Al Jazeera English – Jacob Zuma, the South African president, has said his government will roll out life-prolonging anti-retroviral drugs to “significantly more people” infected with Aids from next year.

In a speech marking World Aids Day on Tuesday, Zuma compared the fight against Aids to the decades-long struggle against the apartheid government.

Zuma said: “At another moment in our history, in another context, the liberation movement observed that the time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight.

“That time has now come in our struggle to overcome Aids. Let us declare now, as we declared then, that we shall not submit.”

South Africa has the largest population of HIV-infected people in the world, and the previous government was heavily criticised for its passive efforts to fight the virus.

‘No more shame’

“Let there be no more shame, no more blame, no more discrimination and no more stigma. Let the politicisation and endless debates about HIV and Aids stop,” Zuma told a cheering crowd in Pretoria.

The new strategy include anti-retroviral drugs to all children under one year if they test positive and expanded treatment for pregnant women with Aids.

Before his speech, Zuma won praise from the United Nations for his approach to fighting Aids.

Michel Sidibe, the head of the UN Aids programme, who was in South Africa to mark World Aids Day, said on Monday that Zuma was “committed to making change happen”.

Zuma’s plans received a further boost from the United States, which promised $120m to support South Africa’s efforts to fight the virus in response to a request from Zuma’s government.

Zuma’s administration has set a target of providing 80 per cent of Aids patients with drugs by 2011.

But reports of shortages of Aids treatment drugs, known as ARVs, at some South African clinics have raised questions about whether the government has the money and the capacity for a massive rollout.

Zuma did not give details of how the government would fund the increased rollout of drugs but said all health institutions in the country would be ready to receive and assist patients with treatment and testing facilities.

Policy change

Zuma’s policies mark a shift from those of Thabo Mbeki, his predecessor, and Mbeki’s health minister, who promoted betroot and garlic treatments rather than distributing Aids drugs.

In some ways, Zuma is an unlikely champion for Aids activists.

In 2006, while being tried on charges of raping an HIV-positive woman, he was ridiculed for testifying that he took a shower after sex to lower the risk of Aids.

He was acquitted of rape.

Al Jazeera’s Haru Mutasa, reporting from Johannesburg, said Zuma’s policies are revolutionary for the country.

“Zuma will unveil a plan that will help his people live longer and target more HIV positive people on anti-retroviral drugs.

“Under the new conditions more people can get treatment earlier before they are too sick - this is a revolutionary turnaround from when Mbeki was president.

“Zuma says the era of denying a link between HIV and aids is now in the past. The country wants to move forward and the aim now is to stop as many young people as possible from dying of the disease,” she said.

An estimated 5.7 million of South Africa’s 50-million population are infected with HIV, the virus that causes Aids. Nearly 1,000 South Africans die every day of Aids-related diseases.

A study from the US university of Harvard has concluded that more than 300,000 premature deaths in South Africa could have been prevented had officials here acted sooner to provide drug treatments to Aids patients and to prevent pregnant women with HIV from passing the virus to their children.

About 33 million people worldwide are living with HIV/Aids and there are 2.7 million new cases each year.

• Congo massacre witnesses were threatened [AP]
• UN chief urges new election date for Cote d’Ivoire [China News]
• Education not Execution: Uganda’s Defilement problem [Independent]
• Did Mbeki really support, for a while at least, the Equatorial Guinea coup attempt? [The Daily Maverick]
• Israel announces plans to limit West Bank construction for 10 months [LA Times]
• Burma engagement offers false hopes [Sydney Morning Herald]
• Indonesian government may allow mining in protected forests [The Jakarta Post]
• Haiti: UN troops shoot again [World War 4 Report]
• Blood Oil [VF]

From the NYTimes: On Friday, President Obama announced that he would be signing legislation to end the 22-year travel ban the United States has maintained against HIV-positive individuals, and “a rule canceling the ban would be published on Monday and would take effect after a routine 60-day waiting period.” The President’s enactment of this campaign promise is a completion of a process begun by George W. Bush, but never completed.

Aside from the restriction of travel limitations, the ban’s end will have other important consequences. Foreigners applying for U.S. residency will no longer need to take an HIV test as part of their application process. International AIDS conferences will be possible within the United States. Since the ban’s enactment, “no major international conference on the AIDS epidemic has been held in the United States since 1990.”

For more information, please the New York Times, the Washington Post, or Fox News articles.

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a body established in 2004 to oversee the state’s constitutionally-mandated stem cell research efforts, awarded over $49 million in grants to three researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles Broad Stem Cell Research Center. To learn more, please see the article in the LA Headlines Examiner.

Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, has taken a vocal stand in the fight against HIV/AIDS in his country — marking a strong departure from the administration of Thabo Mbeki, who questioned the efficacy of HIV medications as well as the link between HIV infection and the development of AIDS. The new Zuma administration — both government and health ministry — is actively encouraging South Africans to be tested for HIV, to know their status, and to take steps to protect themselves from infection or to seek treatment if they are HIV-positive. For more information on the Zuma efforts to publicize correct and reliable information on HIV/AIDS, please see the New York Times article.

-Until There’s A Cure

President Jacob Zuma, on radio this morning, said that to win the fight against crime we must amend some of our laws; that you can’t fight corruption when you have to suspend on full pay the people so charged; that you can’t grant bail to dangerous criminals who immediately go out and intimidate witnesses.

Amen to that.

President Zuma, in the first one hundred days of his presidency, has surprised a lot of people. He is growing in stature and in the confidence index of observers both here and abroad. He shows by personal commitment — as in his unannounced visit to the mayor of Balfour whom he caught out in a compromised situation — that he means business.

President Zuma’s style of leadership is as different from former President Mbeki’s as day is from night. He is not aloof and he doesn’t surround himself with yes-men. Expected to appoint to his cabinet friends and cronies, he did no such thing; he appointed, instead, people who know what they are doing.

Slowly, slowly, justification is growing for (cautious) optimism that the changes President Zuma is ringing will be positive and permanent, and that some day South Africa will be a land people will want to bring up their children in.

South Africa should scrap its drive to give black people a slice of the white-dominated economy because it stifles growth and spurs corruption, the brother of the country’s former president said on Friday.

Political commentator, entrepreneur, journalist and critic of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), Moeletsi Mbeki believes the affirmative action policies championed by his brother Thabo have entrenched the rich-poor divide in Africa’s biggest economy and could lead to an explosion of violence.

MOELETSI MBEKI

“If you made me president of South Africa, the first thing I would do would be to scrap everything to do with black economic empowerment [BEE],” Mbeki told Reuters in an interview following the publication of his book on economic policy in Africa, Architects of Poverty.

“If we keep going with these policies, the question is what will collapse first, BEE or the economy, or the country?”

As part of a push to right the wrongs of apartheid and give blacks a stake of the economy, South Africa requires firms to meet quotas on black ownership, employment and procurement.

The government argues its policy offsets the racism of the past and stimulates the economy by creating a black middle class hungry for its own homes, cars and designer clothes.

But the cracks are beginning to show. Several black empowerment deals have collapsed as the global crisis has caused the value of shares used as collateral to fall, and critics argue the drive has enriched a small black elite while doing nothing to boost South Africa’s economy.

Mbeki (63) goes further. He says the policy entrenches the country’s shocking economic inequalities by creating a culture of cronyism and entitlement that discourages black entrepreneurship and education, keeping millions in poverty.

“BEE tells blacks — ‘you don’t have to build your own business, you don’t have to take risk, the whites will give you a job and shares in their company’,” he said.

“I blame the ANC for buying into this story that instead of blacks working hard … they should be given a free ride.”

Corruption
Mbeki, who worked as a journalist and trade unionist before starting his own construction, media and agriculture firms, also argues that black empowerment has encouraged corruption, with lawmakers reportedly rigging tenders to benefit associates.

He says white “business oligarchs” are complicit because they use the policy to keep a few members of the black elite happy while still dominating the economy 15 years after the fall of apartheid.

South Africa’s new president, Jacob Zuma, himself the target of a corruption case until it was dropped on a technicality just before the election that brought him to power in April, has vowed to tackle graft but has no plans to ditch empowerment.

Mbeki argues that unless South Africa axes the policy in favour of a broader skills development drive, South Africa’s underclass, crammed into vast settlements of rickety shacks with no water or electricity, will balloon and eventually turn on the elite.

Rampant levels of crime and last year’s attacks on foreigners in the townships are warning signs, he said.

Asked if he discussed black empowerment with Thabo before he was ousted as president by the ANC last year, Mbeki laughed: “No, he was the driver of these policies,” he said. “My brother knows I have been opposing this for some time, but this is what he decided to do.” — Reuters

To go or not to go? Sitting I’m my book heavy office, the email confirming all the details, date, time and venue creeps up my mail box. All the information to get me prepared to meet Mr Thabo Mbeki…to go or not to go…

Three hours, just for me? Well perhaps I’ll go to the bathroom and see how I look like; I have to look perfect you know. I have to make an impression. My cheeks are a bit pink from the cold, but they certainly add a bit of personality to my blank face.

Ok, ok, I’ll  go, I’ll go see our former President, hear what he has to say for himself.         Why not, after all I will have something to write about…my date with MR Thabo Mbeki…has a nice ring to it…hope Zanele doesn’t mind…

I have always admired Mr Mbeki’s lack of charisma, here his glass is always empty. Alright alright…perhaps I’ll put on a bit of lip gloss so that the words can slide out of my mouth, “hello Mr Former President, I have been expecting you”…

The DATE!!!

Ok I change my mind…Mbeki totally bowled me over; he is a charmer of note! My rosy cheeks turned bright red when he began talking about Africanisism and how we should try finding African solutions for African problems…oh boy…that man’s got swag! No wonder he was named Gucci boy!

His prose  is very eloquent and intentional, dramatic in an alluring manner. Full of stories, I could listen to him the whole day…but I don’t have all day! So the 3hours is all I could spare for Mbeki.

So I decided to take a friend along to my date, we arrived slightly late to what seemed like thousands of people waiting to see him, were they not told that he was here to see me? Flip to make matters worse, they have locked the doors to our venue and dam it, now I can’t get in! Not to worry, VIP always gets in through the back. So my mate and I leave the masses behind and head for Mr Mbeki’s head of security person- he instantly warms up to us (not really) “Hello Ladies, were have you been?” (lol not quiet) but the point of it all is that we were escorted into the venue by the head of security. When we arrived inside, I was rather upset that  there were other people there, this almost spoilt my date…then I remembered…sharing is caring, after all what’s an ex president between friends?

Date posted: 13 May 2009
Source: SACSIS

On 14 May 2009 the Constitutional Court will hear the attempt by the shack dweller’s movement Abahlali baseMjondolo to have the KwaZulu-Natal Slums Act declared unlawful. Other provinces have been mandated to develop similar legislation and the decision of the court may have a significant impact on the future of our cities.
Thabo Mbeki’s government built a lot of houses. But this does not mean that we have been building democratic and inclusive cities. On the contrary it is a major mistake to assume that the resolution of the crisis in our cities is a simple question of building houses. We should recall that the apartheid state built a lot of houses and that around the world authoritarian regimes, like the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, have often built a lot of houses.

In fact Lindiwe Sisulu, Mbeki’s Housing Minister, left the state’s housing programme in a catastrophic mess. The Breaking New Ground Policy, officially adopted in 2004, recommends democratic engagement with communities with a view to upgrading settlements where they are. It has never been implemented. The constitution protects unlawful occupiers of land against summary eviction but the state is the primary perpetrator of systematically unlawful evictions. The state’s actions are, in strict legal terms, routinely criminal.

Both policy and law have been ignored in favour of an increasingly authoritarian discourse around eliminating or eradicating slums. This has led to a deliberate reduction in the provision of basic services to shack settlements, often unlawful and violent evictions, and forced removals to out of town housing developments and prison like ‘transit camps’. Evictions leave people destitute and bereft of community, expulsion from the cities takes people away from work and schools and the reduction of basic services like electricity, toilets and water actively subjects people to relentless fires and the loss of children to something as easily avoidable as diarrhoea.

One of the many pernicious consequences of the slum clearance discourse is that the government ends up measuring its progress on the resolution of the urban crisis via two metrics the first being the reduction in the number of shacks. So if, as often happens, only half the residents of a settlement are accommodated in a new housing development and the rest are left homeless as their settlement is razed the state will measure that as progress. The other way that progress is measured is by the number of people moved into state controlled spaces. This is problematic enough given the well known fact that a well located shack is often much better for people than a poorly located government house. But in a perverse Orwellian move some municipalities are compounding the damage done and turning the urban question into a numbers game by calling the new and deservedly notorious transit camps, or even tents, ‘housing opportunities.’  So even when people are forced out of shacks and into transit camps against their will, and at gunpoint, the statistics will simply show that they have ‘accessed a housing opportunity’.

It is unsurprising that this technocratic approach to development, an approach that is incapable of measuring the human consequences of state action, has been subject to sustained resistance. Shack dwellers across the country, some organised into movements and others acting independently, have been blocking roads, marching on councillors and, on the rare occasions when they can access the judicial system, taking the government to court. Entirely legal forms of protest have often been responded to with unlawful state repression.

The Slums Act, passed into law in 2007, is an attempt to give legal sanction to the turn to an outrightly authoritarian and anti-poor response to the crisis of our cities. It has direct connections to similar colonial and apartheid legislation, like the 1951 Prevention of Squatting Act. It compels municipalities and private land owners to evict, gives legal sanction to the notorious transit camps and criminalises shack dwellers’ movements. It assumes that shack settlements, rather than the material and political realities that give rise to shack settlements, are the problem and so, rather than seeking to reduce injustice, it attacks ordinary people’s attempts to survive in an unjust society. Shack dweller’s organisations across the country and across the political spectrum have emphatically rejected the Slums Act. People have been beaten, shot at with rubber bullets and arrested while marching against it.

In his study of the rise of capitalism in England Karl Marx called the legislation aimed at controlling peasants who had moved into the cities after being forced off the land ‘bloody legislation against the expropriated’. The Slums Act is certainly not as blood thirsty as the laws of the English Kings that rained down beatings, whippings, brandings, enslavement, imprisonment and execution on people forced into vagabondage after the enclosure of their land. But it does demand that state violence be directed against the dispossessed. It is legislation against the expropriated. Its function is, quite clearly, to martial state and private force against the poor in order to reassert the absolute control of the state and capital over urban planning and urban land use.

There are currently no grounds for optimism that Zuma’s government will seek a more just and democratic resolution of the urban crisis than that imagined by Mbeki. On the contrary the ANC’s Polokwane Resolutions actively endorse the extension of the Slums Act to other provinces.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The state could, along with meaningful and pro-poor rural land reform, actively support the efforts of poor people to hold their ground in our cities. It could, for instance, attempt to actually implement the Breaking New Ground policy. Or it could take a larger step forward and, following examples in Brazil and the Philippines, implement measures to put the social value of urban land before its commercial value.

Grassroots activists will be making their way to the Constitutional Court for the hearing on 14 May from shacks settlements around Johannesburg as well as Durban and Cape Town. We will have to wait and see how the court decides to measure their humanity. We will also have to wait and see how it decides to weigh that humanity against the demand for legislation that can only, when it comes down to the practicalities of sending out the men with guns to banish the poor from our cities, be a bloody business.

I once shoved my inquisitive younger brother Clement, to discourage him from prying into my things. It was at the farm village of Osara where we stayed briefly as children. He looked at me sharply with his face covered in pain. That expression of agony had been etched into my consciousness. The pain was a reflection of me. I was the personification of the fleeting agony. It was a shame. This image came to me again recently when a friend sent me his review of one of my writings. It was as if he held out a mirror enabling me to catch a glimpse of how I presented. He warned me against bigotry saying it was animal. There would be a debate on whether such an assertion is not itself bigoted. But I reflected over the immense benefit of his criticism. Mandela, as a parting advice of a wise old predecessor, had warned Mbeki his much younger successor, not to be afraid of criticism.

Certainly, like any man, I have weak points and it is also in the process of being evaluated, reviewed and criticised that I can keep up with the struggle of continuous improvement. Everyman is admonished to carefully examine himself before he attempts to teach his neighbour. One of my fervent wishes in sharing my impressions is that I too may be a keen listener of my own speech. I am reminded, nonetheless, to be careful about the impact my words and actions may have on others. Truth can certainly not be trampled nor traded and the severity of love cannot permit us to mince words in an imminent danger. It is important even so to keep sight of the love that must motivate and permeate all our endeavours.

Love is primordial. It is the sustaining pole upon which the whole of creation is hoisted. The flap and flutters are permitted only in love. That which is motivated by love cannot be prejudiced. There is no man to condemn; there is everyman to redeem. Condemnation is Luciferian. It is a principle that says if you cannot overcome temptations, then you are unworthy and must sink. Redemption recognises the inherent spark of light that can shine to shed off the shreds of unworthiness and soar. Man has the freewill to take the first positive step and the noble forces of nature will bond to bring in his objective. The love of the neighbour as oneself, irrespective of whoever or whatever he is, attests to the fact that whatever a man does to another man he does resolutely in the exact same reality to himself. Whether or not this is clear to him is immaterial. It is the swing of the laws. But progress is much faster when he consciously accompanies his every step and action with nothing but love. With his dying breath, Mahatma Gandhi blessed his assassin. It is ignorance and lack of enlightenment that would make hatred well up within a man against another man. ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do’, are the quoted words of Christ in reference to his murderers.

As a practical step towards loving the neighbour as oneself, we are asked to identify someone we love most genuinely and for whom we can surmount all obstacles, and then deliberately extend that exact love to the whole of humanity.

South Africa is preparing to swear in Jacob Zuma, leader of the African National Congress, as president. Nearly 30 heads of state will join an expected crowd of 30,000 at the Union Buildings in Pretoria for the ceremony.

Security is tight with streets around the Union Buildings – the president’s office – closed to traffic. Analysts say Mr. Zuma, 67, brings a populist touch to the presidency, ensuring a very different leadership to that of Thabo Mbeki.
Another questionable era starts for South Africa but then again anything after Mbeki will be better!

Jacob Zuma - President of South Africa

An Enigmatic Leader

When Thabo Mbeki, the former President of South Africa, called on African National Congress President Jacob Zuma to congratulate him on the recent landslide victory it became clear who the new boss was. A lot of tension had prevailed between the two African leaders, including corruption allegations, and now, with Zuma taking power tomorrow, history will be altered and the future will be very different.

Mbeki and Zuma were friends but as the saying goes, ‘there are no friends or enemies in politics’, Mbeki is accused of trying to end Zuma’s political career. But in the end, Zuma not only defeated Mbeki in ANC but also has secured the presidential seat for himself.

Zuma, 63, has never received any formal education and was just 17 years old when he joined the ANC. He had to face a lot of struggle to reach where he stands today. His life has been a rollercoaster ride–from serving jail-term and to being exiled; he has been there done that–as he started from humble beginnings to become the president of the most prosperous African nation.

Zuma lost his deputy president chair and had to resign from the parliament in 2005 after Schabir Shaik’s conviction on corruption charges. Shaik had served as his financial advisor and was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in jail. The legal battles didn’t seem to end for Zuma just yet, he was also charged with raping an HIV-positive friend. Later, he was acquitted of all his charges and the last of the cases was dropped a few weeks back. During his trial in the rape case he replied that he had showered to prevent HIV infection. The irony is he was head of the National AIDS Council at the time. He is still being ridiculed for the statement.

It is also interesting to note that Zuma has been married four times and is the father of 18 children. He still has two wives. Although polygamy is allowed in South Africa, like any other country during the elections, questions were raised about his character and personal life.

Another issue which has been doing the rounds is regarding Zuma’s Left connection. A lifelong member of the South African Communist Party, he was also in the Politburo for a short period. The business fraternity is worried about trade unions troubling them. The Left would like to have a say in matters due to their past support and also for future. It has already stated its desire to induct two of its leaders in the cabinet.

“We will work with all stakeholders, especially business and labour, to find ways to prevent and cushion our people against job losses and other difficulties that may arise,” said Zuma in his victory speech.

Zuma fought the elections on promises to expand the country’s social safety net, provide more employment, fight crime and establish a national health insurance scheme. The ANC got the required votes and it’s time to shake up the economy and the boost public sentiment. During his election campaign Zuma repeatedly announced to fire lazy and incompetent public servants. In spite of all pitfalls and crab-pull-crab politics, Jacob Zuma has ensured the last laugh is his.

So what makes him so popular?

Many say it’s his open and down to earth nature. “There are plenty of politicians who have mistresses and children who they hide so as to pretend they’re monogamous. I prefer to be open. I love my wives and I’m proud of my children,” he once cleared in a television interview.

Despite being in controversy and the media crying murder every time Zuma sneezes, his family and friends have stood by him. His first wife Gertrude Sizakele Khumalo waited for over 10 years while he was in jailed in Robben Island and again for 14 years while he was exiled. Such dedication must have something to do with Zuma’s magnetic appeal. He is popular among the masses due to his simplicity and his bashing of Mbeki’s administration which did not benefit the ordinary South Africans. Zuma is known to sing songs and dance while delivering speeches and the audience gives him company. His rallies feature the popular Zulu anthem Umshini wami or Bring Me My Machine Gun from the apartheid era.

There are those, who agree that Zuma is mysterious and warm. He is full of humour and it might seem that he doesn’t take issues seriously. After ANC was on its way to victory Zuma dressed in a bomber jacket was seen celebrating and dancing on the stage outside the party headquarters. He manages to smile and laugh whenever he feels like. His dancing and the shower incident has given the media a lot to fill their pages against him, but at the end of the day Zuma still remains an enigma to those who meet him. He has this art of escaping tricky questions, which he might have learnt early during his agitation days. He sounds simple, but people around him know that Jacob Zuma is a man of secrecy. Nothing seems to have the power to clinch away his smile. A cattle-raiser’s son, Zuma has managed his way successfully through a very difficult phase in African history to make a comeback. It’s time we wait and watch what secret ingredient Zuma has for the ailing African nation.

Reauters Blog : Can Zuma live up to his expectations? 

By Barry Malone, Reuters, Saturday, May 2, 2009

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – An African Union (AU) panel plans to meet the International Criminal Court (ICC) despite AU opposition to a warrant of arrest for Sudan’s president, former South African President Thabo Mbeki said on Saturday.

“We are in contact with the prosecutor and have agreed that we would find an occasion as soon as possible for us to sit and meet with him face to face,” Mbeki said in Ethiopia.

He said he could not yet say what the panel would recommend to the ICC, but that they would also discuss issues of “justice.”

The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for President Omar el Bashir to face charges of alleged war crimes carried out during almost six years of fighting in Sudan’s violent west, but he has refused to deal with the court.

Read More.

mnr.muller blog oor die redes waarom hy happy is met Zuma.  Self kon ek nog nie meegesleur word met al die wittes se besware oor Zuma nie; miskien omdat ek, een van enkele wittes, saam met 150 of wat zulus werk en ek heeldag die “ander kant” se storie hoor.  Self dink ek hy moet ‘n kans gegee word.  Hy is dalk net beter as uhmbedjie; niemand sal ooit madiba klop nie.

En oor die wapenskandaal – ek wil nog sien wie het nie gescore uit daardie deal nie?  Om een of ander rede dink ek almal was skuldig.  Hoekom target hulle net ‘n paar.  In elk geval, sover ek weet, is daar oral sulke kickbacks beskikbaar; in die ou bedeling, onder maatskappye, in ander lande.  Maar hier by ons, is dit die oersonde.

Nee wat, kom ons vergeet die verlede en kyk hoe lei msholozi ons.  Hy’t in elk geval ‘n baie sterk ondersteunings team rondom hom.

Pinch me, somebody, I must be dreaming! Those were the words that burst from my lips upon reading the following lines this morning:

Quoting unidentified South African diplomatic sources, the London Times writes that Jacob Zuma “has already indicated that president Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, who has been charged by the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, will not be welcome at his inauguration on May 9, and that he could even risk arrest and deportation to The Hague.”

The Australian writes that “the heads of state of four other states with ‘undemocratic’ leaders — those from Madagascar, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau and Guinea — were also told to stay away from the ceremony.”

If this shift in foreign policy is to characterise the Zuma government’s performance going forward, then we can confidently say that the ANC has indeed turned the page on the Mbeki era and all it stood for.

During Thabo Mbeki’s presidency, South Africa supported and protected some of the worst despots, tyrants, and human rights violators on the African continent and around the globe.

While South Africa was a temporary member of the United Nations Security Council, the country’s diplomats tried everything to suspend or delay the International Criminal Court’s case against the Sudanese president for the war crimes in Darfur. They didn’t mind the 200,000 dead and millions displaced in the Darfur conflict since 2003, which many analysts and aid organizations label one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world.

Similarly, during its two years at the Security Council, South Africa has voted against imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe despite the unthinkable crisis and ruthless dictatorship of Robert Mugabe.

During the negotiations to end the crisis in Zimbabwe, many saw Mbeki as too soft on Robert Mugabe, thus prolonging the suffering of millions. While members of the opposition were being killed in Zimbabwe, Thabo Mbeki held Mugabe’s hand on TV and claimed there was no crisis in Zimbabwe whatsoever.

The whole world, in 1994, was aglow with Rainbow Nation fever. We had resolved, without bloodshed, a situation that had seemed beyond peaceful resolve. Leaders of opposing factions in other areas of conflict sought our wise council. If problems of such great magnitude as ours could be resolved peacefully, then there was hope for them too, if we would only show them the way.

Then came the Mbeki era and the dream was shown to be a cruel illusion. Mismanagement of every facet of governance, save for the economy, brought the country to its knees. The crime rate rose to be the worst in the world; one after the other, state utilities crumbled into decay; corruption was the order of the day; rolling power blackouts, euphemistically called “load-shedding” turned the country into an international embarrassment, investors told to stay away until 2014 at the earliest.

All the while the Jacob Zuma corruption issue raged back and forth: there would be a trial—no there wouldn’t. The judiciary was under unprecedented threat from the rowdy behaviour of Zuma supporters, Julius Maleme at the forefront beating his war drum. Things were going crazy and anarchy, Zimbabwe style, loomed.

Then the NPA dropped charges against Jacob Zuma and the rumpus fell quiet. Now the election is behind and in a few days Jacob Zuma will be inaugurated President of the Republic of South Africa. And what lies ahead for the country? That is the question on many lips.

All Jacob Zuma’s pronouncements leading up to the election have been responsible and boding well for the future. His government would tackle the thorny issue of corruption, ineptitude and non-performance in state utilities. He coined the phrase: the slow walkers, whom he promised to show the door to.

And now, after the election, when vote-getting is no longer an issue, there is this report that “the new South African government under Jacob Zuma will not tolerate African dictators, tyrants, and alleged war criminals”. This is a great step towards bringing democracy and peace to this continent.

Pinch me, somebody, I must be dreaming!

A week or so ago I posted the  Z-News clip of Mbeki doing I will survive.  The full pilot has recently been posted to Zoopy and you can watch it right now below.

Some of it very funny, other stuff with enough potential to make you cry out that they be allowed to continue down this path…but sadly the show has been rotting in SABC basement for the last year and a bit.  Sies! (Mind you, word on the street is that the SABC is pretty much bankrupt and there are a long list of debtors and other artists/camera people and so on waiting to be paid, so who knows…)

But give it a burn, see what you think, and you can gooi comments here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Z-NEWS-powered-by-Zapiro/68129900560

I got this from Hot Air, it’s pretty funny.

That there are people out there that actually believe all this stuff is, in my opinion, a bit sad. I’m not going to go into detail on the atheism vs religion debate right now, but I do want to pass on one opinion of mine.

There is a huge conflict between evolution vs creationism/intelligent design, and the notion of global warming as a threat. In both cases, sober science practised by scientists who play by the rules are getting worked against or just plainly bullied by public or popular opinion of the masses.

The ones who believe in the theory of intelligent design and want to prove it can’t pass academic rigour. What do they do instead then? They turn to mass media and try to ‘prove’ their theory by turning popular opinion against the more established theory of evolution. This has been fairly succesful in the United States, even to the point that some Texas lawmaker wants to accredit an institution that teaches these alternate theories. It is disturbing to think that politics can influence or otherwise dictate what is science and what is not, what theory we should consider closer to the truth than another one. Doesn’t Copernicus ring a bell to these people?

The fact is that modern science, as developed during the renaissance with the formation of the scientific method, is not democratic. It’s not. It simply isn’t. Modern science is not democratic in the sense that the dominant opinion or will of every person can not determine consensus on theories. The opinion of a three year old on intelligent design obviously doesn’t count, and neither does a thirty year old who never took biology in high school. Even PhD’s in economics or nordic mythology don’t have much of a say. Of the total population of the world, only a tiny minority of qualified academics in the relevant field of study have a right to determine the consensus on scientific theories, such as the theory of gravitation, of relativity and of evolution. If they didn’t, we would still think the Earth is the center of the world, that there are only four elements, that there’s no America’s, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and etc.

The current consensus in the scientific community is that the theory of intelligent design is a piece of rubbish. And the (non-)scientists who propagate intelligent design should just accept that, and try to reformulate or improve their theory instead of spreading it to uninformed masses in order to put political pressure to the government to ‘accept’ the value of the current incarnation of creationism.

Now with global warming, the situation is a bit different. There is considerable support from the scientific community as well as popular opinion that global warming is a fact, and is a threat to the world if it is allowed to occur unopposed. The problem here is that there is such a fanatical belief in global warming, that dissenting opinions are being oppressed and bullied. Even openly questioning global warming could ruin the career of a scientist in some circles. Those who hypothesize that global warming is caused by the sun, that it’s part of a natural cycle in a larger timeframe, or that it’s somehow not man-made face considerable pressure to stop their research.

Proper scientific inquiry is being oppressed, again another case where the scientific method is being hindered. Those who play by the rules should be allowed to continue their research unopposed. If their results are inconclusive or their guesses proven wrong, then the theory of global warming is strengthened. On the other hand, if they somehow find some critical deviation, it should be looked into further to verify it and to adapt the theory of global warming if proven right. Blindly believing in global warming, to the point of turning it into a religion, will not serve the truth.

Science is a game of winning and losing, of convincing and pursuading, of eat or be eaten. The survival of the fittest theory should be allowed to occur unobstructed. Articially advancing a theory that wouldn’t survive in the scientific wilderness, as in the case of intelligent design, will give non-intellectuals a significant opening to further other weak theories as truth. On the other hand, artificially protecting what seems to be the strongest theory in the jungle from every credible threat, large or small, will turn the theory into a religion where you don’t even need to prove your assumptions.

The most striking example where politics and opinion stepped in the way of science is AIDS in South Africa. Even though the country was suffering from large amounts of HIV infections and that the connection between AIDS and HIV has been proven, effective counter-measures against the lethal disease have not been taken until very recently. For years, an AIDS denialist had been allowed to be the Minister of Health of South Africa, and went against scientific consensus on AIDS, even going as far as to have ”advocated a diet of garlic, olive oil and lemon to cure the disease.” Just because the scientific community may not have many blacks, doesn’t mean it is out to ruin anybody or any country. Also, as an elected representative of his country, President Mbeki (who appointed the controversial minister) has a responsibility to act in the interest of his citizens, and not merely to advance his personal opinions to the detriment of the health of the population. That President Mbeki has been allowed to let this play so long is a symptom of a defunctional democracy in South Africa, but that’s a story for another time.

Jacob Zuma is currently the President of the ANC, the ruling party in South Africa.  On Thabo Mbeki’s resignation from the State Presidency in 2008, Kgalema Motlanthe was promoted to State President, however, there can be no doubt who wears the trousers.  The caretaker or his heir apparent?  The heir – just as long as he choses to wear them.

As President of the ANC, JZ is considered a certainty for State President after the December 2009 elections as the ANC far out populates the opposition.  

Awaiting Nike sponsorship - JZ

In 1942, Jacob Zuma or “JZ” was born.  The son of a policeman he received no formal schooling.

Did these two factors help shape his persona during his formative years? Did they influence his attitude to the law or help or hinder him in his stint as “Chief of Intelligence Department for the ANC”?  Sadly we are never likely to know.

A populist and a firm favourite with both the trade union body Cosatu and the Communist Party of South Africa, JZ can often be seen singing and dancing for his people. His rendition of Lethu Mshini Wami or, “Bring me my machine gun” is a firm favourite with JZ and crowds alike.  For those who thought that the pace of transformation was too slow under Thabo Mbeki’s reign – it’s sure to speed up with the threat of gunfire in the air.

In May 2006 JZ attended court on rape charges that were later dismissed. It was alleged that he had raped the daughter of one of his dead comrades.

– Whom he knew to be HIV positive.

– Whilst he was head of the National AIDS Council.

JZ said in court thst he had taken a shower afterwards to reduce the risk of contracting the disease.

– As Pronto Condoms later said in an advertising campaign, “Prevent AIDS – take a shower, Save water – use a condom.”

As we are all aware, water is a valuable resource in any Sub-Saharan African country, JZ, like some African Al Gore, seems keenly aware of the  environmental concerns of the continent.  

However, the rape case court date was not his first and was never likely to be his last day in court.  He is still due to stand trial on charges of racketeering, money laundering, corruption and fraud connected to a 1998 Arms deal but at tale for another time. 

Back at Bates, I am the publicist for Amandla! – the black students’ union on campus. Due to this seemingly minor connection to one half of an anti-apartheid chant, a certain magazine I noticed in Muizenberg stood out to me.

The magazine Amandla! is a left wing publication that operates out of South Africa. I leafed through it and decided that it would be a really great opportunity if I was able to work with them during my semester in Cape Town. I emailed the editors and within a couple of days I received a call to come in and discuss a temporary role I could have at the magazine. The discussion was more of a brainstorming session with a photojournalist and one of the radio DJs on staff about how we could tie our different forms of reporting together. While I was a bit intimidated at first, I was able to chime in when I discovered something relavent to say. It was interesting because so much of the conversation was geared towards South African politics; the upcoming election and the recent split of the most dominant political party (ANC). It’s a shame I don’t know much about either. But, once I figure out my class schedule and uncover a productive role and point of view I can have on behalf of the publication, Mark (one of the editors) said I could write an article or two for the book – perhaps a comparative look at Cape Tonian infrastructure. At the very least, I am really excited to learn more about the political directions of South Africa. One of the best things about working with Amandla! might be their resource center, a large shed of recorded histories, publications, etc.

While I’d like to think that it was my incessant charm and intelligence that hooked me up with this great group, I’m pretty sure the fact that I am a part of a group that shares its name with the publication didn’t hurt much. Not to mention the other groups on and off Bates’ campus that I’ve been able to work with (The Student, Outright L/A, etc.)

I am really excited about this, it’s a solid mixture of my two favorite things: writing and fighting for equality. I cannot wait to learn more about the struggles an triumphs of this country. I feel like these learnings will provide a layer of understanding about struggles in the U.S. and put into perspective inequities all of the world. There are a lot of opportunities (in and around the University of Cape Town) to help those in need. Unfortunately, before I can try and dismantle debilitating infrastructure, I have to attend UCT orientation and register for classes. Easy, Action – one step at a time.

Peace and then some,

Naima

Robert Mugabe, the embattled Zimabwean despot, has no intention of relinquishing power. He’s even said as much. And this is merely confirmed by the ongoing abduction, incarceration and torture of opposition activists and a bloody-minded refusal to share key ministries in the proposed unity government.

The SADC (Southern African Development Community) is only too aware of the Zanu PF agenda – and this makes its efforts to force the opposition MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) into a government in which it will be no more than a junior partner all the more chilling. The SADC is using the unity government as a legitimising mechanism to keep Zanu PF in power. It knows that it needs the  MDC to provide Zanu PF with a veneer of democratic respectability. But this is not what Zimbabwe’s long-suffering people chose at the ballot almost a year ago.

Yet again the SADC has refused to acknowledge the manifestation of the Zimbabwean people’s democratic will – but this is hardly surprising when SADC observer missions sunnily declared successive Zimbabwean elections “free and fair” – despite overwhelming displays of Zanu PF-sponsored intimidation and rigging.

Indeed, the SADC’s track record has shown that African leaders are incapable of resolving the Zimbabwe crisis. Not because they aren’t able to – but because they do not want to. Why? Simply because our region’s leaders are not democrats. Most share the belief that liberation movements have a divine right to rule, plunder and pillage their respective fiefdoms. Lip-service is paid to democracy and transparency provided such concepts do not challenge postcolonial ruling elites.

When Zimbabwe’s groundswell of democratic opposition to Zanu PF was met with brutal repression, Southern African leaders (with one or two pitiful exceptions) either spoke in support of Mugabe or remained shamefully silent. As Zimbabwe descended into a maelstrom of economic devastation and oppression, both quiet diplomacy and Mbeki’s mediation proved spectacularly successful in propping up Mugabe’s contemptible regime. South Africa has even adopted a proactive approach, working tirelessly to prevent the Zimbabwean tragedy from being discussed in the UN Security Council.

Tsvangarai and his party should treat the SADC – and its brazenly partisan mediation efforts – with the contempt it deserves.

As I have suggested before, an interim government must be installed by the United Nations. This government, staffed by non-political technocrats, can handle humanitarian operations to ensure the rollout food supplies and healthcare countrywide as well as the operation of essential services many of which are at a standstill.

The UN must demobilise the security and army, and provide a “peacekeeper” contingent of soldiers and police to ensure safety and security.

And then, some time next year, proper elections must be held – free and fair elections implemented and monitored by the international community.

Zimbabwe deserves nothing less.

Firstly I have to applaud the ANC (African National Congress) for once they didn’t give names to Judges, as we all know what they’ve been saying in the past whenever a court ruled against them. This time around they gave the judges the respect that they deserve and ‘accepted’ the ruling; I wish I could say the same for Jacob Zuma who might be contesting the outcome.

Based on SCA ruling which I find to be pretty professional leaving no room for questions as the judges focussed squarely on their job and not the SA politics therefore leaving no room for accusations and less room for grounds to appeal the ruling.

Firstly the 5 Judges made clear (through the mouth of Judge Harms) their displeasure at the political comments made by Judge Nicholson when he delivered his ruling which went against the NPA for charging Jacob Zuma without affording him an opportunity to make representations. The judges made it clear that the matter that was brought before Judge Nicholson did not require political nosiness, “he (Judge Nicholson) took his eyes off the ball and red carded not only the players but the spectators” as well. Judge Harms further added that “Judgement by Ambush is not permitted” that is, findings based on “unconfirmed newspaper speculations” in the process overstepping the limits of the “court below” therefore “transgressing the proper boundaries” between executive and judiciary. These matters are not matters of law. They are purely political questions. “Whether or not one agrees with the judges sentiments is of no consequence, …the point is that those personal sentiments … were unwarranted.”

Secondly their ruling on Thabo Mbeki’s request to be part of the case (The application to join as an Amicus Curiae) was “refused”.

The judges made it clear that the ruling had nothing to do with whether Jacob Zuma is guilty or not but has to do with a procedure that is, did Zuma have a right to make representations before being charged. In this matter the judges ruled in the NPA’s favour thereby clearing the way for NPA to continue with its charges against Jacob Zuma.

There’s a perception that NPA is expected to recharge Jacob Zuma, this is not right because the case against Jacob Zuma was not withdrawn but set aside, this means that Jacob Zuma is still charged and that automatically the parties should be setting a date to meet, where they will be discussing a mutual date to got to court (subject to Jacob Zuma not appealing the 5 Judges’ ruling).

What are the options for Jacob Zuma?

Firstly he can appeal the ruling at Constitutional court, however at this point I don’t think the court will rule otherwise (but I’m not legal expert).

Secondly he may negotiate a settlement with NPA; this I believe will include a jail sentence considering that the NPA also wants to prove a point.

A very long short will be to win the elections with a 2/3 majority and change the constitution to not allow a seating president to be prosecuted.

As for the option of a permanent stay in prosecution a friend had this to say,

I don’t think a permanent stay of prosecution is the answer. You need to understand that we have a Constitution to protect here. South Africa is country that prides itself on the values as enshrined in the Constitution. We cannot let Zuma go simply because we are afraid of what his supporters will do. If we are going to let Zuma go we will be sending a wrong information not only to other people accused of crime but to the world and that will do wonders for our economy. We cannot be intimidated by a bunch of people who think they can run a country like they run their households. You may say this is not realistic but just think of the effect this will have on us. The eyes are on us, everyone is waiting to see the outcome of this thing. They can fight and even kill people, it will still not change the fact that Zuma (must be brought to book). We cannot have people thinking they are above the law. If the prosecution is stayed, then this [is] exactly what will be happening. Read the full 155 page judgement click here

If you’re a woman, be glad you don’t live in South Africa:

Mr Mbeki , South Africa’s president, has questioned the validity of the rape statistics provided by the South African police force. The statistic is one woman raped every twenty-six seconds.

One rape every twenty-six seconds, means 2.3 rapes per minute. This equals 138 rapes per hour, 3312 per day, roughly 99,360 per month and 1,192,320 per year. These figures now become bewildering. When we factor in the figure that only one in every thirty-six rape cases is reported, it becomes incomprehensible. The South African police cannot explain how they arrived at this figure of 1 out of 36. Now another figure, 1 rape every 12 minutes, is used.

Source