The nominations for the leadership of the African National Congress are on. Within two weeks, the nation and the world will know who will lead the majority party in parliament. More important, this person is most likely to become the next president of the Republic of South Africa after the elections in 2008. It is fair to say that there is a lot at stake.
The scope for suspense would have been less were it not for the dubious list of nominees. For one, the current leader of the party, President Mbeki, cannot stand again for president of the country at the end of his current term. The constitution prohibits him from doing so, even if he would be re-elected as the leader of his party. And all signs are that he will be running for leader of the party, since he accepted the party's nomination earlier today. But Mr. Mbeki is at the end of both his tenure and his political yarn. His leadership of the party while not president of the country would lead to all sorts of contentious clashes.
But there is more cause for concern. The most likely candidate at this stage to become the next president of South Africa is the controversial Mr. Jacob Zuma. Now here is a man of the people - a truly populist leader. He has little formal education, comes from a poor background and appeals to the poor masses of which South Africa has many on the voters lists across the country. But he is also a man with a record.
In 2005 a case of fraud against Mr. Zuma was struck from the court roll but by then he had been dismissed already as Deputy President of South Africa. By 2006, another case against Mr. Zuma, this time of rape, was decided in his favour by the court. More damaging were the evidence brought before the court by Mr. Zuma during his defence. In particular, he came across as chauvinist; of questionable moral standards and entirely not well informed or educated.
Quite frankly, Mr. Zuma does not strike the figure of a typical, well-groomed presidential candidate in a modern, largely westernised country. Rather, Mr. Zuma comes across very much a man in the Boris Yeltsin mould. And as we know from history, under Yeltsin, Russia fell apart, was being ransacked by unscrupulous oligarchs and came to the brink of bankruptcy.
One dearly hopes that the same lot that befell Russia in the 1990's is not in stock for South Africa over the next five to ten years, which will be the maximum tenure of the next president of South Africa.
04 December 2007
02 December 2007
Annapolis: Apartheid Reloaded
The mantra rang out from the stage at Annapolis all of last week: Two states, living side by side, in peace and security. It sounded as soppy as a corporate slogan. Forty hopeful nations had endorsed the conference between Israel and representatives of the Palestinian regions.
In true form, grand speeches were made too. A speech by Mr. Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, put things into proper perspective rather well, when he said: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
It is extraordinary what capacity for double standards can befall mankind. Take the perilous dilemma of Palestine for example. Here we are sixty years on from that fateful day in 1947 when about 600000 European refugees, claiming Jewish culture and ancestry, and fleeing severe persecution in Europe before and during the War, unilaterally declared an independent state amidst the indignant natives of Palestine. Unable and unwilling to do much else, the UN clumsily acknowledged the State of Israel. In the sixty years of suffering that followed, it all seems to have come down to separating Jewish and non-Jewish in order to preserve socio-political majority for those who are Jewish. That policy has a name: Apartheid.
In 1948, the then recently elected National Party of South Africa embarked on a policy intended to create independent homelands or states for the various African ethnic groups while ensuring numeric supremacy for ethnic groups of European descent in the remainder of South Africa. It was called Apartheid. A major component of the policy was fear.
The majority of South Africans of European ancestry, many of whose ancestors fled religious persecution and economic hardship, feared that their culture and values would be overrun by the numerically overwhelming native African population, were all to be included in the same political and therefore, voting system. South Africa could not be both democratic and European in culture. As in Israel, the policy of ethnic separation was often brutal and brought immeasurable hardship to those finding themselves at the sharp end of the policy. However, the world fast began to react with increasing vehemence against the South African government, because of the unfairness of that policy.
According to Newsmax, a conservative new letter, Prime Minister Olmert, a hard-liner earlier in his career, in recent years has repeatedly warned that Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza. Fair enough, yet Newsmax; Mr Olmert and his Western supporters seem to miss the point that the creation of Israel was undemocratic in its entirety. Jewish people in all of Palestine, including Israel, cannot hold on to a state with Jewish numeric supremacy without contradicting democracy and human rights as understood in the civilised world of today.
So last week in Annapolis, the main protagonists gathered in an attempt to start again towards a solution that would appear fair, democratic and bring an end to seemingly endless regional strive. But all the time, the premise of the whole affair was rotten. One cannot pluck out of the blue an independent state for a gathering of European refugees in territory that has never legally belonged to them. Such a policy has a name: Colonisation. It was abandoned everywhere else by the civilised world during the 20th century. Religion, myth and legend do not constitute international law, no matter how many old men in black robes and hats wiggle to chanting in places high and holy.
What then is to be done? It would be wise not to make matters worse. Acknowledge to the Palestinian people the grotesque unfairness of 1947 and beyond; hear their plight and pain; put all hopes, wishes and fears on the table and pray for wisdom before taking even one more decision. If religion could shine any light on this dilemma it should be that love fears not. And love can turn an enemy into a brother, even a half-brother. And brothers can live side by side within the same borders: One state in peace and security.
In true form, grand speeches were made too. A speech by Mr. Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, put things into proper perspective rather well, when he said: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."
It is extraordinary what capacity for double standards can befall mankind. Take the perilous dilemma of Palestine for example. Here we are sixty years on from that fateful day in 1947 when about 600000 European refugees, claiming Jewish culture and ancestry, and fleeing severe persecution in Europe before and during the War, unilaterally declared an independent state amidst the indignant natives of Palestine. Unable and unwilling to do much else, the UN clumsily acknowledged the State of Israel. In the sixty years of suffering that followed, it all seems to have come down to separating Jewish and non-Jewish in order to preserve socio-political majority for those who are Jewish. That policy has a name: Apartheid.
In 1948, the then recently elected National Party of South Africa embarked on a policy intended to create independent homelands or states for the various African ethnic groups while ensuring numeric supremacy for ethnic groups of European descent in the remainder of South Africa. It was called Apartheid. A major component of the policy was fear.
The majority of South Africans of European ancestry, many of whose ancestors fled religious persecution and economic hardship, feared that their culture and values would be overrun by the numerically overwhelming native African population, were all to be included in the same political and therefore, voting system. South Africa could not be both democratic and European in culture. As in Israel, the policy of ethnic separation was often brutal and brought immeasurable hardship to those finding themselves at the sharp end of the policy. However, the world fast began to react with increasing vehemence against the South African government, because of the unfairness of that policy.
According to Newsmax, a conservative new letter, Prime Minister Olmert, a hard-liner earlier in his career, in recent years has repeatedly warned that Israel cannot remain both Jewish and democratic if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza. Fair enough, yet Newsmax; Mr Olmert and his Western supporters seem to miss the point that the creation of Israel was undemocratic in its entirety. Jewish people in all of Palestine, including Israel, cannot hold on to a state with Jewish numeric supremacy without contradicting democracy and human rights as understood in the civilised world of today.
So last week in Annapolis, the main protagonists gathered in an attempt to start again towards a solution that would appear fair, democratic and bring an end to seemingly endless regional strive. But all the time, the premise of the whole affair was rotten. One cannot pluck out of the blue an independent state for a gathering of European refugees in territory that has never legally belonged to them. Such a policy has a name: Colonisation. It was abandoned everywhere else by the civilised world during the 20th century. Religion, myth and legend do not constitute international law, no matter how many old men in black robes and hats wiggle to chanting in places high and holy.
What then is to be done? It would be wise not to make matters worse. Acknowledge to the Palestinian people the grotesque unfairness of 1947 and beyond; hear their plight and pain; put all hopes, wishes and fears on the table and pray for wisdom before taking even one more decision. If religion could shine any light on this dilemma it should be that love fears not. And love can turn an enemy into a brother, even a half-brother. And brothers can live side by side within the same borders: One state in peace and security.
26 November 2007
Annapolis: Promise or poo
Let's face it: The Palestinian conflict is the most intractable political dilemma of the past 100 years - a quagmire of religious and ethnic narratives without equal. It is also the worst case of mishandled international politics of the past 100 years. Some say the conflict is as old as human history in that part of the world, but things really went off the track with the decision by the UN in 1947 to create the State of Israel - part fall-out of the brutal Second World War and part a casualty of the crumbling British Empire, of which the Mandate of Palestine had been part until 1947.
The history of Palestine is complicated and convoluted and has changed ownership many times over the centuries. Depending on who's narrative one chooses to believe, the history of Palestine can be traced back to the days of Abraham, mentioned in the Christian Bible, certain Jewish scriptures as well as the Islamic Koran. At the time, various tribes lived in what is Palestine and Israel today. Gradually, the Hebrew tribes became dominant in the region in between being pillaged by invading empires.
The early days of the Hebrew tribes were prime examples of genocide and imperialism, well recorded in substantial gore in the Christian Old Testament. The escapades of Joshua was a particularly grim example of conquered tribes being slaughtered without mercy - man, woman and child. Of course, the religious spin of the day and even of today, was that all of that horror was part of God's promise unfolding for His chosen people.
After the Assyrian and Persian conquests, respectively, Palestine came under Greek rule. Not long after, local squabbles over dynasty among Jewish inhabitants led to the Romans taking charge. But glory never lasts forever. The Byzantine Empire seated in Constantinople took over the reigns from an unravelling Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the faith of Islam was established by the man now revered by Muslims as the prophet Mohammed. It was not long before the Byzantine Empire gave way to Arab Caliphate rule. For a period Muslim and Jew lived together on one piece of land. But such peace as there was could not last. Trust religion to throw a spanner into the works. It was time for the Christian Crusades - in ninefold during the 11th to 13th centuries.
Eventually, support for the Crusades dwindled and their rule over Palestine (mostly Jerusalem) came to an end. For a brief period the Mamluk ruled Palestine. It was not long before the Ottoman Empire filled the void and became the next empire to run Palestine until Britain finally gained a mandate over the region in a settlement with the Ottomans at the end of the First World War. By now a firm promise was on the table from the British government for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, without prejudice against natives of other ethnicity in the region.
What followed was a steady influx to Palestine of mostly Europeans, claiming Jewish descent by virtue of their cultural disposition. From the foregoing history, it is clearly a long shot for any 20th century European immigrant to Palestine to claim direct lineage to Hebrews of Biblical days. Natives of Palestine of the time had much stronger claim to the land by virtue of their immediate forefathers in the region.
Yet, after the horrors of the Second World War, in which millions of Europeans died in the Jewish genocide, there were strong emotional and moral arguments for the creation of a Jewish state outside Europe. Palestine seemed the ideal candidate. Britain was in a financial fix after the war and her empire was fast eroding. As soon as ethnic conflict in Palestine erupted between the new European immigrants and natives, the Palestine mandate became a hot potato for the Brits. At the first opportunity Britain dropped it and allowed a half-baked division of Palestine to become a unilateral declaration of independence by the Jewish Europeans. The State of Israel was born as if by caesarian. The world was suddenly perched on the verge of an abyss. What followed has been decades of war, strive, oppression and separation.
This week, the world turns its weary eyes on Annapolis in Maryland, USA. Some see promise of a turning point in the ongoing dilemma that is Palestine. But the odds are stacked against such promise. The opposing narratives have bred fear, anger and unyielding demands. For many the situation is up to the nose in political poo. But has not been the history of Palestine just that since the dawn of time: Plenty of promise ending in a pool of political poo?
The history of Palestine is complicated and convoluted and has changed ownership many times over the centuries. Depending on who's narrative one chooses to believe, the history of Palestine can be traced back to the days of Abraham, mentioned in the Christian Bible, certain Jewish scriptures as well as the Islamic Koran. At the time, various tribes lived in what is Palestine and Israel today. Gradually, the Hebrew tribes became dominant in the region in between being pillaged by invading empires.
The early days of the Hebrew tribes were prime examples of genocide and imperialism, well recorded in substantial gore in the Christian Old Testament. The escapades of Joshua was a particularly grim example of conquered tribes being slaughtered without mercy - man, woman and child. Of course, the religious spin of the day and even of today, was that all of that horror was part of God's promise unfolding for His chosen people.
After the Assyrian and Persian conquests, respectively, Palestine came under Greek rule. Not long after, local squabbles over dynasty among Jewish inhabitants led to the Romans taking charge. But glory never lasts forever. The Byzantine Empire seated in Constantinople took over the reigns from an unravelling Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the faith of Islam was established by the man now revered by Muslims as the prophet Mohammed. It was not long before the Byzantine Empire gave way to Arab Caliphate rule. For a period Muslim and Jew lived together on one piece of land. But such peace as there was could not last. Trust religion to throw a spanner into the works. It was time for the Christian Crusades - in ninefold during the 11th to 13th centuries.
Eventually, support for the Crusades dwindled and their rule over Palestine (mostly Jerusalem) came to an end. For a brief period the Mamluk ruled Palestine. It was not long before the Ottoman Empire filled the void and became the next empire to run Palestine until Britain finally gained a mandate over the region in a settlement with the Ottomans at the end of the First World War. By now a firm promise was on the table from the British government for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, without prejudice against natives of other ethnicity in the region.
What followed was a steady influx to Palestine of mostly Europeans, claiming Jewish descent by virtue of their cultural disposition. From the foregoing history, it is clearly a long shot for any 20th century European immigrant to Palestine to claim direct lineage to Hebrews of Biblical days. Natives of Palestine of the time had much stronger claim to the land by virtue of their immediate forefathers in the region.
Yet, after the horrors of the Second World War, in which millions of Europeans died in the Jewish genocide, there were strong emotional and moral arguments for the creation of a Jewish state outside Europe. Palestine seemed the ideal candidate. Britain was in a financial fix after the war and her empire was fast eroding. As soon as ethnic conflict in Palestine erupted between the new European immigrants and natives, the Palestine mandate became a hot potato for the Brits. At the first opportunity Britain dropped it and allowed a half-baked division of Palestine to become a unilateral declaration of independence by the Jewish Europeans. The State of Israel was born as if by caesarian. The world was suddenly perched on the verge of an abyss. What followed has been decades of war, strive, oppression and separation.
This week, the world turns its weary eyes on Annapolis in Maryland, USA. Some see promise of a turning point in the ongoing dilemma that is Palestine. But the odds are stacked against such promise. The opposing narratives have bred fear, anger and unyielding demands. For many the situation is up to the nose in political poo. But has not been the history of Palestine just that since the dawn of time: Plenty of promise ending in a pool of political poo?
22 November 2007
Under friendly fire
Oh dear, it seems the US Administration and their intelligence services have an urgent position for a translator. Yet again the story line is changing after months of feeding the public fodder on where the real source of insurgency and mayhem in Iraq actually lies.
Without ever producing concrete evidence, the public was repeatedly to the point of hysteria fed rumours on how Iran was at the root of the deadly insurgency that was reigning terror in that already devastated country. Of course, such gossip and innuendo suited certain interest groups in the US and its allies in the Middle East.
However, now, according to the latest report in the NY Times, 60% of the past year's insurgents came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, with 41% of the total of insurgents from Saudi Arabia alone. And this latest turn of tune comes from the proverbial horse's mouth: US military officials in Iraq who have uncovered documentation to that effect. So far, no Iranian combatants have been captured or otherwise found by the US forces in Iraq.
Besides the footwork over the statistics, the more pressing concern is over the simple detail that Saudi Arabia is supposedly an US ally in all of this. One wonders how Washington's spin machine is going to spin this one to suit their foreign policy and strategic interests in the region. Perhaps the recent change in tone from Riyadh has something to do with these bits of information making their way to the press at this point in time.
All we know is that all of the above take on the form of yet another casualty of friendly fire.
Without ever producing concrete evidence, the public was repeatedly to the point of hysteria fed rumours on how Iran was at the root of the deadly insurgency that was reigning terror in that already devastated country. Of course, such gossip and innuendo suited certain interest groups in the US and its allies in the Middle East.
However, now, according to the latest report in the NY Times, 60% of the past year's insurgents came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, with 41% of the total of insurgents from Saudi Arabia alone. And this latest turn of tune comes from the proverbial horse's mouth: US military officials in Iraq who have uncovered documentation to that effect. So far, no Iranian combatants have been captured or otherwise found by the US forces in Iraq.
Besides the footwork over the statistics, the more pressing concern is over the simple detail that Saudi Arabia is supposedly an US ally in all of this. One wonders how Washington's spin machine is going to spin this one to suit their foreign policy and strategic interests in the region. Perhaps the recent change in tone from Riyadh has something to do with these bits of information making their way to the press at this point in time.
All we know is that all of the above take on the form of yet another casualty of friendly fire.
09 November 2007
Tin soldier on maneouvers
It appears that Washington's tin soldier is on maneouvers in Islamabad. After two weeks of tumultuous rumblings all across Pakistan, Gen. Musharaf is looking increasingly like a cat on a hot tin roof. Pakistan is under martial law; normal activity, including political action, is under severe restrictions. Droves of political and social opponents of his military regime have been arrested; brutalised by state forces and generally oppressed. And now Washington seems to be preparing for a possible successor to the general. The plot seems to be souring.
Well, does not that scene ring a bell. Was it not Saddam Hussein who once was the useful dictator who served US regional interests in the Persian region until he became a little too big for his boots and started calling the shots? What a terrible slide was in store for Mr Hussein. The maneouvers went horribly wrong and so the US took most of their military over there to sort things out. Not quite - they have since got stuck there; the country is ransacked and things have taken a turn for the worse.
On the other side of the world there was once upon a time a certain Gen. Pinochet, a rather brutal chap as it turned out, who was most useful to US interests over there in containing the spread of communism in South America. But he reached shelf life soon enough and Chile has spent two decades since recovering from his exploits.
One wonders if the latest bad boy turned choir boy, the Colonel of Libya, will become the latest tin soldier in US International Enterprises Incorporated. For one, Col. Gaddafi is a rather enigmatic and mercurial character, more so than the rather straight-forward thug that was Hussein. Libya sits on quite a bit of oil - an increasingly rare commodity. Gaddafi will certainly play his hand carefully as well as play the harp of counter-terrorism, certain to strike the right cord with Washington.
Africa saw them ebb and flow: Gen. Mobuto Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, to name but two. All started out with lots of promise and noble goals. And the each time the maneouvers went south and dragged down the local population into pits of despair, war and tragedy. Each time the halls of Washington rang with chants of democracy and freedom to the foreign oppressed. But each time it was US regional interest that spelled the real intent.
In the Congo, it was ostentatiously about opposing Soviet expansion and, more sinister, about controlling the local diamond trade. In Angola, it went superficially over the big bad Soviet wolf, but under the covers, off-shore oil interests as well as the diamond trade - yet again - with both Washington and Pretoria in on the deal.
Oh, how sweet is the sound of freedom talk amidst the glitter of hundreds of carats in the vaults of New York; Amsterdam and Johannesburg, while the dull thuds of land mines abruptly tore off limbs of children in the far away bushes of Angola.
Well, does not that scene ring a bell. Was it not Saddam Hussein who once was the useful dictator who served US regional interests in the Persian region until he became a little too big for his boots and started calling the shots? What a terrible slide was in store for Mr Hussein. The maneouvers went horribly wrong and so the US took most of their military over there to sort things out. Not quite - they have since got stuck there; the country is ransacked and things have taken a turn for the worse.
On the other side of the world there was once upon a time a certain Gen. Pinochet, a rather brutal chap as it turned out, who was most useful to US interests over there in containing the spread of communism in South America. But he reached shelf life soon enough and Chile has spent two decades since recovering from his exploits.
One wonders if the latest bad boy turned choir boy, the Colonel of Libya, will become the latest tin soldier in US International Enterprises Incorporated. For one, Col. Gaddafi is a rather enigmatic and mercurial character, more so than the rather straight-forward thug that was Hussein. Libya sits on quite a bit of oil - an increasingly rare commodity. Gaddafi will certainly play his hand carefully as well as play the harp of counter-terrorism, certain to strike the right cord with Washington.
Africa saw them ebb and flow: Gen. Mobuto Sese Seko, Jonas Savimbi, to name but two. All started out with lots of promise and noble goals. And the each time the maneouvers went south and dragged down the local population into pits of despair, war and tragedy. Each time the halls of Washington rang with chants of democracy and freedom to the foreign oppressed. But each time it was US regional interest that spelled the real intent.
In the Congo, it was ostentatiously about opposing Soviet expansion and, more sinister, about controlling the local diamond trade. In Angola, it went superficially over the big bad Soviet wolf, but under the covers, off-shore oil interests as well as the diamond trade - yet again - with both Washington and Pretoria in on the deal.
Oh, how sweet is the sound of freedom talk amidst the glitter of hundreds of carats in the vaults of New York; Amsterdam and Johannesburg, while the dull thuds of land mines abruptly tore off limbs of children in the far away bushes of Angola.
25 October 2007
Space and the matter in between
Space. The final frontier...
Quite.
The edge of this universe is also the edge of space. Frankly, without the matter in between, there can be no space at all. Space is defined by matter. Actually, space is defined by energy. The notion that space, or space-time for that matter, is somehow a fabric in which mass is dispersed is a little far-fetched. Since space is expanding, it must have been a singularity once - with no space at all, no fabric either. Rather, the fabric of space is being woven by the expanding energy.
The matter in between space is quite something.
It was the year 1989. I was stationed in Pretoria at the South African Air Force Chief of Staff Logistics, doing my national military service. Since I had some time on hand serving God and country under duress of the law, I became fascinated with Schroedinger's wave equation. Well, Schroedinger's equation, as well as statistical thermodynamics that was taught at Master's level in Mechanical Engineering at the Stellenbosch University during my run up that ladder, made an intriguing pair. Threw in Einstein's E=mc^2 and one was tempted into wild thoughts over how all things were composed of the superposition of energy vibrations, a bit like a violin playing a note consisting of a base tone and harmonics.
What really poked my fancy was the perpetual discovery of new subatomic particles, all depending upon how an experiment was set up. It seemed that all these "particles" were hiding in E=mc^2, and realised as superimposed energy wave spectra, a bit like a set of Schroedinger waves superimposed on each other.
And then we had to content with Heisenberg and his frustratingly taunting uncertainty principle. Perhaps, this principle was only valid in the projection of a high-dimensional space onto the 3-D + t with which we had to make do. Perhaps, the universe was build up of ever higher dimensions like the complex plane on one axis and another dimension on the other of a Cartesian plane, recursively for several iterations.
I ran out of physics knowledge and mathematical steam long before my wild thoughts ran out. So, I tried to convince a physicist at the CSIR in Pretoria where I did my national service as an engineer. But she had little stomach for my silly ideas.
Shortly after, the father of a university friend of mine handed me a popular article on a possible fifth dimension to the universe, having heard my ideas on dimensionality of matter. It was interesting but a bit odd, not quite what I was contemplating. So, I buried my thoughts and only dusted them off at the odd gathering in a pub over several beers, but not too often lest I would never be joined in a pub ever again.
And then came the outburst of string theory - at least, it crossed into my awareness. A brother-in-arms during my Ph.D onslaught first mentioned the theory to me after one of my rambles. Interesting, I thought. Sounded familiar and infinitely more exact and elaborate than my musings of yesteryear.
Verily it is said in science: He who wins the race to the publisher, wins the prize.
Quite.
The edge of this universe is also the edge of space. Frankly, without the matter in between, there can be no space at all. Space is defined by matter. Actually, space is defined by energy. The notion that space, or space-time for that matter, is somehow a fabric in which mass is dispersed is a little far-fetched. Since space is expanding, it must have been a singularity once - with no space at all, no fabric either. Rather, the fabric of space is being woven by the expanding energy.
The matter in between space is quite something.
It was the year 1989. I was stationed in Pretoria at the South African Air Force Chief of Staff Logistics, doing my national military service. Since I had some time on hand serving God and country under duress of the law, I became fascinated with Schroedinger's wave equation. Well, Schroedinger's equation, as well as statistical thermodynamics that was taught at Master's level in Mechanical Engineering at the Stellenbosch University during my run up that ladder, made an intriguing pair. Threw in Einstein's E=mc^2 and one was tempted into wild thoughts over how all things were composed of the superposition of energy vibrations, a bit like a violin playing a note consisting of a base tone and harmonics.
What really poked my fancy was the perpetual discovery of new subatomic particles, all depending upon how an experiment was set up. It seemed that all these "particles" were hiding in E=mc^2, and realised as superimposed energy wave spectra, a bit like a set of Schroedinger waves superimposed on each other.
And then we had to content with Heisenberg and his frustratingly taunting uncertainty principle. Perhaps, this principle was only valid in the projection of a high-dimensional space onto the 3-D + t with which we had to make do. Perhaps, the universe was build up of ever higher dimensions like the complex plane on one axis and another dimension on the other of a Cartesian plane, recursively for several iterations.
I ran out of physics knowledge and mathematical steam long before my wild thoughts ran out. So, I tried to convince a physicist at the CSIR in Pretoria where I did my national service as an engineer. But she had little stomach for my silly ideas.
Shortly after, the father of a university friend of mine handed me a popular article on a possible fifth dimension to the universe, having heard my ideas on dimensionality of matter. It was interesting but a bit odd, not quite what I was contemplating. So, I buried my thoughts and only dusted them off at the odd gathering in a pub over several beers, but not too often lest I would never be joined in a pub ever again.
And then came the outburst of string theory - at least, it crossed into my awareness. A brother-in-arms during my Ph.D onslaught first mentioned the theory to me after one of my rambles. Interesting, I thought. Sounded familiar and infinitely more exact and elaborate than my musings of yesteryear.
Verily it is said in science: He who wins the race to the publisher, wins the prize.
12 October 2007
The tale of two tragedies
Life can be brutal. And human life is no different. Despite what the romantics and the poets may conjure about the beauty and lofty values of human life, history paints a grim picture. Indeed, in the past 100 years, recent human history recollects one massive genocide upon the next: Seven in all, according to UHRC. Yet, this posting is the tale of two tragedies amongst these seven, viz. the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the Jewish genocide in Germany.
Every human life is supposedly precious, yet it too often appears in practice that some are less equal than others. It should not matter whether 1000 or 100000 or even 1000000 died in brutal extermination - each such course of events is a tragedy, a ridicule of the very morals of humanity. Why then, does one group's genocide receive more prominence and awe than the others? Why is one genocide, the Jewish genocide of 1941 until 1945, a pivotal period and the other, the Armenian genocide only recently and barely acknowledged as genocide? What can explain the relentless roar that ensured the blatant land grab in Palestine by 500000 Europeans that became the State of Israel in 1948 in response to the Jewish genocide, whereas the Armenians lost to the Turkish nationalists all they had negotiated over the dead and broken bodies of their people with the Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 August 1920 by the Allied Powers. The world stood by while more than a million Armenians were brutalised in all manners.
On Thursday, the US Congress passed at last a resolution, non-binding, yet formally acknowledging the Armenian massacre as genocide - almost a century after the fact. And yet, the vote has since proven controversial. Turkey, a current ally of convenience for US expansionism in the Middle East, is expectedly outraged and metering out all sorts of threats against the US for taking such a noble if dismally belated stand.
On the other hand, besides the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, most of the world appear either prudently quiet or, more often, ostentatiously eager to chip in their bit in support of the perpetual invocation of the Jewish genocide for various aims and purposes. A relentless barrage of reparation claims of ever growing sums has been bolstering the coffers of the propped-up State of Israel since 1951.
Now, with the genocide resolution passed in Congress, will Armenians begin to see some reparations coming their way from Turkey? Will the UN take on the matter? Who will champion the course of the slaughtered Armenians? Will we see a Conference on Armenian Material Claims Against Turkey? Will Turkey oblige in humility as Germany has done since 1945 until this day?
Will we see epitaphs and mausoleums and yearly commemorations in Washington DC and Istanbul? Will it become immoral to deny the Armenian Genocide? Will a special term, such as Holocaust be coined for the Armenian Genocide? Will Hollywood turn out countless films in full gore over the details of the atrocities that tormented the Armenians from 1915 until 1918? Will we see archetypal Turkish caricatures as we have of Nazis whenever there is need of a quick laugh?
Or is the Armenian genocide an inconvenient truth and the Armenians simply not well enough connected in US society, business and government to ensure even fair justice for themselves?
Every human life is supposedly precious, yet it too often appears in practice that some are less equal than others. It should not matter whether 1000 or 100000 or even 1000000 died in brutal extermination - each such course of events is a tragedy, a ridicule of the very morals of humanity. Why then, does one group's genocide receive more prominence and awe than the others? Why is one genocide, the Jewish genocide of 1941 until 1945, a pivotal period and the other, the Armenian genocide only recently and barely acknowledged as genocide? What can explain the relentless roar that ensured the blatant land grab in Palestine by 500000 Europeans that became the State of Israel in 1948 in response to the Jewish genocide, whereas the Armenians lost to the Turkish nationalists all they had negotiated over the dead and broken bodies of their people with the Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 August 1920 by the Allied Powers. The world stood by while more than a million Armenians were brutalised in all manners.
On Thursday, the US Congress passed at last a resolution, non-binding, yet formally acknowledging the Armenian massacre as genocide - almost a century after the fact. And yet, the vote has since proven controversial. Turkey, a current ally of convenience for US expansionism in the Middle East, is expectedly outraged and metering out all sorts of threats against the US for taking such a noble if dismally belated stand.
On the other hand, besides the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, most of the world appear either prudently quiet or, more often, ostentatiously eager to chip in their bit in support of the perpetual invocation of the Jewish genocide for various aims and purposes. A relentless barrage of reparation claims of ever growing sums has been bolstering the coffers of the propped-up State of Israel since 1951.
Now, with the genocide resolution passed in Congress, will Armenians begin to see some reparations coming their way from Turkey? Will the UN take on the matter? Who will champion the course of the slaughtered Armenians? Will we see a Conference on Armenian Material Claims Against Turkey? Will Turkey oblige in humility as Germany has done since 1945 until this day?
Will we see epitaphs and mausoleums and yearly commemorations in Washington DC and Istanbul? Will it become immoral to deny the Armenian Genocide? Will a special term, such as Holocaust be coined for the Armenian Genocide? Will Hollywood turn out countless films in full gore over the details of the atrocities that tormented the Armenians from 1915 until 1918? Will we see archetypal Turkish caricatures as we have of Nazis whenever there is need of a quick laugh?
Or is the Armenian genocide an inconvenient truth and the Armenians simply not well enough connected in US society, business and government to ensure even fair justice for themselves?
27 September 2007
Picking a fight
One cannot help recalling old school ground tactics of those testosterone driven jocks pursuing the race to the top of the teenager pecking order: Picking a fight any which way they could; twisting every word, every action, in order to justify a dual. Such is the current, ongoing taunting between the US and Iranian governments.
This past week Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited the USA in order to address the UN General Assembly as well as to participate in a debate at the Columbia University, NY City. Acrid words were spoken by all sides. However, one can't help finding the words of the Iranian president rather more focussed at encouraging peace than those words of the various US responses.
In particular, the president of the Columbia University resorted to outright rudeness and unashamed bias in his opening address at a venue supposedly standing for academic objectivity and free speech. The first four points of the opening speech are subject matter for another discussion. Suffice it here to say that those four points exposed in glaring daylight the questionable standard of American academics at this point in time if the president of Columbia University were representing that standard.
In stark contrast, the remarks by the president of Iran were eloquent by comparison, a strong plea for the upholding of scientific objectivity and purity without submission to political or personal motives; desires and greed. His underlying message was one of worldwide brotherhood and mutual respect even if his answers to specific questions were often convoluted and indirect.
In the same week, the US Senate adopted a resolution calling for the classification of the Iranian elite forces as a terrorist organisation. Interesting, if that is the correct term, was the choice of argument leading to this resolution. In the resolution it was alleged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard, or elements thereof, was supporting factions in Iraq that opposed the US military endeavours in that country. Ironic how the current occupier and aggressor in Iraq would make such a claim. It is especially ironic since the disposed president Saddam had been supported militarily by the US during the 8 year war against Iran before the first invasion of Iraq by the US.
In a tit-for-tat, the Iranian parliament has declared the CIA a terrorist organisation.
The continuous picking around the edges of the nuclear issue while the IAEA has failed to find evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program and the Iranian president has clearly stated the rejection by Iran of nuclear weaponry, reminds strongly of the winding up against Iraq of hysteria before the current war there. The common denominator seems to be oil resources.
There is no lack of distortions and exaggerations regarding motives for all this posturing. Oppression and undermining of human rights don't quite cut the mustard. Saudi Arabia is not significantly less oppressive or autocratic than Iran. Yet, a cosy relationship of convenience has been struck between that regime and the West. One could say the same of China. So something really serious and frightening must be found or else fabricated if need be. There is nothing quite like a convenient nuclear program to whip up the neuroses. Of course, Pakistan with its military ruler-under-siege has a few of those for real and all in the West seem quite at ease with that. But then Pakistan does not quite have oil or any other resources except home-grown radical Islamists to wet the appetite for conquest.
It is hard to escape a sense of cynicism at such a display of self-interest and pragmatism in the rush to satisfy the ever increasing greed after resources. What remains now is to wait for the first punches to be planted. The school yard is preparing itself for the battle as everyone gathers around the protagonists for the show-down. Soon it will not matter who was right and who, wrong. Sides will be picked and the cheering will start. The winner's account will become history. Civilisation will take its course.
This past week Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited the USA in order to address the UN General Assembly as well as to participate in a debate at the Columbia University, NY City. Acrid words were spoken by all sides. However, one can't help finding the words of the Iranian president rather more focussed at encouraging peace than those words of the various US responses.
In particular, the president of the Columbia University resorted to outright rudeness and unashamed bias in his opening address at a venue supposedly standing for academic objectivity and free speech. The first four points of the opening speech are subject matter for another discussion. Suffice it here to say that those four points exposed in glaring daylight the questionable standard of American academics at this point in time if the president of Columbia University were representing that standard.
In stark contrast, the remarks by the president of Iran were eloquent by comparison, a strong plea for the upholding of scientific objectivity and purity without submission to political or personal motives; desires and greed. His underlying message was one of worldwide brotherhood and mutual respect even if his answers to specific questions were often convoluted and indirect.
In the same week, the US Senate adopted a resolution calling for the classification of the Iranian elite forces as a terrorist organisation. Interesting, if that is the correct term, was the choice of argument leading to this resolution. In the resolution it was alleged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard, or elements thereof, was supporting factions in Iraq that opposed the US military endeavours in that country. Ironic how the current occupier and aggressor in Iraq would make such a claim. It is especially ironic since the disposed president Saddam had been supported militarily by the US during the 8 year war against Iran before the first invasion of Iraq by the US.
In a tit-for-tat, the Iranian parliament has declared the CIA a terrorist organisation.
The continuous picking around the edges of the nuclear issue while the IAEA has failed to find evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program and the Iranian president has clearly stated the rejection by Iran of nuclear weaponry, reminds strongly of the winding up against Iraq of hysteria before the current war there. The common denominator seems to be oil resources.
There is no lack of distortions and exaggerations regarding motives for all this posturing. Oppression and undermining of human rights don't quite cut the mustard. Saudi Arabia is not significantly less oppressive or autocratic than Iran. Yet, a cosy relationship of convenience has been struck between that regime and the West. One could say the same of China. So something really serious and frightening must be found or else fabricated if need be. There is nothing quite like a convenient nuclear program to whip up the neuroses. Of course, Pakistan with its military ruler-under-siege has a few of those for real and all in the West seem quite at ease with that. But then Pakistan does not quite have oil or any other resources except home-grown radical Islamists to wet the appetite for conquest.
It is hard to escape a sense of cynicism at such a display of self-interest and pragmatism in the rush to satisfy the ever increasing greed after resources. What remains now is to wait for the first punches to be planted. The school yard is preparing itself for the battle as everyone gathers around the protagonists for the show-down. Soon it will not matter who was right and who, wrong. Sides will be picked and the cheering will start. The winner's account will become history. Civilisation will take its course.
10 August 2007
Wrong call
It may seem like a momentary lapse of reason, the firing today by the South African President, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, of the Deputy Minister of Health in the South African government, Ms. Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge. In fact, thus is the consensus of most commentators and interested parties that the untimely departure of this singularly capable deputy minister is potentially a devastating setback for the crucial campaign against AIDS in a country where that illness is inflicting countless tragedy across the country with more than 5 million persons HIV positive. According to News24, the President has fired the wrong minister, which can be taken as a thinly veiled quip at the controversial Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, also somewhat mockingly known as Ms Beetroot after her infamous preference for beets and garlic as medication against HIV infection.
The recent history of national health care or rather the lack of thereof in South Africa has reached alarming levels, with the exception of private clinics. In fact, on issues such as the government action towards addressing the AIDS epidemic in South Africa there have been international response ranging from grave concern to outright condemnation. Ms. Madlala-Routledge has been an outspoken yet outstandingly effective protagonist for solid, scientifically based plans and actions towards improving the health care situation in South Africa.
It appears that the main cause for the sacking of Ms Madlala-Routledge can be found in her distinct contradiction to the approach from the Minister of Health and the President himself to fighting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the South African population. At the surface, she was dismissed for taking an "unauthorised" trip to Spain in order to attend an AIDS conference. One would think a Deputy Minister of Health of the country where internationally AIDS has the second highest prevalence should be expected with full, official authorisation to attend such a conference.
In the 13 years since the change in political dispensation in South Africa, change has been constant and relentless. Yet, for all the hubbub, much of importance have gone decidedly sideways if not downright south. Education is in constant turmoil. Health care has given us this latest episode of bollocks. The Safety and Security ministry is a contradiction in terms with crime at near Colombian levels, if not as well-organised - thank God for small mercies.
In many ways one honestly can state without any smidgeon of disloyalty to God and country that all of the above are not what one has voted for in the run-up to 1994 and beyond. In fact, for all the hope and idealism of the time, with the wisdom of hindsight that vote seems to have become the wrong call.
The recent history of national health care or rather the lack of thereof in South Africa has reached alarming levels, with the exception of private clinics. In fact, on issues such as the government action towards addressing the AIDS epidemic in South Africa there have been international response ranging from grave concern to outright condemnation. Ms. Madlala-Routledge has been an outspoken yet outstandingly effective protagonist for solid, scientifically based plans and actions towards improving the health care situation in South Africa.
It appears that the main cause for the sacking of Ms Madlala-Routledge can be found in her distinct contradiction to the approach from the Minister of Health and the President himself to fighting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases in the South African population. At the surface, she was dismissed for taking an "unauthorised" trip to Spain in order to attend an AIDS conference. One would think a Deputy Minister of Health of the country where internationally AIDS has the second highest prevalence should be expected with full, official authorisation to attend such a conference.
In the 13 years since the change in political dispensation in South Africa, change has been constant and relentless. Yet, for all the hubbub, much of importance have gone decidedly sideways if not downright south. Education is in constant turmoil. Health care has given us this latest episode of bollocks. The Safety and Security ministry is a contradiction in terms with crime at near Colombian levels, if not as well-organised - thank God for small mercies.
In many ways one honestly can state without any smidgeon of disloyalty to God and country that all of the above are not what one has voted for in the run-up to 1994 and beyond. In fact, for all the hope and idealism of the time, with the wisdom of hindsight that vote seems to have become the wrong call.
04 August 2007
A bridge too broken
Shock and awe were defined afresh last Wednesday, 1 August, at 18:02 US CDT when the I-35W bridge across the Mississippi collapsed under rush hour traffic without prior warning. Numerous eyewitness photo's of that catastrophic event can be found on Flickr. More chilling than the visual images are the consequent reports of well-established historic knowledge on the structural deficiency of the bridge. Apparently, over 70 000 bridges in the USA carry the classification of structural deficiency - a truly startling statistic.
The classification of deficiency can be awarded for any structural score below 80/100. The I-35W bridge had a score of 50 (or 4/9 according to the NY Times) before the collapse. This score had been given in 2005, yet the bridge remained in service. That was until last Wednesday, when it finally gave way. So to state the collapse came without prior warning is not quite holding up to the truth. I would call 50/100 on structural integrity for a heavily used bridge ample warning of impending doom. The disaster prompts the question: How is such a situation of infrastructural decay conceivable in the richest country on Earth?
The NY Times have reported that there are 756 bridges of this design in use in the USA. Most bridges were built during the construction boom of the 1950's and 1960's. Since the 1970's these bridges were merely maintained. Yet, there hangs a question over the original design and consequent construction. After all, bridges under heavy use elsewhere in the First World do not collapse in similar fashion. Could the pressures of profit and budget have compromised solid engineering wisdom?
Alas, the picture appears even grimmer upon taking a step back from the immediate calamity in Minneapolis. In Massachusetts, the recently commissioned I-90E tunnel suffered a collapsed roof in 2006, which incident caused the death of a passenger of a car hit by a piece of the collapsed roof. The so-called Big Dig that produced this tunnel was terribly over budget and late as well. The road system have been plagued by operational problems ever since. As it were, the government tender process for the Big Dig was a model of graft and first class lobbying in favour of local project managers and contractors.
The particular flaw at the root of the collapsed roof of the I-90E tunnel can only be attributed to amateurish design and cost cutting in which a cheap solution for tunnel ventilation was selected with undergraduate incompetence. Even a Third Year Civil Engineering student should know that one does not hang from tie rods screwed vertically into concrete, a heavy weight subject to vibrations and thermal cycling. Concrete does not take well to the prevalent stresses under such conditions - especially over time.
Yet there is further rot to be spotted. Only last week, there were reports of a manhole grid that had become unsettled on I-93 and seriously injured a driver when it was flung up by a passing lorry. This grid featured on a freeway, not a secondary town road. It defies reason how a freeway can be designed with manholes and grids on the road surface or even the emergency lanes. Instead, water drainage should be provided along the outer edges via gutters, not via manholes and grids on the road surface. Such proven safe design can be found on German autobahns. Again, cost is the likely motivation for the manhole and grid solution over more sophisticated and costly gutters along the road edges.
All in all, it has been estimated that the total cost of upgrading national infrastructure in the USA will amount to over $1 trillion dollar - a truly staggering amount of money [1], especially when facing a cumulative budget deficit of $741 billion for 2005 and 2006. Yet, Congress has already approved $500 billion for the futile Iraq war and it may cost another $500 billion to finish that mission unaccomplished. Could these imbalances and tragic consequences be symptomatic of an endemic fault line in the US culture of pragmatic paths to profit?
Perhaps what we have here is a bridge too broken to be fixed by sound bites, YouTube productions and quick fixes. One can only sincerely hope that it will not turn out a bridge too far.
The classification of deficiency can be awarded for any structural score below 80/100. The I-35W bridge had a score of 50 (or 4/9 according to the NY Times) before the collapse. This score had been given in 2005, yet the bridge remained in service. That was until last Wednesday, when it finally gave way. So to state the collapse came without prior warning is not quite holding up to the truth. I would call 50/100 on structural integrity for a heavily used bridge ample warning of impending doom. The disaster prompts the question: How is such a situation of infrastructural decay conceivable in the richest country on Earth?
The NY Times have reported that there are 756 bridges of this design in use in the USA. Most bridges were built during the construction boom of the 1950's and 1960's. Since the 1970's these bridges were merely maintained. Yet, there hangs a question over the original design and consequent construction. After all, bridges under heavy use elsewhere in the First World do not collapse in similar fashion. Could the pressures of profit and budget have compromised solid engineering wisdom?
Alas, the picture appears even grimmer upon taking a step back from the immediate calamity in Minneapolis. In Massachusetts, the recently commissioned I-90E tunnel suffered a collapsed roof in 2006, which incident caused the death of a passenger of a car hit by a piece of the collapsed roof. The so-called Big Dig that produced this tunnel was terribly over budget and late as well. The road system have been plagued by operational problems ever since. As it were, the government tender process for the Big Dig was a model of graft and first class lobbying in favour of local project managers and contractors.
The particular flaw at the root of the collapsed roof of the I-90E tunnel can only be attributed to amateurish design and cost cutting in which a cheap solution for tunnel ventilation was selected with undergraduate incompetence. Even a Third Year Civil Engineering student should know that one does not hang from tie rods screwed vertically into concrete, a heavy weight subject to vibrations and thermal cycling. Concrete does not take well to the prevalent stresses under such conditions - especially over time.
Yet there is further rot to be spotted. Only last week, there were reports of a manhole grid that had become unsettled on I-93 and seriously injured a driver when it was flung up by a passing lorry. This grid featured on a freeway, not a secondary town road. It defies reason how a freeway can be designed with manholes and grids on the road surface or even the emergency lanes. Instead, water drainage should be provided along the outer edges via gutters, not via manholes and grids on the road surface. Such proven safe design can be found on German autobahns. Again, cost is the likely motivation for the manhole and grid solution over more sophisticated and costly gutters along the road edges.
All in all, it has been estimated that the total cost of upgrading national infrastructure in the USA will amount to over $1 trillion dollar - a truly staggering amount of money [1], especially when facing a cumulative budget deficit of $741 billion for 2005 and 2006. Yet, Congress has already approved $500 billion for the futile Iraq war and it may cost another $500 billion to finish that mission unaccomplished. Could these imbalances and tragic consequences be symptomatic of an endemic fault line in the US culture of pragmatic paths to profit?
Perhaps what we have here is a bridge too broken to be fixed by sound bites, YouTube productions and quick fixes. One can only sincerely hope that it will not turn out a bridge too far.
10 July 2007
Precisely up there
Each to his own, it is said. Now Al-Qaeda reckons to suggest that Britain should watch its step in accordance with Al-Qaeda convictions. In fact, according to The Times of London, Al-Qaeda is preparing a "precise response" to the honours bestowed upon Mr. Rushdie earlier this year by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain. There is a distinctly ominous tone to that phrase, "precise response".
But the whole affair reeks of arrogance on the part of Al-Qaeda that can stem only from a petrified mind steeped in prehistoric religious entrapment. Let Al-Qaeda do as it pleases in its own territories and let Britain do as it pleases on its own land. Britain never has been a traditionally Muslim country and does not intend to become so in the foreseeable future, rampant immigration notwithstanding. It does not submit to Muslim dictates and decrees. It may bestow whatever honours it pleases upon members of its society without asking permission from outsiders.
Al-Qaeda can put its precise response precisely up there and that is that.
But the whole affair reeks of arrogance on the part of Al-Qaeda that can stem only from a petrified mind steeped in prehistoric religious entrapment. Let Al-Qaeda do as it pleases in its own territories and let Britain do as it pleases on its own land. Britain never has been a traditionally Muslim country and does not intend to become so in the foreseeable future, rampant immigration notwithstanding. It does not submit to Muslim dictates and decrees. It may bestow whatever honours it pleases upon members of its society without asking permission from outsiders.
Al-Qaeda can put its precise response precisely up there and that is that.
31 March 2007
Call a spade a spade
The English have a knack for candid sayings. One such saying jumps to mind upon hearing the latest uttering from the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, regarding the Palestinian refugee question: Call a spade a spade. Yet, we are treated to spin and more spin.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Olmert told one Israeli newspaper this past week that he would not accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. The refugees fled Israel during the 1948 war between Israel and Arab nations.
On the other hand, the NY Times reported the view amongst Palestinians that even before the Arab nations attacked Israel, many Arabs had fled or had been forced to flee by Jewish fighters. After the war, Israel barred their return.
Apparently, the majority of Israelis appear to have an aversion to significant numbers of Palestinians inside the borders of Israel in fear of undermining "the Jewish nature of the state", to quote the NY Times. Deja vu again, I am afraid. Smacks of Apartheid, one could say. Only, no major Western government or spokesman utters a whisper along that line.
It appears that as long as Israel nestles under the armpit of the USA, very few figures of any international or national prominence would dare call a spade a spade with regard to Israel and the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the region is digging itself ever deeper into a trench. Only problem is that the rest of the world may just slip over the edge into that very trench to tear itself apart once more.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Olmert told one Israeli newspaper this past week that he would not accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. The refugees fled Israel during the 1948 war between Israel and Arab nations.
On the other hand, the NY Times reported the view amongst Palestinians that even before the Arab nations attacked Israel, many Arabs had fled or had been forced to flee by Jewish fighters. After the war, Israel barred their return.
Apparently, the majority of Israelis appear to have an aversion to significant numbers of Palestinians inside the borders of Israel in fear of undermining "the Jewish nature of the state", to quote the NY Times. Deja vu again, I am afraid. Smacks of Apartheid, one could say. Only, no major Western government or spokesman utters a whisper along that line.
It appears that as long as Israel nestles under the armpit of the USA, very few figures of any international or national prominence would dare call a spade a spade with regard to Israel and the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the region is digging itself ever deeper into a trench. Only problem is that the rest of the world may just slip over the edge into that very trench to tear itself apart once more.
25 March 2007
Trading moral ground
There were some raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles this past week. Consternation might be too strong a term, but South Africa did shake the moral esteem in which the country had been held for the past 15 years with its counter proposal on a resolution for tougher action against Iran and its nuclear program.
South Africa had stood on high moral ground indeed since the remarkable political and social changes that came to pass between 1992 and 2007. The nation that was torn and traumatised by years of political injustice and consequent social unrest miraculously took noble decisions and a turn away from the precipice. In the process, the country turned a page in its history. It was welcomed back into the international community. It became the first country to renounce and abolish its nuclear weapons program of its own accord - although under pressure from traditional Western powers to do so. These actions had brought the country into high moral esteem and it since served as example for others to follow. That was until this past week when the South African ambassador to the UN left many leaders aghast with his proposed resolution on Iran. South Africa chairs the Security Council at present - a valuable position which should not be squandered by perverse proposals such as its proposal on Iran.
It can be argued that South Africa acted in its own interest although the formal line on the proposal was that it wanted to open the path for negotiation on the Iran nuclear issue. The week before the Iranian foreign minister visited South Africa for talks.
Iran is a notable trade partner of South Africa, which imports a significant quantity of oil from Iran. It is potentially also a weapons trade parter of Iran. South African heavy artillery had been sold in the Middle East in the past. The weapons industry in South Africa in dire straights and any potential deals could be rather tempting.
So if South Africa were trading moral ground for oil and weapon deals, would it be any different in this sense from the USA and Britain? Does not the USA prop up questionable Middle Eastern and South American regimes for its own political and financial interests? And yet, the US and UK foreign offices have been gasping for air the past week when South Africa seemingly attempted to throw a spanner into their works against Iran. Suddenly, the NY Times writes how South Africa has lowered its moral voice and makes rather trite remarks on the country's recent international stance.
The pot cannot blame the kettle it would seem. Morality in international affairs only go as far as the wallet dictates. In the end, we all have feet of clay.
South Africa had stood on high moral ground indeed since the remarkable political and social changes that came to pass between 1992 and 2007. The nation that was torn and traumatised by years of political injustice and consequent social unrest miraculously took noble decisions and a turn away from the precipice. In the process, the country turned a page in its history. It was welcomed back into the international community. It became the first country to renounce and abolish its nuclear weapons program of its own accord - although under pressure from traditional Western powers to do so. These actions had brought the country into high moral esteem and it since served as example for others to follow. That was until this past week when the South African ambassador to the UN left many leaders aghast with his proposed resolution on Iran. South Africa chairs the Security Council at present - a valuable position which should not be squandered by perverse proposals such as its proposal on Iran.
It can be argued that South Africa acted in its own interest although the formal line on the proposal was that it wanted to open the path for negotiation on the Iran nuclear issue. The week before the Iranian foreign minister visited South Africa for talks.
Iran is a notable trade partner of South Africa, which imports a significant quantity of oil from Iran. It is potentially also a weapons trade parter of Iran. South African heavy artillery had been sold in the Middle East in the past. The weapons industry in South Africa in dire straights and any potential deals could be rather tempting.
So if South Africa were trading moral ground for oil and weapon deals, would it be any different in this sense from the USA and Britain? Does not the USA prop up questionable Middle Eastern and South American regimes for its own political and financial interests? And yet, the US and UK foreign offices have been gasping for air the past week when South Africa seemingly attempted to throw a spanner into their works against Iran. Suddenly, the NY Times writes how South Africa has lowered its moral voice and makes rather trite remarks on the country's recent international stance.
The pot cannot blame the kettle it would seem. Morality in international affairs only go as far as the wallet dictates. In the end, we all have feet of clay.
01 January 2007
2007: Building a dream
Charity is as charity does. Today, the EU anthem, the prelude to "The Ode to Joy" by Ludwig van Beethoven, rang out in celebration of the ascension to the EU of Romania and Bulgaria. Prospects of new hope for these ex-Soviet states filled the vision of 2007. Yet, on the eve of New Year, there was another celebration taking place on the other side of the equator - one of hope for impoverished and depraved girls, of a proper education in fine style.
In Sun City, South Africa, Oprah Winfrey celebrated the New Year in grand style. However, this celebration was not only splash for celebrities. It was a celebration also of a very special institution. In the little town of Henley-on-Klip, Meyerton, South Africa, a new academy for girls will be opened in 2007: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.
The new institution is not without its controversy. With typical South African irony, Meyerton is built on gold mining. Yet, large portions of the broader community live in poverty, with rather dismal education provisions. Brushing aside critique over the lavish investment in a community where poverty reigns, Ms Winfrey made a rather poignant statement on her choice to build such a luxurious academy in that region of South Africa, saying she didn't build it in the USA because inner-city kids in the USA don't appreciate the value of a free education [Daily News].
Ms Winfrey went on to say, " If you ask the [US] kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
This stark difference in mentality is arguably characteristic of the current status of the two societies. South Africans are very much aware of the potential of education in a country that is largely Third World with a burgeoning First World sector. Children often travel long distances to reach school - even though the school standards are often dismal in many communities. The national budget for education takes the lion's share of the overall budget. The South African dream is very much centred on education.
The American society appears to be in a state of affluence and excess. Education has relatively less importance. Wealth, superficial entertainment and status symbols seem to take preference. Such a lifestyle feeds intense paranoia over loosing it all. The annual defense budget dwarfs all other segments combined. The American dream appears very much off course.
Ms Winfrey's investment in South Africa deserves applause. It also raises some reservations over the unusual trappings of American glitter that this institution introduces into a community with simple demands: Excellent education for realising dreams of a new future.
In Sun City, South Africa, Oprah Winfrey celebrated the New Year in grand style. However, this celebration was not only splash for celebrities. It was a celebration also of a very special institution. In the little town of Henley-on-Klip, Meyerton, South Africa, a new academy for girls will be opened in 2007: The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy.
The new institution is not without its controversy. With typical South African irony, Meyerton is built on gold mining. Yet, large portions of the broader community live in poverty, with rather dismal education provisions. Brushing aside critique over the lavish investment in a community where poverty reigns, Ms Winfrey made a rather poignant statement on her choice to build such a luxurious academy in that region of South Africa, saying she didn't build it in the USA because inner-city kids in the USA don't appreciate the value of a free education [Daily News].
Ms Winfrey went on to say, " If you ask the [US] kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
This stark difference in mentality is arguably characteristic of the current status of the two societies. South Africans are very much aware of the potential of education in a country that is largely Third World with a burgeoning First World sector. Children often travel long distances to reach school - even though the school standards are often dismal in many communities. The national budget for education takes the lion's share of the overall budget. The South African dream is very much centred on education.
The American society appears to be in a state of affluence and excess. Education has relatively less importance. Wealth, superficial entertainment and status symbols seem to take preference. Such a lifestyle feeds intense paranoia over loosing it all. The annual defense budget dwarfs all other segments combined. The American dream appears very much off course.
Ms Winfrey's investment in South Africa deserves applause. It also raises some reservations over the unusual trappings of American glitter that this institution introduces into a community with simple demands: Excellent education for realising dreams of a new future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)