocratic devotion to excellence. It also tends to emphasize the weaknesses of human nature, the ironies and tragedies of history, and the limitations of reason and politics. At the same time, it wishes to put these virtues and this knowledge in liberty’s service.
Balancing the claims of liberty and tradition, or showing how liberty depends on tradition, is the very essence of modern conservatism, the founding text for which was provided by Whig orator and statesman Edmund Burke in his 1790 polemic, "Reflections on the Revolution in France." The divisions within contemporary American conservatism–social conservatives, libertarians, and neoconservatives–arise from differences over which goods most urgently need to be preserved, to what extent, and with what role for government.
The varieties of conservatism are poorly understood today not only because of the bitterness of current political battles but also because the books that have played a key role in forming the several schools go largely untaught at our universities and largely unread by our professors. Indeed, perhaps one cause of the polarization that afflicts our political and intellectual class is the failure of our universities to teach, and in many cases to note the existence of, the conservative dimensions of American political thought.
Rare is the political scientist, to say nothing of other faculty, who can sketch the argument, or articulate the point of view, of such influential works as Russell Kirk’s "The Conservative Mind" (1953), F. A. Hayek’s "The Road to Serfdom" (1944) or Leo Strauss’s "Natural Right and History" (1953). Yet these works, and the schools they helped launch, are essential to understanding not only where we come from but where we should head.
Kirk identified six elements that make the conservative mind: belief in a transcendent order that "rules society as well as conscience"; attachment to "the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence" as against the routinizing and leveling forces of modern society; the assumption that "civilized society requires orders and classes"; the conviction that "freedom and property are closely linked"; faith in custom and convention and consequently a "distrust of the ‘sophisters, calculators, and economists’ who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs"; and a wariness of innovation coupled with a recognition that "prudent innovation is the means of social preservation." The leading role in this mix that Kirk attaches to religion marks him as a social conservative; his insistence that religion provides the indispensable ground for individual liberty marks him as a modern conservative.
Famously, at least in libertarian circles, Hayek, an Austrian-born economist who became a British citizen and then immigrated to the U.S. in 1950, wrote a postscript to "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960), explaining why he was not a conservative. For him, "true conservatism"–which he confused with European reaction–was characterized by "opposition to drastic change" and a complacent embrace of established authority. Because his overriding goal was to preserve liberty, Hayek considered himself a liberal, but he recognized that in the face of the challenges presented mid-century by socialism, he would often find himself in alliance with conservatives. As a staunch member of the party of liberty, Hayek was keen to identify the political arrangements that would allow for "free growth" and "spontaneous change," which, he argued, brought economic prosperity and created the conditions for individual development. This meant preserving the tradition of classical liberalism, and defending limited, constitutional government against encroachments by the welfare state and paternalistic legislation.
For Strauss, what was most urgently in need in preservation was an idea, the idea of natural right. Like Kirk, Strauss believed that modern doctrines of natural right derived support from biblical faith. Like Hayek, Strauss taught that limited, constitutional government was indispensable to our freedom. But Strauss also saw that modern doctrines of natural right contained debilitating tendencies, which, increasingly, provided support for stupefying and intolerant dogmas. To arrest the decay, he turned to the classical natural right teachings of Plato and Aristotle, who were neither liberals nor democrats, but whose reflections on knowledge, politics and virtue, Strauss concluded, provided liberal democracy sturdier foundations.
There can not be a conservative soul today in the way one can speak of a liberal soul or spirit. Whereas the latter revolves around the paramount good of freedom, modern conservatives, while loving liberty, differ over its position in the hierarchy of goods most in need of preservation, and indeed differ over the paramount good. Yet the writings of Kirk, Hayek and Strauss do form a family. All developed their ideas with a view to the 20th century totalitarian temptations of fascism and communism. All agreed that liberal democracy constituted the last best hope of modern man. And all showed that defending liberty involves a delicate balancing act.
Conservatives, facing uncertainty about George W. Bush’s legacy, and the reality of their own errors and excesses, have good reason just now to read and ponder Kirk, Hayek and Strauss. Progressives, too prone these days to perceive difficult moral and political questions as one-sided and too keen to characterize their allies at home in the defense of liberty as enemies, have good reason to do so themselves.
Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
China induces artificial rainfall
Officials have artificially induced rainfall to dilute a polluted lake which provides drinking water to over five million people of Wuxi city in eastern China’s Jiangsu Province.
Thirty-nine rockets, containing silver iodide, were fired at eight different sites surrounding Taihu Lake on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, a spokesman with the Jiangsu Provincial Meteorological Station said.
The operation induced moderate rain at various areas around the lake and even heavy rain in some parts, the spokesman said.
Results from 43 monitoring stations showed that the rainfall exceeded 20 mm, Xinhua News Agency reported. "Continuous high temperatures and lack of rainfall since this spring are mainly to blame for the outbreak of the blue-green algae bloom," the spokesman said.
The average temperature in the Taihu Lake region was 17.1 degrees Celsius in the first five months, 0.7 degrees higher than previous years, or the highest since 1955.
In addition, some areas around the lake reported less rainfall this year and Wuxi city, which receives its drinking water from the lake, received 30 per cent less than average.
The spokesman said local meteorological authorities were closely monitoring weather changes and once conditions allowed, they would attempt to induce more rain.
Nearly two million people in Wuxi, an economically dynamic city 128 km northwest of Shanghai, have been affected by the water pollution. The price of an 18-litre bottle of water sold by street peddlers had risen from USD one to over USD six by Wednesday night.
Nobel laureate cancels UK trip
The Guardian reports that Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg has cancelled a planned visit to a London university because of what he considers "a widespread anti-Israel and anti-semitic current in British opinion". Weinberg, a professor at the University of Texas who won the Nobel for physics in 1979, had been invited to Imperial College in July to speak in honour of a Pakistani physicist, Abdus Salam, and to deliver a talk at a conference on particle physics.
But in a letter to his prospective host at Imperial, Michael Duff, Professor Weinberg said he was withdrawing from the trip, due to the decision by the National Union of Journalists at its national conference to boycott Israeli products. He wrote: "I know that some will say that these boycotts are directed only against Israel, rather than generally against Jews. But given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than anti-semitism."
Weinberg said the only other reason he could imagine for the boycott was the NUJ’s "desire to pander to the growing Muslim minority in Britain".
"I’m not calling on anyone else not to go to Britain," Weinberg told Haaretz. "I don’t want to say I’m cutting ties with the U. K. I love England. I just feel personally uncomfortable going with the atmosphere there at the moment. It’s increasingly hostile to Israel, especially in the intellectual world."
"I just felt this was too disgusting and I didn’t want to go there this summer," Weinberg said. "I see in the British press and the BBC signs of a very strong anti-Israel bias — a kind of blind hostility that whatever Israel does, it is always in the wrong — so this is not an isolated action of a small group of anti-Semitic conspirators. This represents a widespread feeling among British journalists."
This is the second time Weinberg has cancelled a visit to a UK university because of Israeli boycotts. In 2006 he called off a trip to a conference at the University of Durham following what he saw as a boycott of Israeli academics by the lecturers’ union NATFHE.
Weinberg said he is against boycotts, and specifically boycotts of Israel: "To boycott Israel today would be like boycotting Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Hilter was complaining the Czechs were being unpleasant to the Germans in the Sudetenland."
Professor Weinberg’s decision comes a week before members of the University and College Union are to call for an academic boycott of Israel at their inaugural annual conference. Academics are also expected to debate whether anti-semitism has become acceptable on UK campuses and whether members should be balloted before any decisions are taken on academic freedom.
The motion calling for an Israeli boycott has been laid down jointly by the University of Brighton and the University of East London, the Guardian reported. It condemns the "complicity of Israeli academia in the [Palestinian] occupation, which has provoked a call from the Palestinian trade unions for a comprehensive and consistent international boycott of all Israeli academic institutions".
The union is being urged to agree that "passivity or neutrality is unacceptable and criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic". Anticipating objections of discrimination, the motion calls on members to consider the "moral implications of existing proposed links with Israeli academic institutions".
Weinberg told Haaretz that he made his decision and wrote his letter before he knew of the new boycott threat.
Geweld in Rostock
Betoger in Rostock
Gewelddadige botsings het Saterdag in Rostock plaasgevind, in afwagting van die G8-beraad wat eersdaags begin. Polisiemanne en anti-globaliseringsbetogers het slaags geraak.
’n Wye versameling van pasifiste, ekoloë, feministe, kerkgroepe en anargiste was deel van die 30 000 persone wat aan die betoging deelgeneem het. Die G8-beraad vind vanaf 6-8 Junie in Heiligendamm, sowat 25 km van Rostock, plaas, wanneer kanselier Angela Merkel die leiers van Brittanje, Frankryk, Rusland, Japan, Italië, Kanada en Frankryk verwelkom. Klimaatsveranderinge en armoede in Afrika is op die agenda.
Gister se betoging was die begin van die weeklange protes wat teen die beraad beplan word.
Die betoging se amptelike slagspreuk was “’n Ander wêreld is moontlik.“ Tydens die oproer het mense ook geskreeu: “Water is ’n mensereg!“, “Wêreldvrede nou!“ en “Stop privatisering!“ Sommige betogers het maskers van George Bush en Vladimir Poetin gedra. Ander was weer soos Middeleeuse konings aangetrek, om die diktatoriale aard van die G8-leiers te beklemtoon.
Betogers gooi klippe na polisie in Rostock
Betogers het teen die einde van die betoging polisiemotors met verf, klippe en bottels bygekom. ’n Bank en ’n hotel waar die Amerikaanse afvaardiging later die week sal tuisgaan, is ook aangeval. Die polisie het toe met waterkanonne en traangas op die betogers losgebrand.
’n Heining van 12 km lank is rondom die dorpie Heiligendamm gespan en 16 000 polisiemanne sal hierdie week aan diens wees – die grootste veiligheidsoperasie in Duitsland sedert die Tweede Wêreldoorlog. Betogers dreig nou om die paaie na die dorp te blokkeer en afvaardigings sodoende te verhoed om by die beraad op te daag.
Volgens Silke Studzinsky, die regswoordvoerder van die betogers, is 20 mense reeds ernstig beseer en moes gehospitaliseer word. In hul geledere is daar talle Russe, Japannese, Franse, Swede en Spanjaarde. Volgens die polisie is tot ’n duisend mense, betogers en polisie tesaam, reeds beseer.
Judge Halts Award Of Iraq Contract
A federal judge yesterday ordered the military to temporarily refrain from awarding the largest security contract in Iraq. The order followed an unusual series of events set off when a U.S. Army veteran filed a protest against the government practice of hiring what he calls mercenaries, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The contract, worth about $475 million, calls for a private company to provide intelligence services to the U.S. Army and security for the Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction work in Iraq. The case, which is being heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, puts on trial one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of the Iraq war: the outsourcing of military security to an estimated 20,000 armed contractors who operate with little oversight.
Brian X. Scott, a 53-year-old Colorado man, filed the complaint in early April. He argues that the military’s use of private security contractors is "against America’s core values" and violates an 1893 law that prohibits the government from hiring quasi-military forces.
Scott’s challenge set off a domino effect, prompting the Government Accountability Office to dismiss protests brought by two major private security contractors the Army had removed as potential bidders — Erinys Iraq, a British firm, and Blackwater USA of North Carolina.
Michael Golden, the GAO’s managing associate general counsel for procurement law, said the agency dropped the matter because Scott’s court complaint may force the Army to revise the lucrative contract.
The GAO’s dismissal of the two protests on Thursday freed the Army to award the contract at any time. Erinys moved quickly yesterday to seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from awarding the contract.
Erinys already provides security for some military personnel in Iraq under a separate contract. The company’s temporary restraining order is under seal. But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said the firm claims that the government is about to award the contract, that Erinys would be irreparably harmed and that there is a strong factual basis for it to be reconsidered as a bidder. Erinys declined to comment.
Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, said the company does not intend to join Erinys’s efforts to obtain a restraining order. "We’re leaving it to the process, and we’re not going to take it any further," she said.
In his court protest, Scott relied on the Anti-Pinkerton Act, which Congress passed more than a century ago to thwart businesses that had hired mercenaries to disrupt labor groups.
Scott said he served nearly 13 years on active duty in the U.S. Army and worked six years at the Interior Department on contracting issues. He now works full time trying to obtain government contracts and protesting the use of private security contractors. He has filed about a dozen protests against the use of the contractors in Iraq. All were filed with the GAO, and all were dismissed.
The Army has been narrowing the field of candidates for the Iraq security contract. One is Aegis Defence Services, a British security firm. Aegis won the initial Iraqi security contract in 2004. That contract, worth $293 million, was set to expire in May but has been extended as others have filed protests. Scott said he was indifferent that his court claim had complicated the Erinys and Blackwater protests. "They’re just trying to get a piece of the mercenary action," he said.
Staking bewys NSA se mislukking
’n Epiese reklameveldtog deur die media soos byvoorbeeld oor die Nuwe Suid Afrika-wonderwerk hou ’n gevaar vir die ganse mensdom in: ná die jubelende belewenis en koorsagtige euforie rondom die vrylating van die dansende messias van die onderdruktes, Nelson Mandela, volg ontnugtering. ’n Geweldige teleurstelling en gevoel van babelaas gaan daarmee gepaard, veral as die werklikheid uiteindelik sy gesag laat geld.
’n Groot verwagting wat eenvoudig nooit sou kon realiseer nie, was die nuwe Suid-Afrika, splinternuwe vlag en al. Sy argitekte het eenvoudig te veel “kortpad gevat”, asof hulle gejaag het om ’n voorgeskrewe sperdatum te haal, en miskien was daar bepaalde kontraktuele voorvereistes, wie weet? Teen alle verwagting in is die “wonderwerk” van die nuwe Suid-Afrika toe nie verwesenlik nie. Inteendeel het ons tot dusver, behalwe natuurlik die enkele utopieverslaafde, realiteitsontkennende idealiste se sienings, net die stelselmatige aftakeling en vernietiging van ’n land aanskou wat eens nie sonder foute nie, maar ten minste leefbaar was. In tipiese Afrikastyl is die koskas geplunder en verruil vir blink, pikswart motors met getinte vensters, ontwerpersonbrille en die nuutste selfone. Hierdie koskasplunderaars is eenvoudig teen dié tyd al so bedwelmd deur die opium van kapitalisme dat hulle ook in die proses van ontkenning vasgevang is.
Ek is bevrees dat daar wel ’n ander Suid Afrika is, een waarvan die gemiddelde blanke nie bewus is nie. Dis die rede waarom die staatspresident 90 miljoen rand op ’n veiligheidsmuur uitgee. Dit is die ware Suid-Afrika, die een agter die winkelsentrums en blink liggies van die vermaaklikheidswêreld. Die grootste deel van Suid-Afrika krepeer eenvoudig van ellende, hulle oorlewingstryd en daaglikse modus operandi sal enige Westerling tot in sy fondamente skok. ’n Bykomende faktor is dat hulle getalle teen ’n skrikwekkende tempo aangroei soos wat miljoene deur die bostelegraaf die sein ontvang dat die “wonderwerk” hulle ook verwelkom. Hierdie massas is vry maar hul bevryding beteken niks, want dit het nog steeds nie ’n positiewe praktiese uitkoms gelewer nie. Hulle bly krepeer, terwyl hulle staatsamptenare hulself in die weelde verkneukel.
Die grootskaalse mobilisering van hierdie massas deur vakunies soos tans is ’n bewys dat die ANC sy houvas op Suid-Afrika verloor het. Hulle het hulself eenvoudig gemarginaliseer weens hul mag en geldbeheptheid; die verslawing van rykdom is heeltemal te onweerstaanbaar in vergelyking met hul eertydse vryheidstryd. Die landswye staking wat Vrydag 1 Junie begin het, verteenwoordig vir my ’n draaipunt in die geskiedenis van ons land. Dit dui dalk die begin van die meer radikale fase van die revolusie aan.
Die ANC gaan egter nie net sommer tou opgooi nie, hulle gaan terugveg teen die unies vir die mag van die massas om sodoende hul finansiële voordele, onder andere, te
verseker. Wat my bekommer, is die moontlike tegnieke wat hulle kan gebruik deur middel van die media om hulself te verskans. Om die blaam te verskuif na ’n “rassistiese” blanke minderheid wat nie wil transformeer of landuit nie, kan nie te moeilik wees nie.
Wat my laat sidder, is dat dit dalk reeds begin het.
‘Scheinheiligendamm’
Sir Bob, nie van Zimbabwe nie, maar die langvergete Boomtown Rats, se Afrika-inisiatief het blykbaar weer nuwe asem geskep. As nie-amptelike Britse buitelandse gesant, is Bob Geldof deesdae in die geselskap van hooggeplaastes soos Angela Merkel en probeer hy Duitse beursies dmv morele afpersing oopdwing vir die “armoede” wat Afrika teister.
Soos Beeld Saterdag op hul tipies sikofantiese en onkritiese manier berig het, het die sanger as gasredakteur van die geelperskoerant Bildzeitung opgetree om Afrika se “roerende hulpkreet” aan lesers te bring. Die Bildzeitung, berug vir sy regse politieke menings, skinderstories en kaalfoto’s, het 12 miljoen lesers in Duitsland.
Bob het sy kans benut om 24 bladsye van linkse, naïewe en sensasiebelaaide Britse propaganda aan die Duitse bouer, vragmotorbestuurder en handearbeider op te dis. Die voorbladopskrif en foto van ‘n uitgeteerde swart gillende kind, was alles behalwe skugter: Dertigduisend mense sterf elke dag in Afrika van armoede.
In nog groter letters, swart, wit en rooi: Hou op daarmee, NOU!, asof elke Duitse leser persoonlik verantwoordelik is vir die haglike toestand. Trouens hy vra sommer ‘n bladsy of wat later reguit of die Duitsers hulle nie erg skaam nie.
Om die polities-korrekte inhoud beter te onderstreep moes die gebruiklike kaalmeisie ook verdwyn om plek te maak vir halfgeklede en honger swartes. Die enigste erotiese boodskappe was van Duitse sterre wat skynbaar ‘n liefdesverhouding met Afrika vertroetel.
Vir model Bettina Zimmermann (28) is dit “Afrika mon amour”, terwyl die brandmaer Claudia Schiffer nie genoeg kan kry van die “towerstof” wat die kontinent aan modemateriaal produseer nie. Loréal-meisie Schiffer was onlangs in die nuus nadat daar bespiegel is dat sy ‘n anoreksie-lyer is.
Dit was alles te lese onder ‘n foto van ‘n poedelnaakte Alek Wek, wêreldbekende model wat spog met ‘n huidkleur wat blouswart is. Akteur Matt Damon kon sy “woede” elders skaars beteuel toe hy verneem dat ‘n kind in Afrika elke 15 sekondes sterf omdat skoon drinkwater ontbreek.
‘n Hele paar moes by die lees daarvan sekerlik gedink het dat die Axel Springer-koerant al lankal ‘n verleentheid is, al is dit net vir die skaamtelose manier waarop hulle daagliks enige onderwerp behandel. Maar die oormaat selfvertroue waarmee die Britte die Duitsers takseer, was waarskynlik ‘n groter bron van irritasie as die gewone kitsch waartoe Bild in staat is.
Die Rat van Boomtown het ná afloop van die oefening dit as harder werk as wat hy gedink het beskryf, maar sy blinde selfvoldaanheid was steeds onaangetas. “Ek dink ons het vandag ‘n koerant geskep wat die Duitse politiek en die lewens van miljoene mense kan verander,” het hy in sy skik gesê.
Bob het byvoorbeeld nie eers die moeite gedoen om uit te vind watter Duitse hulporganisasies reeds in Afrika betrokke is nie, maar eerder gesteun op sy eie, soms irrelevante, visuele materiaal. By die voorbladfoto is van die wêreld se prominente gesigte uitgestal waaronder dié van George Bush. Natuurlik een en almal vriende van Blair, maar geen Duitser sal Bush vir ‘n Afrika-vriend aansien nie.
Die Amerikaanse president se gewildheid is tewens besonder laag in Duitsland vanweë die feit dat hy wegskram van klimaatsbestuur en sy afgelope toespraak daaroor is met groot teleurstelling begroet. Desnieteenstaande is die Bild ook versier met drie bladsye van die ongewilde Bush wat so veel vir Vigs in Afrika doen. Dat dit op ‘n fiasko afstuur in SA agv van die eiesoortige benadering waarvoor ons gesondheidsminister bekend is, word nêrens genoem nie.
Die Bild-gasredakteur se kinderlike kragtoer waaroor Beeld – die name is ook dieselfde! – so positief berig, was sonder einde. Hy het weer herhaal dat hulp “belowe” is en beloftes moet nagekom word. Dit weet elke drie-jarige kind. Behalwe Naomi Campbell en Kofi Annan is elke ander swarte in Afrika volgens die Live Aid-organiseerder beslis sonder ‘n krieseltjie kos.
Gelukkig het Bob nie ‘n dag honger gely nie en breedvoerig is oor sy regte-egte kantienkaartjie en ete by die koerant se restaurant berig. Die hele maaltyd van beesvleis, aarbeie en room, afgesluk met skoon water en afgesluit met koffie, was nog ‘n volkleur nuuswaardige selfbeheptheid.
Danksy Brittanje se besliste aandrang dat Bob, dis nou Mugabe, tot Zimbabwe se leier verkies moet word, is daar vandag ‘n dringende voedseltekort in daardie land, maar Sir Bob, Bild en Beeld stel nie in oorsake belang nie. Trouens noudat SA weer deel van die Gemenbes is, is voedselsekuriteit ook nie meer ‘n uitgemaakte saak hier nie, maar dit skeel ons pop-politici en jingo-pers ewe min.
Onderliggend aan die skrille boodskap is dat alle wittes, behalwe vanselfsprekend die Britte, die oorsaak van Afrikaprobleme is omdat hulle nie rojaal genoeg gee en help nie. Praat van agter die deur staan!
Bildzeitung se lomp poging het vir kritiek uit vele oorde gesorg, en Der Spiegel het droogweg opgemerk dat Merkel se ingenomenheid met Bob Geldof die komende spitsberaad van G-8 lande na Scheinheiligendamm verander het. Die Kanselier het heel skynheilig met die propaganda-oefening saamgespeel.
‘n Afrikaanse sokkerspan?
Vanmiddag het ek die eerste helfte van die Springbokke se rugbywedstryd teen Engeland gekyk en dit agterna afgesit omdat dit my nie werklik kon skeel wie wen nie. Nietemin het dit my weereens getref hoe die ANC sport en sportboikotte teen ons gebruik het om die Afrikaner ten eerste te isoleer en ten tweede van sy identiteit te ontneem sodat hy tans byna volkome oorheers word.
Dis opvallend hoeveel Engelse spelers daar in die Springbokspan ingesluit word, hoofsaaklik van Natal. Selfs vir ’n leek soos ek is dit ooglopend dat daar deur Jake White teen Afrikanerspelers gediskrimineer word as dit by die samestelling van die nasionale span kom, dis nou nog afgesien van rassekwotas.
My vrou sê toe so ewe: “Ons moet begin sokker speel.” Waarom nie? Tans is daar bloedweinig Afrikaners wat sokker speel, daarom is daar geen gevestigde belange wat dié sport betref nie. Die rugby-unies is vrekbang vir die ANC en sal niks doen om die outoritêre sportadministrateurs van die regerende party te ontstel nie. Die Suid-Afrikaanse sokkerspan is hoofsaaklik ’n swart span en Afrikaners stel nie werklik in sy vordering belang nie.
Ons mense doen goed in feitlik elke vorm van sport: rugby, krieket, atletiek (in die dae toe daar nog atletiek in Suid-Afrika was), tennis, gholf, noem maar op. Ons stamlande soos Nederland, Duitsland en Frankryk het van topsokkerspanne ter wêreld. Met ’n bietjie moeite en afrigting behoort ons ’n gedugte sokkerspan te kan oplewer. So ’n nuwe span sal heeltemal onafhanklik van bestaande verpolitiseerde sportstrukture kan funksioneer.
Gestel nou ons kon ’n Afrikanersokkerspan vir die komende wêreldbeker inskryf? Klink dit vergesog? Ek het bietjie oor die probleem begin dink. Dit mag dalk selfs ’n oplossing vir ons algemene sportprobleem onder die ANC bied waar politiek en politiekery sport oorheers.
My plan is eenvoudig: ons moet een van die kleiner landjies of eilandgroepe in die wêreld wat nie self oor die bevolking of die middele beskik om internasionale sport te bedryf nie, oorreed om onder hul vlag te kan deelneem. Omdat al die lede van die span egter Afrikaners sal wees, sal ons eie mense plaaslik onmiddellik die span begin ondersteun. En natuurlik moet die oranje-blanje-blou Prinsevlag by wedstryde geswaai word.
Ek het my voorgeneem om van aanstaande week af briewe en diplomatieke boodskappe te begin skryf aan elke potensiële land of selfregerende gebied ter wêreld wat nie ’n span vir 2010 ingeskryf het nie. Moontlike kandidate vir ’n Afrikaanse sokkerspan vir 2010 is:
Wallis en Futuna: ’n selfregerende eilandgroep onder Franse beheer (’n sogenaamde TOM of territoire d’outremer) met ’n bevolking van 16309 mense. ’n Ander Franse TOM, Nieu-Caledonië het wel ’n eie nasionale span vir 2010 ingeskryf, dus behoort dit moontlik te wees vir Wallis en Futuna om dieselfde te doen.
Tokelau: Hierdie selfregerende eilandgroep in die Stille Oseaan het ’n bevolking van slegs 1449 mense en word tans deur Nieu-Seeland geadministreer. Heel moontlik sou hulle verheug wees om aan die Wêreldsokkerbeker te kan deelneem met spelers wat vanuit die Afrikanervolk van 3 miljoen mense afkomstig is.
Die Marshall-eilande: Hierdie onafhanklike eilandgroep in die Stille Oseaan het ’n bevolking van 61 815 siele en sou met ons spelers aan die Wêreldbeker kon deelneem.
Gefedereerde State van Mikronesië: Hierdie eilandgroep in die Stille Oseaan het in 1986 van die VSA onafhanklikheid verkry en het ’n bevolking van 107,862. Met ’n Afrikanerspan sou hulle maklik aan die Wêreldbeker kon deelneem.
Saint Lucia: ’n Karibbiese eiland wat in 1979 onafhanklikheid van Brittanje verkry het. Hoewel hulle oor ’n bevolking van 170 649 beskik, is hulle nie lid van FIFA nie.
Hierdie lys is nie volledig nie, maar indien Afrikaner-diplomate met genoemde eilandvolkere kontak maak en hulle oorreed om namens hulle lande aan internasionale sport, waaronder veral sokker, deel te neem, mag ons die sportisolasie waaronder ons spelers tans met rasse- en taalkwotas verkeer, verbreek.
Dis nodig dat ons lateraal begin dink.
Israeli agents ‘helped Entebbe hijackers’
An extraordinary claim that Israeli intelligence may have had a hand in an airline hijacking before sending in commandos to rescue the hostages at Entebbe was made to the Foreign Office.
It came via David Colvin, the first secretary at the British embassy in Paris, according to a newly released National Archives file.
He heard it from a contact in the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association three days after the Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris was seized in mid-air by Palestinians and German terrorists on June 27, 1976.
Mr Colvin told his superiors that his source suggested that the attack was carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine with help from the Israeli Security Service, the Shin Bet.
It was designed to torpedo the rival Palestine Liberation Organisation’s standing in France and to prevent what they saw as a growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.
”My contact said that the PFLP had attracted all sorts of wild elements, some of whom had been planted by the Israelis,” Mr Colvin added. The message was received without comment by the Foreign Office but later officials recorded that a journalist from the Liverpool Post, Leo Murray, had also told them that a splinter group of PFLP was planning a series of spectacular incidents to disrupt contacts between the PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the US.
An official noted: ‘If, as Mr Murray’s sources allege, the aim of the Entebbe hijacking was to prevent the development of relations between Arafat and the West, and Arafat knew this, it would provide another motive for Arafat’s recent approach to the French in Cairo warning us of further attacks.”
Most of the file is taken up with Foreign Office attempts to distance itself from the Israeli raid while privately admitting that the Israelis were probably justified in sending their troops into President Idi Amin’s Uganda.
Frank Wheeler, the first secretary, reported that there was abundant evidence of Ugandan collaboration with the hijackers. Palestinians had been brought from Mogadishu in President Amin’s private jet to join the hijackers, according to the file.
Swiss propose Holocaust conference
Switzerland’s foreign minister proposed in December that her government host a conference on varying perspectives on the Holocaust. The participants would include the Jewish state of Israel, and the country whose president has denied the attempted genocide ever happened, Iran.
The details of the plan emerged this week in the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche, which claimed to obtain minutes from a meeting between Micheline Calmy-Rey and Iran’s deputy foreign minister on December 21. The Iranians had just made world headlines after hosting a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran that featured neo-Nazis and ex-Klansmen, such as David Duke.
Die Weltwoche reported in the piece that Ms. Calmy-Rey said through a spokesman that she had told her Iranian interlocutor she believed the Holocaust was a historical fact.
The statement did not satisfy the New York-based Anti-Defamation League. Yesterday, its national director, Abraham Foxman, who is a survivor of the Holocaust, said the Swiss government owed his fellow survivors an apology.
"We are outraged that the Swiss government could have pitched the idea of a seminar on the Holocaust to, of all countries, Iran," he said.
Help Zimbabwe weer opbou
Blair in SA
Tony Blair het gister ’n beroep op die internasionale gemeenskap gedoen om finansieel by te dra om ’n ”vernietigde” Zimbabwe weer op te bou. Tydens ’n toespraak in Pretoria het Blair verder sy regering se steun uitgespreek vir Thabo Mbeki se bemiddeling tussen die Mugabe-regering en die Zimbabwiese opposisie.
Blair het daarop gewys dat dekades van onderdrukking ’n derde van die Zimbabwiese bevolking die land laat verlaat het. Hy het ook genoem dat die lewensverwagting in Zimbabwe van 60 in 1990 tot 37 in 2006 gedaal het en dat Suid-Afrika 3% van sy BBP weens die ekonomiese agteruitgang in sy buurland kwyt is.
Die internasionale gemeenskap moet die land weer help opbou. “Die wêreld wag en wil weer betrokke raak by ’n Zimbabwiese regering wat hervormings deurvoer,“ het hy gesê.
Net twee dae tevore het minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma egter die Suid-Afrikaanse parlement toegespreek en gesê dat Suid-Afrika nie drastiese aksie teen Zimbabwe beoog nie.
Intussen reken ’n lid van die Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) dat Zimbabwe se inflasiekoers nou al 10 000% verbygesteek het.
Eddie Cross, wat ’n bakkery in Bulawayo bestuur en die MDC se ekonomiese segsman is, baseer hierdie persentasie op wat hy in sy eie besigheid ervaar. In sy nuusbrief, wat op 30 Mei uitgestuur is, vertel hy onder andere dat sy personeel onlangs ’n 100% verhoging ontvang het, maar dat dit steeds nie hulle basiese lewenskoste dek nie. Hy was genoodsaak om hulle ook van kos te begin voorsien, want hulle kon nie meer hulle gesinne aan die lewe hou nie. Hy moet verder deesdae 600 km ry om sy meelvoorraad te gaan haal. Petrol word tans vir 45 000 Zimbabwiese dollar per liter verkoop. Die plaaslike geldeenheid verhandel teen 50 000 Zimbabwiese dollar teen 1 Amerikaanse dollar. Cross reken dat pryse met ongeveer 20% per dag styg.
Volgens Cross is ’n humanitêre krisis aan’t opbou in die land en word die lewens van miljoene mense bedreig. Baie Zimbabwiërs bly tans aan die lewe danksy skenkings wat hulle van familielede in die diaspora ontvang. Hy reken dat sowat 4.5 miljoen volwasse Zimbabwiërs hulle tans in die buiteland bevind. Dit is dalk al wat die land nog min of meer stabiel hou, meen hy.