Of little consequence

Not since the inconsequential presidential debates have words of so little consequence been spoken by a person of such international power: "My attitude is I want him to be here so long as I'm the president.''

These were the words of Mr Bush today [1] and of little consequence indeed. One small detail that Mr Bush is missing is this: Mr Bush does not vote in Britain. His preferences are of little consequence in the minds of the British voters. And the British voters are quite fed-up with Mr Blair as it were. His standings in the polls are the lowest ever. There are calls circulating even within Labour for Mr Blair to pack it and move out and on. Yet, Mr Bush thought it diplomatically and politically wise to utter such futile words - smacking of arrogance one may add.

There seems to be no end to this man's delusions of grandeur. Nowhere in the annals of modern history has a leader got it in his mind to express such a misplaced notion in such a public arena. Mr Churchill did not call on the USA to keep President Roosevelt in office for a fourth term, or Mr George H. Bush on the British to keep Mrs Thatcher.

The line of blunders from this president of the USA leaves one wondering if it can get any worse. But then, one should be careful with such thoughts, as history has shown us.

Apartheid: Deja vu

On 2 November 1917, Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild in which he conveyed the decision by the British government to support the formation of a Jewish homeland in the British mandate of Palestine [1].

An important sentence read as follows: "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,"

In 2002, Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, had this to say about the British handling of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century: "The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis — again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one". Indeed.

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the US Congress, with a certain confidence that could only be found in the surprising support from the US for a state that is blatantly practising Apartheid. It has been repeatedly expressed by Israeli leaders that the aim of drawing the borders of Israel - unilaterally if needed – is to ensure a Jewish majority. It is building a wall - called a security fence - between itself and Palestinian areas. From 1948 until 1994, the South African Nationalist government attempted to form a country with borders that would ensure a white majority. The world condemned it and pressured it into submission.

Such double standards leave one dumbstruck. Today, institutionalised discrimination against Arab people living in Israel is documented [2] by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International [3]. Endless hardship is visited upon thousands of Palestinian people having to live under occupation since 1967.

The very formation of the State of Israel is fraught with mishandling and blatant land grab. Invoking visions of mystical proportions, such as “this is our promised land given to us by God”, Europeans of Jewish culture suddenly stepped forward as a Jewish “nation” and migrated into Palestine at a tremendous rate between 1917 and 1948 [4].

The conflict that ensued is understandable if regrettable. Wherever there is unfair treatment and competition for land, there is potential for conflict. The pandering of the West to Israeli sentiments and whims only fuels the arrogance with which the current Israeli government approaches the situation. The shadow of the Holocaust is ever ready to be let out of the bottle whenever the Zionist lobby groups detect any sign of opposition. It is shameful how the tragic lot of millions of Europeans can be abused for the socio-political goals of the modern Jewish culture. Even worse is the blatant neglect regarding consistency in the opposition to Apartheid schemes across the board when it comes to Israel.

Deja vu: One would have thought that those who suffered discrimination of the worse kind would know better not to inflict discrimination and cruelty onto the indigenous on their doorsteps.

The Zuma in the bonnet

The current affairs of South Africa can hardly get more loaded with anticipation than this weekend. The bee in the bonnet is Jacob Zuma [1,2], until recently the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa (SA) and likely candidate for the next presidency of SA. However, President Mbeki dismissed Mr Zuma from his post last year on allegations of fraud while Minister of Defence. Mr Zuma is also standing trial on rape charges of which the verdict is expected this coming week [3].

One could argue that lifting the bonnet would reveal a beehive rather than a bee: The ANC is in turmoil. The ruling party had always been heralded as the leading resistance movement against Apartheid in SA and turned itself into a political party shortly before the 1994 elections that changed the system in SA. Its success was clear in 1994 and its future, undoubted. Today, the ANC is still basking in the glory of the earlier resistance, expecting loyalty of traditional supporters and riding a rather tired horse towards the horizon. What lies ahead is less clear today than in 1994.

However, Mr Zuma represents a much older strive than the one between blacks and whites in SA. Mr Zuma is of the Zulu nation, a proud and historically successful black nation of Nguni ethnic origin. About the time of the first conflict between white Europeans and black Bantu tribes along the southeast coast of southern Africa, there was regional conflict between Zulu and Xhosa, another nation of Nguni origin. Historically, during the 19^th century, the Zulu nation had the upper hand in battles with surrounding nations, including the Xhosa. All of that changed with the intervention of white people in southern Africa.

The white-black conflict of the 19th century, which ended in white domination and suppression of traditional, black political strategies, suspended much of the traditional Zulu-Xhosa conflicts [4,5]. Some argue that white rulers exploited these conflicts to their advantage. The British annexed Natal as a colony in the 19th century and imposed their rule . During the 1970's and 1980's, the government of SA contrived homelands for black people and created separate homelands for Xhosa people and Zulu people, which kept the peace for most of it and served mostly white political goals.

During the final years of Apartheid in SA, the conflicts re-emerged along modern, current political lines with regional violence amongst supporters of the ANC, dominated by Xhosa members and the IFP, a majority Zulu party, transformed from another former resistance movement. The ANC had been banned until shortly before 1994 and turned into a political party once legalised. The IFP, which in the 70's distanced itself from the ANC after an initial alliance, had been tolerated by the political system of Apartheid, as a black party allowed under the system of homelands contrived by the National Party of SA in the 1970's. Then came the build-up to the 1994 milestone and the spears were out.

Prior to 1994, the manoeuvring of black political and ethnic groupings in SA had been focussed upon overthrowing the old system in SA. Closing in on 1994, the stakes changed and were also raised: Who would ultimately govern the new South Africa, if indeed one would arise. One cannot fail to catch a whiff of a certain ethnic undercurrent in the ANC with a Xhosa, Nelson Mandela, as leader in a predominantly Xhosa top-structure. In his book, The Long Road to Freedom, Mr Mandela denied that the ANC was a Xhosa organisation. Yet, it strikes one as odd that he once had to face a question from a black man as to why he only spoke to Xhosa? Consequently, Mr Mandela saw it fit to make changes to the top structure of the ANC so as to incorporate a non-Xhosa person.

Onto this stage wafted Mr Zuma, a Zulu, with strong support from the black youth and the Zulu contingent of the ANC. The undercurrent came out in the rape trial of Mr Zuma, in which some supporters chanted pro-Zulu racist remarks outside the courthouse.

There has been constant rumour over tensions between Mr Mbeki and Mr Zuma, vehemently denied by the ANC leadership [6]. There has been even mention of a possible plot against Mr Zuma, a point raised in his defence by his lawyer in the rape trial. But on the other hand, Mr Zuma seems to have become his own demise. His statements during his rape trial smacked of a person with a outdated, sexist view, ill-informed on simple facts about HIV even though he was once leading the government HIV commission. More seriously, there is the upcoming fraud trial against Mr Zuma in three month's time. Yet, Mr Zuma has impressive curriculum vitae [7].

The courts will decide. Is Mr Zuma innocent or is he a mere criminal? Has Mr Zuma been framed or has he become a victim of his own devices. More importantly, will SA reach another milestone by displaying proper separation between government and the judiciary?

But letting that bee out of the bonnet will not remove the beehive. The ANC is under pressure from within [8]. It is accused of not delivering services to the poor in SA. It is said to be turning into a club for elitist black power wielders. It is facing an ethnic upsurge from Zulu members. When that beehive erupts, there will be a rather bigger buzz than the current zoom. For the sake of democracy in SA, it might be good to have a split in a party that has completely dominated the political scene since 1994 and now sits with 66% of the seats in the lower house of Parliament. But how we manage that split will be our next major milestone.

Skeletons and witch hunts

Last Thursday, 27 April, South Africa commemorated the change in 1994 to a new constitution, new government and general suffrage for all South Africans. Lofty speeches and all those proper things and then came this one from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: White people often do not appreciate the extent of the grace and forgiveness shown to them by the black people of South Africa [BBC News]. The implication was that white people somehow keep things business as usual while the black community has to make do with what they have.

Some white people took offence to his remarks. One of them, the last white president and Nobel laureate, FW de Klerk, spoke out stating that black people should more appreciate the fact that white people surrendered power and continued enormously to contribute to the wealth of South Africa. In an article published in a South African Sunday newspaper, Mr de Klerk defended the last white government against some of the latest allegations. Earlier in an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Mr de Klerk had remarked that many white South African were feeling increasingly alienated [FW Foundation] in their own country by some actions of the government.

All the above posturing has to do with some stormy clouds of an impending witch hunt that have raised their ominous heads over the plains of South Africa. There have been calls to investigate previous presidents, including Mr de Klerk and Mr P.W. Botha and their members of government for corruption. In stark contrast, Mr Nelson Mandela lauded Mr de Klerk this past weekend for his courage in leading white South Africa towards change. Still, somewhere in some closets there are a few skeletons that may just come out clattering upon opening.

The true destiny and prospects of South Africa are as ever still in the balance. There are strong undercurrents of potentially devastating turmoil under the surface of apparent growth and stability. The spectre of a meltdown is much less than 10 years ago. However, there are signs of building unrest and pressure from within the black community for a lack of real improvement in their daily living conditions. And there is still some resentment over the past that had not been buried, only postponed - mostly because of Mr Mandela's calming influence. But his time is in its twilight and after him, who knows?