The Truth Is Out There

Remembrance

2009-11-08T05:07:00.001-05:00

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

— Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

Slinging mud and stuff

2009-05-14T13:08:00.007-04:00

Appearances may fool some, but after the pretense of civilised elections, the knives are out between the governing party and the official opposition in South Africa. Mud and stuff are being slung at each other's leaders in the most brutal terms. Especially the performance of members of the ANC Youth League and some of the more scruffy cadres of rather dubious past - ex-MK - leaves one fairly dumbstruck at the apparent true nature of some of these commentators.

The Star gave a colourful direct quote of the most recent commentary by the above parties. On a more sombre note comes the rather sinister undertone of remarks by said ex-MK members. Threats of making the Western Cape Province ungovernable if the leader of the Western Cape and official national opposition, Ms Helen Zille, does not toe the line and co-operate with the government. Granted, her commentary on the new president was rather blunt and not helpful in the wobbly new democracy of South Africa, but the reply from the ex-MK members was downright outrageous and squarely in the gangster league.

Such remarks as those by the ex-MK members would be met with law-suits for libel anywhere in the First World. The underlying mentality that can produce such verbal diarrhea is cause for more than medical concern. Left to such an electorate the country will for sure go to the swine on a highway. To accuse of longing for an Apartheid past those of us who yearn for civilised order, is utter balderdash; reeks of hyperbole and pays clear evidence of an extremist mindset.

To observe such extremist support for the new president with his overtones of clansmanship, leaves one sleeping with one eye open and puts us back, in some respects, 200 years or so in the turbulent history of this country.

So you think you can tell

2009-03-26T16:42:00.003-04:00

So the government of South Africa has denied entry to the Dalai Lama into South Africa. At once the controversy of Tibet has reached into South Africa. So Pres. Motlanthe, Mr de Klerk and Archbishop Tutu, and all of you distressed and torn, from Facebook to Bejing, so you think you can tell which way the moral stones should fall. Can you tell which it is: A man of peace, a freedom fighter, or a terrorist? Do you think you can tell?

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here.
[lyrics by Pink Floyd]

Notwithstanding the outspoken indignation of messrs de Klerk and Tutu, and the rest of the so-called free world, one cannot help wondering where ends the Dalai Lama's divine walk and starts his subservience to Western interest in unsettling China's relentless rise. Indeed, we may very well count more than two lost souls in the fish bowl. Who can tell Heaven from Hell when it's someone else's backyard? When does the smile turn into a veil; at what point does the trading start? How far can one tread the thin line of passive resistence? And where lie the blue skies then?

Tut tut tut

2009-03-12T16:47:00.005-04:00

Although this author is no subscriber to conspiracy theories, it is sometimes difficult not to sense a certain unease about the impact of so-called Jewish lobby groups in the USA. For the size of Israel and its precarious existence, substantially propped up by American subsidies and all sorts of support, its influence is rather disproportionately heavy - especially in American business and politics, which some may argue, is essentially the same thing. Take the latest little tantrum thrown by several pro-Israel special interest groups: Mr Charles W. Freeman Jr. had to withdraw his nomination for a top intelligence post, under duress of pro-Israel lobbies not entirely impressed with his past and current viewpoints on Israel.

Quite frankly, Mr Freeman's viewpoints align rather well with a broad majority of the world outside of the USA and certainly not only those maliciously intent on destroying the troubled state of Israel. But somehow, it is not politically correct or wise to criticize Israel while having any presence on the public scene in the USA. So much for objectivity and free speech. Even worse for the interest of the American people.

To be joined at the hip to any other country is never sound and neither is it sane. Unconditional support does not belong on the political stage - it is something for romantic relationships between love-sick partners. Especially when a country commits acts of Apartheid and oppression against a tiny, struggling and disenfranchised nation such as Israel commits with impunity against Palestine, dares a country of the presumed stature of the USA not dabble in "unconditional support". There are deep-seated reasons for the unhappy condition in the Middle-East and the blundering creation of Israel in 1948 and its rambunctious escapades since then - especially 1967 - are firmly at the centre of those reasons.

To provide "unconditional support" given such circumstances is folly. At least, anywhere else but in the USA, it would be folly. But somehow the pro-Israel lobbies seem to have surprising impact and influence over there. Mrs Clinton for all her merit is rather too cozily attached to such lobbies. Her recent state visit to Israel, holding hands with the Foreign Affairs minister of Israel, was just a bit too intimate for formal international politics and somewhat sickening to say the least.

One wonders what is left of pres. Obama's firm stance against special interests in the face of such antics as the above.

South Africa: Shame on us

2009-02-17T14:10:00.006-05:00

The truth is a double-edged sword, it is said. Well, in that case it is shame on us, South Africa. A reader of News24.com wrote in the edition of 17 February of the 'sickness that defines us'. His lament and self-conflagration were triggered by the revelation of fraud and deception by a once golden spin-doctor of the African National Congress, which is the ruling political party in South Africa.

Archbishop Emeritus Tutu wrote last year of the loss of moral compass of South Africa - the decay in society evident in acute prevalence of rape, murder, brutal assault, robbery, corruption, nepotism, recklessness, general impoliteness that have erupted in this nation.

More recently, South Africa, who held the chairmanship of the UN Security Council for a term, squandered what was left of its moral authority in confounding and fantastically senseless positions on major points of international contention ([Burma];[Libanon];[Zimbabwe]).

In South Africa, we have lost it. These days life seems aimed at the next jollification; the next quick rich scheme. Businesses often have no clue what good service entails. Customers often are rude and bombastic. About every pub along the West Coast competes for the most bar fights per night. The youngsters are becoming more conceited by the day. Respect for law and order is reflected in the extreme popularity of a renegade band called Fokof Polisiekar (Eng. Fuck off Police Car).

Our crime figures rival that of Columbia. Only war zones have it worse than certain parts of South Africa, which includes Gauteng, the financial hub of the country. The famously casual, genuinely friendly South African demeanor is mixed with a common alacrity of conduct, an insensitivity to sensibilities, which quickly can turn into disdain. Perhaps familiarity has bred contempt. High levels of latent aggression means offense is taken at even slight opposition, typically to be resolved through a bout of physical violence - really, very rough-neck.

It is not all gloom though. There are a few pockets of goodness around: Persons; businesses; government officials that still uphold proper levels of self-respect and decency. But these islands seem engulfed and threatened to be overwhelmed by a general degeneration in the fabric of society.

South Africa, quo vadis? We were supposed to be heading the other way, remember?

To befriend or to "unfriend"

2009-01-31T08:31:00.011-05:00

Right, so we have yet another new term, courtesy of the ever-sprawling Internet: Unfriend. That is, to remove a person as a friend from you extraordinarily sprawling social circle in the Kingdom of Facebook. Yes, my online spelling checker does not approve and neither do I. For one, "unfriend" is grammatically improper - un-friend implies "to friend" is a valid verb, which any proper English speaker will know it is not. "Friend" is a noun and has had sole claim to that part of speech for quite some time now. To befriend is the verb. To unfriend is neither this nor that. It's void not verb.

Now that I have driven home that point with a mallet, let us get on to the intended meaning of the grammatically unhappy term. Someone commented in an article in the NY Times of 29 January 2009 that a friends list of around a 100 persons implies an intimate circle of friends. A 100 persons? Intimate? Since when can one be intimate with a 100 persons? I can hardly keep up on normal terms with 10 and it would take some convincing that anyone else can do much better than that. I mean, I am a dedicated sort of person, you know.

But, now that I have blown my horn a bit, let us consider to be intimate or not to be intimate. Quite clearly there has been some dilution of intent here. Old story of modern times, I say. We dilute almost all things for faster gain at ever shrinking profit margins. Large turnover, small profit margin, that is. As if the experience of real close friendship can accumulate over many superficial friendships to some fat bottom line as in some business model from Harvard. What delusional rubbish!

So, should one prune the list or not prune the list? Well, it feels somewhat impolite to turn down a friend request on Facebook and rather insensitive to revoke a friend status. But then, turning down friendship happens in everyday life as part of the social code anyway. Ever since childhood one has known the feeling of being turned down by a group or a single person one would have liked to befriend. And one also stops being friends with some people. Perhaps, one should reconsider what "friend" means before applying or accepting friendship requests. It really means something more than just plain acquaintance or boasting numbers.

Hope

2009-01-25T05:22:00.007-05:00

Hope. It is the enduring quality of humanity.

Hope, as the last morsel is served and the cupboard, bare.
Hope, as on coffin mix clots of earth with tears of grieve.
Hope, in the face of rejection.
Hope, in the depths of despair.

Hope, at the birth of life.
Hope, at the gates of death.

Hope, in the anguish of torture.
Hope, at the coming of freedom.

Hope, when all is lost.
Hope, when all is won.

Hope, when even faith and love have gone.

The Cure

2009-01-08T07:37:00.007-05:00

Never Enough and his best mate called Why Can't I be You are in a bit of trouble these days. Money is tight. The big boys on the block have gone bust and sadly, these boys do cry. Lehman has gone kaput in a whimpering pile of corporate dust; J P Morgan; Goldman and the rest of them all went weeping on the collective shoulder of the American Congress for bail-outs from their respective silly trading sprees that collapsed with the overstretched mortgage loans that were embedded in their fantastic investment instruments. And now, it seems from reports in the NY Times that student credit is becoming something beyond a stress headache too. One does detect something of a bad habit somewhere in all the unravelling calamities.

Apparently, banks such as big boy Bank of America reach cosy deals with universities to offer credit cards to students. Fair enough, let a young person learn to use credit responsibly. That is the reassuring mantra of such arrangements. Sadly, the opposite outcome is more likely as is evident from past experience. Students end up with substantial ($2600 on average) debt on such cards and responsible spending flies out the window at card activation. It would be interesting to analyse the items on these card accounts to check for necessities as opposed to luxuries. One is inclined to bet on the latter being the predominant share of items. Bad habits often start from a young age and the worse case extrapolation resembles something like the current financial fiasco facing the USA and beyond: Endemic overspending and financial gluttony.

The UK public in particular is in a similar boat and developing countries such as South Africa and India have to restrict available credit in order to wean spending addicts in the growing middle class, facing an alarming increase in private insolvencies.

The cure? Well, my grand parents never had credit cards and never had shortage either. They never lived high but had their own homes and some money to spend on treats for their grand children over Christmas. In times of crisis it may help looking back at past wisdom. Alas, in today's mind such nostalgia is simply the wrong number. But it may just save us from overheating this world in more than one way.

[With apologies to The Cure].

Bail-out, Part II

2008-12-20T12:11:00.004-05:00

The bail-out of the car industry continues. Even in Europe some rather established car makers have started to squeal for governments funds. Painfully, the venerable and capable Land Rover, now owned by Tata of India, is up for some financial loans to support it through a 35% dip in SUV and off-road vehicle sales.

In the previous posting in this web log, it was argued that GM and Chrysler in particular had been suffering the accumulated affects of mediocrity and feeble investment in R&D over many years. That view is maintained here. However, the emergence of brands such as Peugeot-Citroën, Land Rover and BMW in the cue of beggars for financial assistance, shows that we have now gone beyond reckoning with mediocrity. What we have here are economies of scale catching up with even the excellent.

By no stretch of logic can BMW be accused of mediocrity in any of its products. That firm has led the way in many aspects of the market sectors in which it competes with Mercedes, Audi, Lexus and a few others. Yet, it is expensive to operate at such levels of competence. The main market for BMW is the USA and with the bottom gone from that market - about 25% down - it becomes clear how top quality requires top quantity of sales to keep cash flow and balance sheet in check. It must be noted that in case of BMW, the appeal has been rather modestly for loan guarantees instead of the fat $15 hand-out package for GM.

Toyota suffered just under 26% in sales in the USA for 2008, while GM suffered 45% [Harold Tribute]. However, Toyota sits on $101bn of the international market whereas GM trundles about on a puny $1.5bn by comparison [Financial Mail]. Little surprise then that Toyota is not in the cue for charity, although it expects operating losses this year.

So, bail-out or not, the next scene in this economic pantomime is the big pruning and merging saga. Who floats and who drowns and who opportunistically sends out the rescue boats and tow-lines - that will be the question.

Rather telling in its absence from these reports, Porsche - quite small compared to BMW and (golly!) GM - recently merely announced a profit warning for the 2008 financial year. There is no substitute.

Bail-out

2008-12-09T11:43:00.019-05:00

Robert Lutz is a respected man. My late father personally knew him when he was Managing Director of GM South Africa in the early Seventies. Mr Lutz has gone places and now is the vice-chairman of GM in the USA. Recently, GM deployed mr. Lutz in the wrestling over the Big Three Bail-out. Mr. Lutz gave the press his usual straight talk. But uncle Bob seems to miss the truth on the American automotive industry.

He claims that the big problem is the reduction in sales from 17million per year to 10.5 million per year. Right, that figure includes Honda and Toyota, two top sellers on the US car market. I do not recall any calls for bail-out from these foreign producers.

It has been said in a GM advertisement, that “We will continue to deliver personal mobility freedom to Americans using the most advanced transportation solutions,” according to the NY Times. Let us study the facts about the most advanced transportation solutions. To keep it simple for the likes of GM bosses, one may study key features of what may constitute advanced transport solutions. In fact, let us keep to the car and stay out of anything esoteric such as advanced public transportation.

Most petrol heads will agree, one may hope, that major advancements in automotive engineering include the following: Disk brakes, ABS brakes, crumple zones, air bags, independent suspension, electronic fuel injection, direct fuel injection for petrol engines and common-rail Diesel engines. Of these technological achievements, all of which enjoy broad commercial application, all of these features have been conceived, designed and developed outside the USA, and more specifically, beyond the realms of GM.

Disk Brakes: Jaguar (racing) and British Leyland (Austin Heally production car)
ABS: Mercedes Benz
Crumple Zones: Mercedes Benz
Air Bags: Mercedes Benz (1971 patent) and Porsche (first dual airbags appeared in 944)
Independent Suspension: Porsche (on VW Beetle with tortion bar springs)
Electronic Fuel Injection: Robert Bosch AG
Direct Petrol Injection: Robert Bosch (1955 Mercedes Benz), Mitsubishi (1996), VW/Audi (FSI system, 2000)
Common-rail Diesel Engine: VW/Audi

The above observations do not disprove the thesis by GM that they provide advanced automotive solutions. Such cars as GM manufacture in the USA do provide some of the above advanced features. However, GM does not lead the industry in any way whatsoever, since GM cannot claim credit for any these key developments.
Moving on from features, an important measure of advanced transportation is fuel efficiency. No GM car appears in the top ten. Figures in the table below are from Canadian sources and in litres per 100 km.

Car City Highway
TOYOTA PRIUS 4.0 4.2
HONDA CIVIC HYBRID 4.7 4.3
SMART FORTWO (CONVERTIBLE) 5.9 4.8
SMART FORTWO (COUPE) 5.9 4.8
TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID 5.7 5.7
NISSAN ALTIMA HYBRID 5.6 5.9
FORD ESCAPE HYBRID 5.7 6.7
MINI COOPER 7.1 5.3
MINI COOPER CLUBMAN 7.1 5.3
TOYOTA COROLLA 7.1 5.3
TOYOTA YARIS 7.0 5.5
TOYOTA YARIS 7.0 5.6
HONDA CIVIC 7.4 5.4
HONDA FIT 7.1 5.7
HONDA FIT 7.8 5.6
MINI COOPER S 7.7 5.7

Quite frankly, for more than 30 years the US Big Three car makers have been dumping mostly rubbish on the American public, outpaced by all of the prominent overseas manufacturers. Reality has a manner of catching up with such mediocrity. Not even the might of Daimler Benz could rescue Chrysler, which unfortunate corporate marriage (1998-2007) only bled a few billion USD from Daimler Benz and ended in inevitable corporate divorce.

The recent fly-past of the three corporate princes in their corporate jets to Washington on a bail-out parade, did seem to push the American public to the point of epiphany. No, no, no: Adapt or die. So, what shall it be: A Darwin Award for GM, Ford and Chrysler, or a life-line?

Where the poppies bloom

2008-11-10T16:27:00.008-05:00

Two shots rang out just after 10:45 on 28 June 1914, shattering the tenuous peace in Europe along every possible fault line. Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, were dead. Shortly after, the Great War broke out.

The War to End all Wars they came to call it - the wretched beast that spred its wretched wings and reaped grim havoc from the Ottoman Empire in the east to the poppy fields of France in the west. Its brutal appetite was vast indeed. As many as 20 million casualties were suffered.

Tomorrow, we shall commemorate the dead and lost innocence of that dark moment in history that lingered on for four fierce years, and beyond. For the War did not end all wars. Merely 20 years later the young and brave stood once more in trenches on the fields of Europe, to shoot and hack and maim one another for God and country.

So it was in great hope and optimism that the 35th president of the USA drove out into the crowds one morning in 1963, barely 20 years after the end of World War II. A nation clung to the new promise of revival of the American Dream. But then, just after 12:30 on 22 November, three shots rang out in Dallas to extinguish the youthful hope of a nation.

In the years that followed, America mutated from the saving grace of WWII into a self-serving behemoth that invaded, occupied, cahooted across the world in a one-sided hegemony.

But one week ago, a new hope was born, of the restoration of America and the world. A young senator of Illinois became the first black president-elect of the USA. He rode in on a wave of restored democracy, carried forth by millions of individual contributions - the voice and support of the common person.

Tomorrow, we shall wear our poppies as we remember. Yet let our remembrance gather strength, and our strength give rise to hope - the hope that one man may inspire many to turn the world and, perhaps, end all wars.

The Blame Game

2008-10-02T15:18:00.004-04:00

On Wall Street and Capitol Hill there seems only one game to play these days: The blame game. If only Sony or Nintendo could have come up with that idea, their share holders would have been delighted.

Since the swing has left the swagger in a sordid heap of despair, all along Wall Street and Main Street and about every street where you live fingers are pointing and daggers are being drawn. The executives blame the traders for their fantastically bogus financial instruments. The debt-stricken home owners blame the lenders; greedy shareholders and fat cat executives. The law-makers hold their heads and blame the credit rating agencies; traders; mortgage brokers; executives and everything else within range.

But no one blames the root of the problem: The borrowers. Dubious mortgage contracts would have no effect if no one signed them. Traders would not cause havoc with wizard's instruments if there were no stack of bad debt rolled up in those instruments. Fat cat executives would not crash the financial system purely on their extravagant bonuses were it not for the bad debt foundation of their businesses.

Perhaps it is not politically profitable to put the root blame at the feet of the individual borrower. After all, it the sub-prime borrower who appears now with a sad face in every interview vaguely interested in their sad story of naivety and deceit. Yes, it is that sad face who will cast a vote in November for the top job: US President. Right, so we are to believe the soap opera of suburbia. Well not all of us, one has to say.

According to Bloomberg.com, $523.1 billion has been written down over the past year due to collapsing sub-prime mortgages. That staggering amount was borrowed by individuals who had bad debt in the first place. Each one of those borrowers went out to buy a house on a history of bad debt. It means each borrower bought more than could be paid back on what income was available. On top of that spree, the borrower felt entitled to buy a home on mortgage under the circumstances. That decision appears purely irresponsible if not downright reckless. But it also smacks of self-indulgence.

Perhaps the American Dream has gone too far. The connection with reality has been lost. Unfortunately, reality has a cruel way of reinstating itself, often with a vengeance as in the current financial crisis. So instead of spend, let us save. Instead of consume, let us conserve. Smarter, rather than bigger, is better. And let instant gratification remain behind in the cradle with the dummy and the baby's bottle.

We will rock you

2008-09-23T15:38:00.004-04:00

Shaken, not stirred: That is a fair description of the mood in South Africa tonight. Barely had one managed a breath after the momentous resignation of the president on Saturday, when 11 ministers and 3 deputy ministers resigned earlier today.

The loss of leadership includes the highly proficient finance minister, Mr Trevor Manuel, arguably the most significant loss of all. He has indicated his availability to serve under a new president.

But this entire affair reeks of rotten political manoeuvring. The executive committee of the ANC has acted with bewildering levels of blunder in their hurried decision to oust the president of the country. The departure of the members of the cabinet loyal to the president only serves to amplify the deep discontent within the party.

The prospect of replacements from the populist faction of the ANC, under leadership of the party's president, Jacob Zuma, leaves little room for optimism. It reminds with chilling coincidence of the rejection by the populist Bolsheviks of a tentative democratic government formed under the Czar of Russia in the wake of public unrest during 1916.

All major political parties in SA agreed that the events of today will prove to be pivotal for South Africa in years to come.

Rock-a-bye baby, in the tree top
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
And down will come baby, cradle and all

Pumpkin time

2008-09-22T15:18:00.007-04:00

The clock has struck twelve for President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. Yesterday, pushed by his party under the new leadership of the controversial Mr. Jacob Zuma, President Mbeki fell on his political sword with the announcement of his resignation. The wicked step mother, Mr. Zuma, and her ugly daughters, the ANC executive committee and the ANC Youth League, were clasping their hands in delight as the presidential coach turned into a pumpkin; the presidential robes, to rags. Tomorrow, Parliament will debate the resignation and most likely, accept it. A caretaker president will be appointed this Thursday.

The country is at once relieved and confused. Mr Mbeki has accrued for himself an unenviable array of discontent amongst many walks of the South African society during his two-term leadership of the ANC and the government. Even so, resigning six months before the natural end of his term in office, as stipulated by the Constitution, has left the country in unease over the choices before it.

Some would say that Mr Mbeki so much lacked any real leadership that his departure could not possibly cause any increase in the leadership vacuum that exists at the top. But be careful for what one wishes. Mr. Mbeki is a known quantity. With the likes of the volatile and recalcitrant Youth League as well as the rambunctious Mr Zuma at the spearhead of in-fights and power struggles, the country rightly stares concerned at the unfolding saga.

In fact, the resignation flows from allegations that Mr Mbeki has interfered with the judicial process surrounding an investigation of alleged graft by Mr Zuma as Minister of Defense. A court hearing found last week that the State could not proceed with its case against Mr Zuma due to evidence of political meddling in making the case. Plainly, Mr Zuma and Mr Mbeki represent two streams of political power on a collision course and the courts have become the battleground. This is a dangerous situation, but not entirely uncommon in the sleaze of politics.

Earlier today, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu expressed his deep sadness over the resignation of Mr Mbeki and called the situation entirely unnecessary and avoidable.

Tonight, a good friend from University, who works for Sappi, has mentioned that he is considering a job in Australia and will be in Melbourne for the next four days. The man lives a well-considered life. His move is sobering indeed.

There will be no prince to find Cinderella and bring her glass slipper. This political fairy tale of post-1994 South Africa has never been quite a fairy tale, no matter how it has been told in the press in the past. We all shall have to wake up to the reality of our beloved country. The dream is over.

Mad, mad world

2008-09-08T16:36:00.018-04:00

Courtesy of the South African caroonist, Zapiro, I bring you a mad, mad world.

The Matrix, Reloaded. Can somewhat shut up that DJ?

Shame on Russia for treating Georgia so rudely. "I don't wanna dance..."

Enter, a brave new world...

Bang bang! Fall down, you're dead.

On the home front, Jacob Zuma - a man of the people, for the people. Sure. Which people?

And in good old England, Little Old Lady and the gentleman...

The Pot and the Kettle

2008-08-18T14:07:00.024-04:00

Once upon a time there was a pot and a kettle. Both were paying regular visits to the old log stove, which left on each its black mark in equal measure. Yet one day, in a fit of vanity and self-righteousness, Pot launched a scathing attack on Kettle, accusing Kettle of being rather sooty - quite unbecoming amongst respectable utensils. Of course such hypocracy was utter folly, as Kettle retorted with indignation. And so a rather tense chill descended upon the kitchen for years to come.

On 7 and 8 August, Georgia attacked seperatists in Ossetia to which Russia responded by sending in the troops en force. The consequent, brief war that ensued drew the expected howls and strident rhetoric from the USA, calling the Kettle names while herself unbecomingly sooty from past and present military interference in the Middle East, Far East, Africa, and Central America. Nasty words went about, such as bully and intimidation. In fact, it seemed that the USA was picking a fight with Russia by proxy of the tiny Georgia.

If true, and recent movements [1, 2] seemed to suggest some truth in the notion, it would not be the first time the USA had picked a proxy war with some significant opponent by virtue of indirect campaigns. Usually, the front was the ever popular spread of "freedom and democracy", the holy grail of foreign, indirect interference. In the case of Georgia, it fitted the profile with excellence.

Stemming from American doctrines of the Cold War era in the sixties and seventies of the previous century, indirect involvement had become a favourite of cloak and dagger politics. Overtly in opposition to Soviet expansionism, or another dark force in more recent years, some ensnared and oppressed nation would be picked. By remarkable coincidence and without exception such a nation would also fall into the strategic importance category. The chosen nation could expect all kinds of covert and open support, viz. military; financial and economic favours from the USA and her partners. Support for and pressure on either ruling leaders or the opposition would attempt to steer social, political and ultimately, economic developments towards the strategic goals of the USA and her partners [3].

That leaves Georgia and the question where she fits into the above. The answer lies in the true consideration behind the overt goal of these covert involvements - resources.

With uncanning regularity, energy; mining and industrial interests correlated in the past with indirect involvement. Georgia hosts an important gas pipeline from Central Asia to the West. Russia sits on at least 30% of the world's oil and gas resources and it has become less generous to the West since the restoration of order in the Russian post-Soviet economy. One senses a few probable causes for instigating a proxy fight with Russia on Georgian ground. So Georgia has become a chosen one, receiving significant aid from the USA since independence from the Soviet Union.

Of course there is always enormous economic benefit in bolstering the old dragon, fear, within the public, at home and abroad, which in turn open their wallets in support of the military industrial complex - to fend off new threats in the East. Such a windfall can only be good, given the horrid economic outlook in the USA at present, as long as it can be financed still.

That was the Pot, so what about the Kettle you may ask? Well, perhaps the tale should be retold as the Joker and the Dark Knight. It is left as an exercise to the reader to pick the cast.
----------
Footnotes:
[1] The USA bolstered Georgian defences with military equipment and training over the past decade and pushed a NATO ascension program for Georgia.
[2] The USA military transported Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia around the time of the conflict.
[3] A careful reading of the history of Afghanistan, Angola, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Somalia and Vietnam would support the foregoing opinion. Sometimes the pot boiled over and direct war with the USA errupted as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

Out of Africa

2008-07-04T15:07:00.006-04:00

African politics is a quagmire of contradictions. Frankly, it has never been a model of consistency. Ever since the advent of the so-called modern age in Africa that followed more or less on the demise of colonialism on the continent, there has been inordinate levels of turmoil that ebbed and flowed. From all of that in the past came a potpourri of declarations and announcements. And through it all one was left wondering where exactly African nations saw themselves in the order of the world. Indeed, one still has no real clue.

The whole Mugabe affair has exposed the incongruous state of African politics on a continental level as well as on a national level. For one, the latest announcements from African leaders around the Zimbabwe debacle raise the question whether African nations somehow regard themselves as from another planet, where quite different rules and norms apply. Utterings such as "African problems must be solved in an African manner without external interference" appear at odd with reality.

Africa is not a federation where states deal with local matters as internal to the federation. It is not even a union such as the EU. In fact, it is a loose club of nations sitting on the same continent, sharing a similar history in some cases. But the divides and fault lines run very clearly and indeed sadly through that very fabric. Moreover, Africa in all its diversity of nations, finds itself in the world of today. The individual African states are each as much part of the world order as any state on another continent. And in the words of president Mugabe himself, Zimbabwe for example, is a sovereign state. That said, every other African state is a sovereign state in the global context, no more and no less. Therefore, any other nation that adheres to the principles of international law and human rights has an equal voice in expressing concern and requesting action against an unjust sovereign state, such as Zimbabwe that brutalises democracy and its very citizens.

Surely, Africans are not suddenly claiming some racist exclusivity for themselves as if nations not from the continent are somehow unqualified to comment or apply international measures to African leaders, governments and states? It is high time African states acknowledge that each African state is within the global order of this world and therefor subject to international scrutiny.

If Africans expect equal treatment with the rest of the world, then Africans should accept equal measure went it comes to their actions.

The state of the nation

2008-07-01T16:25:00.010-04:00

This week the African Union gathered in Egypt for a summit. And a rather prickly item on the agenda was the desparate situation in Zimbabwe. Present in all his grimness was the so-called president of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugage himself. So-called, because since the March elections this year, Mr Mugabe has not been president based upon a clear majority, but rather a minority leader hanging on for dear life. Such is the dawn of despots and the sunset for a once respected liberation leadership.

The cynic's take would be "there we have it - another chapter in the history of African politics". Nevertheless, the question before us all is what now, what next? Send in the troops a la Iraq or DRC? Continue quiet diplomacy, as is the tune of President Mbeki of South Africa? In the mean time lucrative mining deals are being closed by Anglo American in Zimbabwe. One may yet ponder the connection to the political turmoil in that state of such investments and potential returns.

In fact, one may ask what is the state of the nation for many countries in the world today as turmoil seems to follow the prospects of natural resources. The list makes for somber reading. Nigeria, the sixth largest oil producer, is in constant political turmoil. The DRC, rich in diamonds, copper and forestry, is emerging from a bloody civil war. In South Africa, stupendously rich in many commodities, political undercurrents and a power struggle are threatening the fledging democracy while the BEE program creates new fat cats on a gravy train surpassing the old National Party edition.

Central Asia, endowed with rich natural gas fields, is experiencing sudden surges of public and political unrest, with so-called democratic movements opposing rather authoritarian governments. It strikes one as odd that Mongolia, not usually a front page hit but sitting on a pot of resources, suddenly seems to be up in arms over so-called fraudulent elections, now that the latest run on resources is increasingly frenetic.

False correlation, one may say. Yet, when it comes to spreading and practicing democracy, all are not quite well. Special interests, lobbying, cronism, nepotism have infested the once noble structures of the Enlightenment. Subversion and intervention seem to be well and alive, even as current, disreputed leaderships have been tolerated or even condoned in the past by those instrumenting a change of guard.

One common theme appears to be a sudden upsurge in opposition parties and public disquiet, followed by an election the outcome of which only to be called into disrepute. It seems voting has become a futile interlude before a pre-designated elite of rulers take over the reigns. To be sure, many of the current governments in these troubled states do perform rather poorly. Many of these were installed with and though external meddling. The DRC, Nigeria, Sudan and Chile are examples. It strikes as odd the frequency with which election results are being questioned and especially where there is much internationally to be gained from installing specific figures into power. Russia, Gaza, Venezuela and Pakistan come to mind.

As it were, democracy worldwide today is in a rather bad shape, in need of an overhaul. The state of the nation is troubled to say the least. The eyes of the world turn to the presidential race in the USA in hope of a new beginning for democracy - of the people for the people. Or as the French would have it: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

When Darkness Falls

2008-06-24T15:37:00.004-04:00

Darkness has descended upon southern Africa. These days there is barely a spot of peace in Zimbabwe. How terrible and sad is the descent of that once pristine and prosperous country. It is often spoken of the Breadbasket of Africa that is no more. But Zimbabwe, to all accounts from those who have long since fled to safer shores, was more than productive farmland. It was a lush and peaceful place for years before and after the troublesome revolution of the late 1970's. Yet the wheels have come off and in a very bad way too.

After years of neglect from most of the world, suddenly the UN has woken up, stepped up and made a firm declaration against the utter outrage that prevails in Zimbabwe today. Alas, it is a bit too little, too late, many would argue. Common citizens are being tortured, intimidated, brutalised by thugs and cronies of the ruling party, ZANU-PF.

The despot president himself, Mr Robert Mugabe, has degenerated into a rambling megalomaniac, foaming at the mouth on every opportunity. Heaven forbid - the man has even reached to the divine by proclaiming to all and sundry that only God can remove him from power - what desperate dribble. Right, well perhaps God has given us democracy to remove the likes of him from power and yet Mr Mugabe reckons he'll declare war if the opposition MDC would win the presidential run-off elections on Friday and thereby put him out of power.

At stone-cold stiff long last, the pussyfooting South African president, Mr Mbeki, has begun to make cautious utterances over the dire situation in Zim. Still, it is the current leader of the ruling party, Dr Zuma, who today has expressed a clear denunciation of the farce unfolding in Zimbabwe. Several other African countries have already denounced the current situation in Zim.

Meanwhile, thousands of Zimbabwean refugees stream into South Africa, raising stress levels in a local economy already overstressed. Johannesburg is degenerating faster than ever. It's inner city resembles a Nairobi or a Kinshasa, not the financial capital of South Africa, the richest and most powerful country in Africa. Nervous inhabitants hide themselves at night in gated communities on the outskirts and cautiously commute to work and home on roads fraud with hijacking.

Cry the beloved country, indeed.

A New Hope

2008-06-05T16:53:00.001-04:00

Today there is a new hope in the American and international politics. Notwithstanding the relentless efforts of the empire of established interests in the US, headed by Sen. Clinton and her clan, Sen. Obama has made it through to become the Democratic Party nominee for president of the USA in the coming elections this November. And these efforts were fierce and foul. Nothing was spared - from cheap tears to soppy, fear mongering advertising. Every strand of possibility to tarnish the first Black candidate for president of the USA was tried. But through sheer competence and superb profesionalism, Sen. Obama has prevailed. Today the international world can take a pause and ponder tomorrow. The American presidential race has not joined the dark side.

Yet there is a disturbance in the force of change. Last night, Sen. Obama delivered an astonishing speech to AIPAC. In an obvious bid for support from an extraordinarily influential lobby group, the senator who had ridden in on the ticket of no pandering to the lobbyists, did just that: He pandered most pathetically to every cliche of the AIPAC agenda. In the most absolutist terms Sen. Obama underwrote unquestionable alliance with one of the most unjust regimes in the world: The state of Israel. In a shattering display of inconsistency and paradox, he proclaimed in the same breath a willingness for firm diplomacy with Iran and yet declared Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel,immidiately alienating millions of potentially agreeable Arabs and Palestinians in particular. Perhaps he was already repaying the one lobby group that did provide him the final push beyond the reach of Sen. Clinton, behind the scenes of course.

What credibility as a peacemaker he had built up over his campaign thus far, was thoroughly shaken by last night's unfortunate speech. It leaves one wondering how many other lobby groups may stand in line now for some acknowledgement plus some more. It will seem that the forces of the dark side are indeed powerful. Perhaps the young knight of the new hope is not quite the prince of peace for whom we have waited. But then, he still has much to learn and may yet shine.

The empire strikes back

2008-03-03T23:14:00.005-05:00

All is not well in the inner circles of the Washington establishment. Frankly, it seems there simmers a great deal of unease with the remarkable success of Sen. Obama's campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential candidacy.

Here is a man, until recently quite obscure and unknown to the broader public, who suddenly is taking the country by storm. He has a new vision of the American Dream - a vision in which the establishment of Ivy League and corporate cronies is not enshrined. He blatantly speaks out against the entrenched interests of corporate America, which until now has been very much outside the reach of the democratic vote to alter the vestibules of power. He outright condemns a foreign policy more akin of a teenage boy on steroids than a mature country at the lead. He refocusses resources on education and training and by implication away from the military industrial complex. He aims to reduce the reign of the energy sector by changing the playing field of energy use and resource.

Worst of all for the establishment - the public and especially the younger members of public buy into his message of change and a new vision. The voters and consumers of tomorrow are taking heed of his new direction. It must be most troubling to those fat cats with their bulging retirement packages made up of tonnes of their corporate shares and stock options. The private libraries and studies of the mansions of power must be black with cigar smoke and concerned whisper in equal measure. Why, the entrenched dynasties that have formed since the inception of the USA are suddenly not so sure of their unbridled rule over the free. Because none is more lethal to entrenched rule of the elite than the poison of a fresh idea. Ask the French.

So, now the empire strikes back. My word, Mrs Clinton has become all too strident with a particular bitchiness barely concealed under her makeup. Shame on the Clinton camp - once the stalwart of the Democratic Party of the USA, to endulge in the same fear smear of which they so recently accused the Republican candidates. Now, suddenly, Texans must be treated to a soppy ad in true Hollywood style with the message of who would you trust with your dear little children's security in the face of the gruesome Gollywog at the borders. Of course, the experienced Ms Clinton comes galloping to your rescue. Experience? I beg your pardon, madam. You were the wife of the president, not the president himself. You have never commanded troops or been Commander in Chief of anything more than a bloated household bursting with servants.

Now, Sen. Obama's experience with leading the country and, lest we forget, those armed forces and their Pentagon brigade, is suddenly put up for scrutiny. Rather, all of this sudden concern with experience is none other than the concerned spasms of the establishment. Experience is code for entrenched interests. And not only the corporate interest groups are squirming quite visibly, but also other interest groups - most noticeably the Jewish lobby.

For too long the state of Israel has nestled like little brat brother under the armpit of big brother. Suddenly, there is chance of a presidential candidate who will bring fairness and balance to world politics, including the Middle East. No wonder, Mrs. Clinton has suddenly found her war chest bursting with a most welcome $35 million.

But a word of caution to Sen. Obama: Sir, just as you stand firm against the corporate lobby should you stand firm against any other lobby, including the Jewish lobby. Let democracy return for once to the USA and peace to the world. Such a chance does not come around too often. Yes, you can.

Yes, we can and we should too

2008-02-17T17:38:00.008-05:00

Decision time is coming up. The presidential election will happen November 2008. It is fair to say that there is a fork in the road for the USA. More so than in a long time in US history and the history of the world, the status quo just is not sustainable, neither on a national nor an international scale.

The country faces an unprecedented debt crisis of several trillion dollars. Its national infrastructure is out of date and dilapidating at an alarming rate. Its international image is in tatters and its military is overextended through involvement in too many wars and conflicts on foreign soil. Its economy wobbles on the edge of a credit precipice. It is consuming more per capita than any other country in times when all crucial resources are under serious threat of total exhaustion. Its democracy has been taken hostage by a few powerful industrial complexes and its government is invested and infested with eager lobbyists that serve their masters and not the interests of the common voter. In short, the country behaves under the delusion of infinite resources and capacity for growth, come what may. Reality has begun to catch up with this fallacy.

The world faces an unprecedented crunch in resources as awakening nations, such as China and India, join the First World with rocketing demands on energy, commodities and natural resources. International politics are fraud with failing democracies, remaining autocracies and theocracies. Matters are worse for the constant interference and manipulation by members of the G8 for their own interests of troubled societies outside the G8. Blatant exploitation via so-called direct foreign investment of resources in these countries stands side by side with ruthless military intervention masquerading as democracy riding in on a white horse. Yet the bluff is slowly being called upon such exploits as citizens of these countries begin to question the real benefits of such foreign presence.

Against the above bleak backdrop and onto such a sombre stage enters the unlikely presidential candidate like a fresh breeze into a stale room: Sen. Barak Obama. Here is a man, who holds a degree in civil rights law from Havard, but who is not an Ivy League boy. He is a senator in the US government, but has not sold his soul to the corporate league. His message is fresh and inspiring. His sentiments appear devoid of ulterior motives and a self-serving sense of entitlement. He calls for a new chapter in US and international history to begin February 2009, when the new administration in Washington DC will commence in all earnest.

The US can save herself and the world economy from collapse if and only if a majority of citizens realises that we are living on limited resources. We cannot just borrow and spend as the whim takes us. We cannot grow indefinitely given limited resources. We cannot spend ourselves out of a financial and economic situation that stems from long-term overspending. We cannot continue to run the world by proxy of our politicians, military and corporations.

Can we get by with yesterday's iPod? Yes we can.
Can we wait until we have saved enough before we go on vacation? Yes we can.
Can we withdraw from foreign countries and begin to respect differences? Yes we can.
Can we stop the international bombast and sit down to listen? Yes we can.
Can we walk 0.5 km to the shop instead of driving? Yes we can.
Can we buy a station-wagon instead of an SUV to carry the children? Yes we can.
Can we put the corporations, such as the military industrial complex and pharmaceutical industry, out of controlling the halls of Washington? Yes we can.

It will require a major change of heart at grass-roots level and leadership at the top.
Yes we can and we should too.

A fixer for the hangover

2008-01-22T22:30:00.000-05:00

Alcoholics know the drill: Take a fixer for the hangover. Matt Frey of the BBC in Washington has suggested that the US is suffering from a huge financial hangover because of a 15 year financial binge. Now the President, Mr Bush, has prescribed a fixer. He should know - his turbulent youth provides ample experience of binging. The stimulate package for the US economy sounds more like a fixer than a fix. Spend your way out of your overspent situation. That must be Bush logic to take the biscuit.

The US is over its ears in debt. National debt runs into tens of trillions of dollars, depending upon who does the actuary calculus and the spin. The national deficit is at three trillion dollars. Personal debt has landed the country and the world in the current financial melt-down through reckless personal credit at the bottom of an equally perilous pyramid of financial instruments. Living too high means falling very far.

Instead of proposing an austerity package to turn the page from overindulgence and extravagance to a more moderate live style, the President thought it good last Friday to prescribe further indulgence. In fact, it is quite amusing amidst the dismay. I wonder if there is an Alcoholics Anonymous for Financial Gluttons.

A Tear in Time

2008-01-10T17:47:00.000-05:00

For Ms Clinton and her run for presidential candidacy, a tear in time saves nine it would seem. Probably only on these shores of the world would such a soppy stunt bring such bullish benefits as have been demonstrated in the New Hampshire Primaries. Elsewhere, the audience would have been either indifferent or embarrassed, either of which response would not have given Ms Clinton any advantage over her significantly more composed opponent, Mr Obama.

In fact, so far Mr Obama has been the more convincing, mostly because of his sincerity. Especially, Mr Obama is definitely not from the Establishment. He is not an Ivy League boy even though he holds a law degree from Harvard. He smiles with warm conviction at the crowds; not with the plastic grimace of his main opponent.

Mr Obama's message of change may be ringing with some rhetoric, but his focus is outwards, his aim apparently for the people, not his own entitlement. In contrast, Ms Clinton seems almost petulantly bent on getting her way on her way to her presidency. She is to her neck steeped in the Establishment - what she calls experience. Such experience leaves one wondering just how much change her presidency would bring. After all, the Establishment prefers the status quo in order to stay established.

So, in the aftermath of the Iowa win for Mr Obama over Ms Clinton at the Democratic caucus, Ms Clinton seemingly got a bit overwhelmed by matters and decidedly soppy on TV - in a calculatedly constrained manner. In a country where everyone seems to relish a tear or two on TV when given the chance and the circumstance, such display was a certain card towards gaining support from sop suckers. Call me cynical, but this is the country that has given us show biz and Hollywood.

After the narrow loss in the New Hampshire Primary, Mr Obama's concession speech was a model of confidence and gallantry. This man must pose the most serious threat to the Establishment since John F. Kennedy. If one person could break the hold of Corporate America on this heralded but undermined democracy, it would be Barack Obama.

Change has a face with an honest smile for once.

Jacob Zuma for President: Jeltsin reincarnated?

2007-12-04T21:12:00.001-05:00

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.

Annapolis: Apartheid Reloaded

2007-12-02T17:39:00.000-05:00

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.

Annapolis: Promise or poo

2007-11-26T22:43:00.001-05:00

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?

Under friendly fire

2007-11-22T22:37:00.000-05:00

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.

Tin soldier on maneouvers

2007-11-09T21:55:00.000-05:00

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.

Space and the matter in between

2007-10-25T21:23:00.000-04:00

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.

The tale of two tragedies

2007-10-12T22:45:00.000-04:00

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?

Picking a fight

2007-09-27T22:46:00.000-04:00

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.

Wrong call

2007-08-10T20:33:00.000-04:00

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.

A bridge too broken

2007-08-04T23:14:00.000-04:00

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.

Precisely up there

2007-07-10T20:10:00.000-04:00

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.

Call a spade a spade

2007-03-31T12:45:00.000-04:00

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.

Trading moral ground

2007-03-25T23:16:00.000-04:00

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.

2007: Building a dream

2007-01-01T15:07:00.000-05:00

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.

Injustice incorporated

2006-09-25T21:55:00.000-04:00

Shocking - that is the first incredulous conclusion after reading the article in the NY Times of today on American justice courts. As it turns out, justice court is a misnomer for a large number of these institutions that often occupy premises more reminiscent of a farm barn or a workshop.

"Some of the courtrooms are not even courtrooms: tiny offices or basement rooms without a judge's bench or jury box. "

These courts are supposed to bring affordable justice to common people in small towns in backyard districts. Instead, according to a NY Times report following a year long investigation, dependents are often denied proper recourse to law, unfairly judged, unduly sentenced and obstructed from an appeal through utterly incompetent court transcriptions, if any.

"People have been sent to jail without a guilty plea or a trial, or tossed from their homes without a proper proceeding. In violation of the law, defendants have been refused lawyers, or sentenced to weeks in jail because they cannot pay a fine."

The judges are often incompetent.

"Some 1,140 justices have received some sort of reprimand over the last three decades - an average of about 40 a year, either privately warned, publicly rebuked or removed. They are seriously disciplined at a steeper rate than their higher-court colleagues."

"For the nearly 75 percent of justices who are not lawyers, the only initial training is six days of state-administered classes, followed by a true-or-false test so rudimentary that the official who runs it said only one candidate since 1999 had failed."

There is little control over these courts and the judges that run these institutions.

"State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers."

These courts are prevalent in a majority of states in the USA.

"New York is one of about 30 states that still rely on these kinds of local judges, descendants of the justices who kept the peace in Colonial days, when lawyers were scarce."

These courts handle not just trivial cases such as speeding offences either.

"It is tempting to view the justice courts as weak and inconsequential because the bulk of their business is traffic violations. Yet among their 2.2 million cases, the courts handle more than 300,000 criminal matters a year."

Small wonder that this travesty of law and justice is the order of day: A judge of a justice court can be appointed willy-nilly - as long as the person is elected!

"The reason is plain: Many do not know or seem to care what the law is. Justices are not screened for competence, temperament or even reading ability. The only requirement is that they be elected. But voters often have little inkling of the justicesÂ power or their sometimes tainted records."

The article in the NY Times continues to cite examples of abuse and incompetence by these justice court judges.

In defense of the system of justice courts, it is argued that the benefits to people outweigh the rotten spots. However, in reality this system is the remnants of a thirteen century English system of layman law for lowly cases. Unfortunately, modern times have left this system behind and exposed it for the folly it is today: a band of cavalier henchmen who reign supreme over their little local fiefdoms, often providing anchor points for wholesale nepotism and prejudice on a local scale.

Not in Britain, the Netherlands, both ex-colonial powers; or South Africa, an ex-colony of both forementioned countries, is there today any such aberration of justice as the justice courts of the USA, a country that prides itself on being a land of laws. Perhaps it would be better served by setting its own house in order rather than preaching to other countries about justice.

Not by the sword

2006-09-18T21:37:00.000-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI has put his foot squarely in it during last Tuesday with his speech at the University of Regensburg, Germany. And he is still attempting to extract it so he can carry on with his tour to Turkey.

Once again Muslims are up in arms, some taking the opportunity to go on a rampage and in doing so, ironically affirm the view expressed in the unfortunate quote by the Pope from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Pope continued along the lines of faith and reason: "[N]ot to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."

His lecture contrasted the Hellenistic foundations of Catholicism in which a rational God is the premise, with religions such as Islam where God is supreme above all reason including His own dictates. He could not let slip the opportunity to gaff at the Reformation by noting that dehellenisation of the Christian religion started with the Reformation.

Science was not spared and the Pope took a firm swing at the scientific foundations of Platonic/Cartesian formulation and empirical verification. Accusing science thus defined of leaving no room for God and thus limiting faith in God to subjective conjecture or experience, Benedict was clearly on a gallop.

The target now loomed large as his argument converged on science and religion, both of which must be obedient to the truth and are founded in reason. Therefore, by implication science is challenged to leave scope for the metaphysical of religion. A reason that does not accommodate the possibility of the divine reduces religion to a subculture and therefore exclude cultures. A faith that does not allow reason is bound to be relegated to the realm of the subjective, where ethics and conscience are purely personal choices.

His discourse screeched to a halt with the final stroke: A call to the worlds of reason and faith to reunite, for a new enquiry into the rationality of faith and ultimately, for dialogue of reason amongst cultures and religions.

To which one question stands up with quiet resolve: Where do the Crusades and Inquisition fit into this logos?

The day after

2006-09-12T21:40:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was 11 September. On that pivotal day five years ago, darkness fell upon the world. Brewing discontent spewed raw hatred into the capital of capitalism, New York. The serpent struck at the ankle of the colossus. The Twin Towers fell. In total 2,973 people were killed, including 246 on the four aeroplanes, 2,602 in New York City in the Towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. A nation recoiled in horror and grieve. The world stood aghast.

Soon, vengeance followed shock and bewilderment, spreading with the poison from that venomous bite. The world moved one step closer to global confrontation. Chasms sprang open, gasping divides between cultures, religions and, more importantly, global economic interests.

Afghanistan was invaded, it's Taliban government deposed; replaced by a moderate, elected government. Importantly, the new government had the approval of US, UK and EU leadership, which also served to prop up security. Also noteworthy were the rich oil fields of neighbouring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, with the prospects of an oil pipe line through Afghanistan, breaking the Russian influence over oil distribution from these regions [Guardian 2001]. The human death toll was hard to calculate. Some estimated the civilian death toll at over 3000 by the year 2002 [BBC].

Iraq was next, after spin doctors on both sides of the Atlantic did their part in whipping up support for an invasion. Saddam Hussein was toppled and his government replaced by an elected government. Amid rising sectarian violence, the new government carried the support of the US, UK and EU, to whose forces it owed it's continued existence. Interestingly, Iraq had the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as reported in Global Policy. The cat was certainly out amongst the pigeons as far as gaining control over oil exploration in Iraq. The human cost was enormous - more than 100000 according to some studies.

So here we are today, the day after 11 September. Yesterday, we commemorated that dreadful day in 2001. Today, the US Embassy in Damascus has been attacked by terrorists, fortunately intercepted by Syrian security personnel. One security person lost his live. The irony of that incident is not lost upon the audience.

Today, the Taliban is resurging. Afghanistan is an imploding dust bowl, in the words of Peter Preston of The Guardian.

Today, the tensions over Iran is racing towards critical mass over that country's defiant stance on its nuclear research programme. Some reports indicate that Iran is bound to deploy dual-purpose installations [Global Security]. Yet, no conclusive evidence has been found to proof military intentions for the nuclear programme [Spacewar]. Meanwhile, Iran has the world's second largest natural gas reserves and fifth largest oil reserves, according to Global Security.

Today, the war on terror is raging unabated. Security is the name of the game, democracy the new gospel, pre-emptive strike the method of choice. In Lebanon they are still counting the bomblets from cluster bombing of civilian areas. Civilians casualties are stated at 1230 [Wikipedia]. Yet, the faceless enemy is still spinning on its evil axis. Coalitions of the willing are stretched to exhaustion. Officials and leaders are forever mincing words in search of more spin, votes and money for more wars.

Today, quietly in their back offices, the corporate leaders are counting their returns from the new empire of the wealthy. As with the British Empire of old, the public hunger for commodities and energy are fueling the endeavours of those who are willing, ambitious and greedy. As before, it is the common treadmill peddlers who pay the dearest price for these endeavours, the day after.

Minority report

2006-08-26T23:02:00.000-04:00

Since the notorious Kinsey Report of the 1950's, it has been accepted that roughly 5% to 7% of humans are homosexual. Further, the report suggested that up to 37% of males have homo-erotic experiences. The question immediately arises: How is homosexuality observed in the animal kingdom, with which humans share a significant section of our genome?

Observation of homosexuality in animals was recorded as far back as 200 years ago. However, because of the controversy, the social order of the day enforced censorship on these findings. In a word, the topic became the science that dares not speak its name.

Today, some enlightenment is dawning upon Mankind in the area of sexuality and sexual behaviour. Consequently, the study of animal homosexual behaviour has again been rekindled and the results are quite staggering to say the least.

In short, it would appear from scientific observations that homosexual behaviour is highly prevalent in the animal kingdom. Far from being a minority phenomenon as accepted amongst humans, homosexuality can be the norm - together with heterosexual behaviour. Finding an explanation within the framework set by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is another matter altogether. Beyond any doubt, homosexuality is somehow sustained in the animal kingdom and therefore must play a beneficial role to have survived the process of natural selection.

Since humans share at least 98% of our genome with other mammals and sexuality is a rather primary function in all species, one could conjecture that the sexual trends of mammals may also be present in humans in one form or another. Conversely, according to Wikipedia, "[r]esearchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, rape, necrophilia, and a range of other practices among animals. Observers have documented behavior analogous to sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and situational sexual behaviour) in humans."

In light of the above, the moral arguments against homosexuality that often support the bigotry against homosexual and bisexual people have little ground beyond religious considerations. Certainly normality cannot be the premise. Subjective and perilous at the best of times, the concept of normality would rather seem to be supported in favour of homosexual behaviour by the above research findings of sexual behaviour in animals closely related to humans.

A brief glance at human history and culture shows how at different times and in different cultures the free expression of homosexuality was more or less prevalent. Most famous for the free expression of homosexuality and homo-eroticism were the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If homosexuality was not a feature of the inherent human sexual behaviour then a more liberal culture would hardly have evoked such behaviour on such a broad scale. Moreover, the persistence of homosexuality under duress of persecution is a stronger argument for the inherent inclination to some degree of homosexuality in humans.

At the very least the truth about human sexuality is likely that sexual orientation is variable in the same individual according to circumstance. There may even be evidence to suggest that it is quite natural and advantageous also to form strong, enduring same-sex bonds and partnerships as opposed to exclusively heterosexual partnerships. And to take this argument to its extreme, the institution of marriage - that holy cow of the major religions - suddenly seems not so fundamental and solidly founded as we have been indoctrinated to believe.

In the end we still do not understand the evolutionary role of homosexuality, yet we cannot refute the prevalence of homosexuality in several species, including ourselves. Chances are that monogamy and marginalizing of homosexual tendencies are rather unnatural behaviour for the human species.

It remains to be seen whether scientific and therefore biological honesty will translate into human cultures open to bisexual as well as homosexual behaviour in the sexually active population.

[Detailed discussions follow in comments to this post.]

Further reference:
Bruce Bagemihl. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, ISBN: 0312192398, St. Martin's Press, 1999.
To reproduce or not to reproduce, that is the question!

Ms Beetroot and the salid stand

2006-08-21T22:21:00.000-04:00

The government of South Africa has moved from denial to betrayal regarding their handling of the AIDS epidemic in the country. Gregg Gonsalves of the AIDS Rights Alliance of Southern Africa slammed the government's lack of leadership in this tragic epidemic, according to Allafrica.com.

The Minister of Health, Ms Tshabalala-Msimang, also known in media circles as Ms Beetroot, appears unperturbed and defiant at the strong condemnation of her handling of the AIDS epidemic. Ms Tshabalala-Msimang reckons the country is doing well, reports News24. Indeed.

With 5.5 million people HIV positive and about 1000 dying per day of AIDS, South Africa is doing very well, isn't it? The report on AIDS in SA by Avert.org makes for chilling reading. From 1994 when the ANC came to power until today, the prevalence of HIV in pregnant women has increased from 4.3% to 30.2%. During the same time, the government has gone through several phases of denial.

First, the president, Mr Thabo Mbeki, demonstrated immense difficulty in accepting established medical evidence that the HI virus is the cause of AIDS. Instead, the president flirted with rogue medical reports that other factors such as poverty and malnutrition are causes of AIDS. In doing so, Mr Mbeki demonstrated the common statistical confusion of false correlation.

While conducive conditions will correlate with a certain outcome, such conditions are not synonymous with causality. While poverty is often conducive to contracting the HIV virus and in turn poverty as well as malnutrition are conducive to developing AIDS from the HIV virus, it does not follow that poverty and malnutrition cause AIDS. Apparently, this train of logic has proven beyond the capacity of the president.

Second, the current Minister of Health, Ms Beetroot, to use her common media-title, has embarked upon a crusade to bolster agriculture by propagating a policy of traditional African remedies, such as olive oil, garlic and beetroot to address the AIDS condition. Perhaps the president should offer Ms Beetroot a post in the Department of Agriculture.

At the Conference on AIDS held in Toronto last week, the South African stand at the exhibition comprised of some posters and a display of wilted agricultural products, resembling a salad stand according to IOL. The condemnation from both South African NGO's such as Treatment Action Campaign and international figures like UN special AIDS envoy Stephen Lewis, was venomous.

It would appear as if the South African government has entrenched itself in an African vs. Western war of ideas. With a stubbornness that defies common sense the government peddles on while the grim realities of AIDS marches on relentlessly through the South African society and economy.

As the Minister defends her position with the smugness of a cat on a sofa, the victims of AIDS wilt with the beetroot on the salad stand.

Soldiers

2006-08-15T20:23:00.000-04:00

They were bold and buoyant on their return from southern Lebanon. Some sang the songs that soldiers sing. They appeared victorious, weary and relieved but when asked about the actual achievement of the war, some were despondent and not at all exuberant.

Everywhere there was utter destruction in Lebanese cities, towns and villages. Contrary, no Israeli cities or towns have been demolished or damaged to the extend that Lebanon has suffered. The infrastructure in Israel has been left mostly intact. In Lebanon, a power plant, an oil depo, an airport, multiple bridges and roads have either been damaged or destroyed.

Lebanon deaths:
About 1,000 - mostly civilians
No precise data on Hezbollah dead
Israeli deaths:
Soldiers: 114 (IDF)
Civilians: 43 (IDF)
Lebanon displaced:
700,000 - 900,000 (UNHCR; Lebanese govt)
Israeli displaced:
500,000 (Human Rights Watch)
Lebanon damage:
$2.5bn (Lebanese govt)
Israel damage:
$1.1bn (Israeli govt)

[Source: BBC]

Much gloating and bellowing followed today from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. If anything, they seemed to have been handed an unintended windfall: The mood in Lebanon now seems firmly towards Hezbollah. The two captured Israeli soldiers that triggered the war, are still captive. Hezbollah, the proclaimed target of the destruction, seems to be rather well and alive, if somewhat diminished. Meanwhile, the sickening reality for the Lebanese seems to be lost on these leaders.

Last night, the Israeli Prime Minister made an hour long speech of belligerent spin in the Knesset, rationalising and justifying the futile escapades of the Israeli Defense Force in Lebanon. Between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the USA, there were a common factor of unconvincing posturing over the whole sad affair.

To all but the US White House and the Israeli majority, the war was senseless, unnecessary and a total disaster for the region. There are no winners and 1.5 million losers. In the mean time, the UN is struggling to bring aid to the desparate refugees who are streaming back to their devastated homes. The country is in need of serious restoration. The schisms of old seem deeper than ever.

In 1981, a song was released that today reflects grimly upon the situation:

Soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I don’t sing
they blow their horns
and march along
they drum their drums
and look so strong
you’d think that nothing
in the world was wrong
soldiers write the songs
that soldiers sing
the songs that you and I won’t sing
let’s not look the other way
taking a chance
’cause if the bugler starts to play
we too must dance
[ABBA]

The question is: How will you dance?

Brother, where art thou?

2006-08-12T13:07:00.000-04:00

Brother, can you hear me?
Brother, do you hate me?
Brother, will you kill me?
Why are we fighting?

Brother, can we make up?
Brother, have I hurt you?
Brother, may I hold you?
Why am I dying?

Brother, where art thou?

On and on and on

2006-08-11T23:34:00.000-04:00

It has to stop now. Those were the words of Jan Egeland, the Under-Secretary-General of the UN for Humanitarian Affairs. In an interview with BBC World today, Jan Egeland expressed his dismay and exasperation with the current spiral of violence in Lebanon.

A million Lebanese have been displaced within a month. More than 100 000 Lebanese are in desperate need for humanitarian assistance but are out of reach due to collapse in logistic infrastructure after Israeli bombing raids. Ongoing bombing and threats of bombing obstruct UN aid workers from reaching these Lebanese. A thousand Lebanese civilians have been killed so far - 30% are under the age of 13. Israel has lost 122 people, mostly soldiers, to this war. Each party is able to stop the carnage, at the drop of a hat. Yet it goes on.

Mr Egeland summarised the dire situation as no-win for either party. Every day prolonged fighting means more deaths on each side, more civilians killed. If it has to come to blows, each side should think first and then bomb - not vice versa as it appears to happen.

Wholesale destruction of houses and domestic infrastructure together with many civilians is brutal, according to Mr Egeland. In the same breath, indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities are similarly deplorable. For armed militia to hind amongst the public is appalling. For the UN Security Council to churn on the details for so long while these atrocities continue, is a disgrace. Therefore, the fighting should stop and it should stop now. The only solution is a political solution, addressing the fundamental issues. [Israel has created a generation of hatred]

The UN Human Rights Commission has voted today to investigate alleged Israeli human rights abuses in Lebanon. In a counter move, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre appealed to the same body to investigate Lebanon for complacency in allowing Hezbollah to rearm with rockets.

On and on and on it goes. Tit for tat. Accusation is met with counter accusation. Each side turns the facts to suit it own agenda and narrative.

"On and on an on, keep on rocking baby, 'till the night is gone..." [ABBA]

A momentary lapse of reason

2006-08-07T20:40:00.000-04:00

How short is the memory of mankind. Whatever the cost of our mistakes, we do not seem to learn from history. Today, the death toll in Lebanon stands at 925 civilians, one quarter children. In Israel, 58 soldiers and 36 civilians have been lost to the conflict, which also illustrates the stark asymmetry of the current tit for tat. [1]

Bombs are never smart, whatever the military would like us to believe. Whatever Israel claims or aims to achieve, the facts on the ground grimly expose as folly. Similarly, the Hezbollah adventure has reached unbearable levels of insanity. For those of a cynical disposition, perhaps it is a classic if highly ironic case of David vs Goliath. Yet, peppering civilians in Israel with crude, unguided rockets that fall and maim at random cannot be judged a valid military assault or defense by any civilised measure. [2,3,4]

Nothing of lasting value for peace and justice is gained by any side in this conflict. If anything, the forces of extreme militancy on all sides and therefore the hopes of further hell in the Holy Land, which stretches beyond the borders of Israel, have everything to gain from this conflict.

The 1967 war, the 1973 Yom Kipur war, the Lebanese occupations of 1978 and 1980, have not achieved any lasting peace or created an improvement in the relations amongst the conflicting parties in the Middle East. Instead, tensions have increased, distrust has become entrenched, mutual fear ingrained and ultimately, hatred has snuffed out any flicker of understanding and tolerance. More wounds, bigger pain, greater losses are the fruits of this folly.

"An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind", said Ghandi. Yes, but even worse is the blindness of those who still have eyes but refuse to see. A momentary lapse of reason has brought us to the edge of a perilous precipice. Who will have the courage to open our eyes and lead us away from disaster?

The value of a life

2006-08-05T15:12:00.000-04:00

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 3 of the UN Charter of Human Rights.

In the current war of attrition that is being fought in southern Lebanon, the UN official count of dead Lebanese civilians stands at 548 confirmed deaths. On the other side of the Lebanese border, 19 Israeli civilians have been killed in rocket strikes by Hezbollah. The stark difference in civilian deaths on each side of the border brings into question who poses the biggest threat in this conflict: Israel or Hezbollah. These numbers also cast a dark veil of suspicion over the tactics of Israel and the mentality that underlies these tactics.

The Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon has so far been similar to the US tactics during the second invasion of Iraq: Maximum force through air strikes. This strategy is fraught with gross misjudgement and consequent heavy civilian loss. It reeks with blatant hypocrisy that borders on reckless. Why hypocrisy? Because Israel, a member of the UN and by implication a consignee of the UN Charter of Human Rights, makes a farce of Articles 1 and 3.

As stated at start of this post, all humans are regarded equal and therefore have equal right to life and dignity. Lebanese civilians are as rightfully deserving of dignity and life as Israeli civilians. Yet, it would seem a moot point lost on the Israeli military and political leadership. Apparently regarding their own civilians of more than equal in their rights, this leadership chooses to send in air strikes with devastating yet indiscriminate results. In most cases so far, Lebanese civilians paid with their lives.

Instead of sending in ground troops that can confirm where Hezhollah fighters really are located before engaging the target, Israel opts for armchair warfare. This strategy is therefore not only hypocritical, but also reckless. The political leadership of Israel, lacking the necessary integrity, is not willing to respect Lebanese civilians by sending in ground troops in the first place. The risk for the political fall-out over undeniably higher death toll amongst Israeli soldiers seems to outweigh the obligations of Israel under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

But herein lies the folly of war of any kind. One side will always minimise the risks of war to its own and in doing so invariably leave the bill for that choice to the other side.

In a guerrilla war, which in reality this war is, one may not escape engaging the enemy any other manner than on foot. When the enemy has embedded itself into the civilian population, there is no other responsible option but to risk ground troops in order to avoid civilian casualties. Area bombing against suspected guerrilla strongholds is both reckless and in violation of the Geneva Convention.

But such a view assumes an inherent respect for all life, including the other side.

Lebanese conflict sources: ABC, BBC, Google

Mincing words

2006-08-01T22:29:00.000-04:00

The most difficult word to pronounce for the leaders of the West seems to be "immediate". Undoubtedly, the English vocabulary of at least some Western leaders stretches to include this word. Yet, in recent days, it proved quite beyond these leaders to put that rather necessary adjective to proper practice in the following direly needed phrase: immediate ceasefire.

The diplomatic wrangling continues as the Lebanese death toll reaches 800, of which 30% are children, not Hezbollah militants. On the Israeli side, about 50 people have died since the madness erupted 2 weeks ago, including a number of soldiers. The best the EU could muster was a call for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. This call was bluntly dismissed by Israel who immediately intensified the assault on southern Lebanon by sending in more troops and tanks. One may rightly ask: Has international law lost its voice?

In its narrowest context, the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon can be exposed by at least three narratives. The first narrative is from the original inhabitants of the Middle-East, specifically Lebanon and Palestine. The second narrative is from the Israeli side. The third narrative is that of the international community as represented by the UN. Depending on the chosen narrative, international law can deliver quite different verdicts over the conflict and the participants. These narratives run parallel without much hope to intersect at any point soon, unless decisive international mediation intervenes.

Article 51, as contained in the UN Charter, provides for the right of a country to defend itself when there is a clear demonstration of a threat or an actual attack against it from another country, or a faction harboured by another country. Israel resorts to Article 51 as justification for its devastating incursions into Lebanon over the past two weeks. Such defensive action may continue until the UN Security Council steps in to take command of the situation. No threat there to Israeli plans - very conveniently, the US will most likely stand ready with its veto power to ensure Israel all the room it needs to cause as much devastation as it pleases.

The capture of two Israeli soldiers and killing of three more by Hezbollah were audacious and provocative, but also in violation of the UN imposed Blue Line that separate Lebanon and Israel, not to be crossed by either party. Yet, the disproportionate Israeli response amounts to carpet bombing or area bombing, quite clearly demonstrated by the high number of civilian casualties as well as wholesale destruction of public and domestic infrastructure in southern Lebanon over the past two weeks. Carpet bombing is explicitly prohibited under the Geneva Convention, 1977 Additional Protocol 1.

Hezbollah rockets fired at more than a hundred a day into Israel is a similar violation of the Geneva Convention, for such firing also amounts to a form of area bombing.

Neither side is on the right side of international law. Neither narrative has the full perspective or absolute claim over the historic truth of the matter at hand. Neither party seems capable of initiating reconcilliation by itself. Decisive international intervention is needed - immediately.

The urgency for intervention is necessitated by further narratives, far more ominous and powerful in their content and extent, that threaten to play into this conflict. One such narrative is the current US world view and another is the simmering Shia-Sunni confrontation that is building up steam in the Middle-East.

The world is facing a historic pivotal point. History will not judge kindly over indecision at this point in time.

Bloody Sunday: Carnage at Qana

2006-07-30T20:45:00.000-04:00

They were hiding for their lives from the bombs. In a basement of a multistory house, several displaced families were asleep in the desperately naive believe that they were save there. But they were not. During the early hours of this Sunday an Israeli bunker buster bomb destroyed the house on top of these poor souls. Their shelter were shattered with their bodies and their lives.

According to ABC (US) and BBC reports, at least 54 civilians died - of which 37 were children. The outrage that is unfolding in Lebanon is a travesty, destroying in two weeks what has been built painstakingly since 2002. It is not the vestibules of Hezbollah that are being destroyed. Rather it is the infrastructure, the nationhood, the very fabric of the Lebanese society that are being pummelled into submission. In one fell swoop, Israel has blown to shards the last remnants of goodwill and whatever respectable reputation might have remained amongst the Arab nations and many Western nations for itself.

For all the sweet talk over how civilians are warned of imminent attacks and how precision strikes are aimed at Hezbollah targets only, the carnage amongst the civilian Lebanese has reached over 400 dead and more than 600 000 displaced, refugees in their own country.

All the ostentatious harangue about eternal Jewish morals and humanism, the bombastic pounding of southern Lebanon turns into a cynical farce in the pantomime of Zionism. The outcry of an unjustly punished society is met by the tentative and bewildered indecision of the West.

Images of the broken Kosova of the 1990's jump to mind. Where is the international leadership to put an immediate end to this futile destruction? Once the emotions have settled for a brief moment before the next scene of devastation, one may contemplate just what the basis for such leadership might be.

Richard Calland of the Mail & Guardian argues that merely learning from examples of successful resolutions to deep-rooted conflict presents no evidence of any progress in those unresolved conflicts such as the Middle East. Rather, the pivotal question is whether the historic tide has changed against the status quo of injustice in the Israel-Palestine affair. More practical, moral weight should be gathered against the injustice and brought to bear upon the protagonists of injustice through sanctions and firm diplomatic pressure.

Tony Leon, leader of the Democratic Alliance of South Africa, is reported in a later addition of the Mail & Guardian, to have said that the best approach to the Israel-Lebanon conflict would be "rights-based". He warns against a simplistic, Manichean world view of good versus bad in which one is forced to align with one of the two poles - good or evil. The Middle Eastern conflict is complex far beyond such naive classification, according to Mr Leon. On that point, Mr Bush might take note. His axis of evil approach has not reaped him any good of lately and brought immense destruction to Iraq. One inevitably wonders who's next to go on his proclaimed axis.

The impunity with which Israel misbehaves in Lebanon is evidence of the lack of real influence that Europe, Russia and Asia have in one of the most acute ongoing international crises of all time. If the US is for us, who can be against us? That seems to be the mentality of the Israeli government and large sections of its political support base.

The lack of real influence also demonstrates how perilous the current international situation has become what with only one real superpower that can do as it pleases. What leadership exists at the head of this muscle-toned crusader leaves the world even more gasping with bated breath. But as history has shown us, the wheel always keeps turning.

As energy and commodities continue to increase in importance, the rise of new superpowers on the international block, such as China, Russia and India, are waiting in the wings. It is only a matter of time before the gauntlet is flaunted for a re-balancing of international power. The change of leadership will come with a change in the status quo at the UN Security Council.

Perhaps the massacre of 54 Lebanese civilians may still lead to more radical changes in the international power play. Perhaps the rest of the world can be shocked out of its indecision. Perhaps real leadership will arise to take us on a road of rights-based international justice. As Bloody Sunday of 30 January 1972 was in a sense a pivotal point for the Northern Ireland conflict, so the carnage in Qana may still prove similarly decisive.

"Jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war"

2006-07-21T20:06:00.000-04:00

This posting is entirely inspired by and dedicated to Matt Frei of the BBC, author of Washington Diary. His latest posting on the recent G8 meeting is simply brilliant. No further musings from Anduril is required. Over to Matt... The Big Brother G8

"Stop this shit"

2006-07-18T20:59:00.000-04:00

The casual tone of Bush caught by an open microphone at the G8 meeting belies the gravity of the unfolding tragedy in Lebanon [1]. His careless remark to Tony Blair smacks of his simplistic and superficial attitude towards sensitive and complex international conflicts. His high school-boyish attitude leaves one shuddering in dismay. This man is the leader of the primary superpower in the world. He displays all the flair of a rodeo horse in full rambunctious bucking.

While these leaders are relaxing over a sandwich, 230 Lebanese, of which 200 civilians, suffer death at the hands of brutal Israeli retaliation for a Hezbollah incursion into northern Israel to snatch two Israeli soldiers. Since Wednesday, Israel claims, 700 Hezbollah missiles have landed in Israel. This missile bombardment is given as further motivation for the ongoing destruction by Israeli forces of southern Lebanon. Yet, for all these missiles fired onto Israel, only 25 Israeli people have died - of which 13 are civilians. Such figures show that the missile attack is of low affectivity. By comparison, Israeli attacks are viciously effective, but seem to strike vastly more civilians than Hezbollah militants [2], the alleged target of these attacks.

Israel is flatly ignoring calls for proportionate and restrained response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and the threat from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Instead the Israeli government and its army are destructing southern Lebanon with impunity. All the while, the world stands by with barely a voice of opposition. Mild, half-hearted expressions of concern over the situation are issued where instead the world should be putting an ultimatum to both parties, Israel and Hezbollah: Stop this shit right here, right now, or the UN will send an international army to enforce a seize-fire at once. Only France and Russia have had the nerve thus far to express firm opposition to Israel’s reckless retaliation in southern Lebanon.

It would appear as if the misguided snatching of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah has been seized by Israel as a golden opportunity to provoke the direct involvement of Iran and Syria, long-time supporters of Hezbollah, thereby handing on a silver platter to the US the excuse militarily to engage both those countries. The escalating situation is super-nutritious fodder to the extremists in the Middle East.

The world has not been this close to World War III since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. If anyone should stop this shit, to use Bush’s words, it is he, his megalomaniac clique and his cocky little brother-in-arms, Israel. Ghandi once said: "An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind". We seem set to find out very soon just how blind.

Of the elite, for the elite

2006-07-10T20:43:00.000-04:00

So direct democracy is a system of the people for the people. That is what we of the free world would like to believe. That is what we preach to the despots and the autocrats - and those whose resources we would like to control. Yet, closer to home, who really rules in this country of the brave and the free? Is it the people or the new elite - the wealthy and their lackeys, the lobbyists? Is it a democracy of the people for the people or is it a new system of elitism - of the elite for the elite?

Within a weekend, two major papers - The New York Times and the Boston Globe - have published columns on the nature of the ruling classes in the USA. The Sunday Globe ran a major piece, called 51 Angry Plebes, while the NY Times of today presented an article, called Lobbyist, Yes, the People, Maybe.

The Sunday Globe connected the influence of wealthy elites with the constitutional theories of Machiavelli, which set out to oppose such influences. It would seem, according to the Globe, that the Founding Fathers were more concerned about reigning in the masses and mobs than the wealthy. Today, the wealthy seem to rule the running of affairs in the USA. The NY Times reported that lobbyists are extending their activities even into local governments, collecting vast sums for earmarked projects that were successfully allotted to their masters. Notwithstanding ongoing criminal investigations into unlawful lobbying tactics, this form of graft seems to be rife in the US establishment.

Anduril is of the opinion that far from the wealthy having hijacked the US constitution, the Founding Fathers deliberately played into the hands of the wealthy. Powerful financial players existed in the forming days of the USA. It is not implausible that these players exerted their substantial influence upon the setting of the political foundations of the USA. The royal elite of Britain made way for the local establishment of wealth and power - even before the advent of the American Revolution.

Today, the American public may live the illusion of being in power, having full suffrage and democratic rule, but who are the demos that exert the real power? If middleclass America believes it is them who calls the tune, then they have to check again who pays the piper, for votes can be bought with glamour and glitter, the razzmatazz of political pageantry. And once voted into power, politicians dance obediently to the beat of good old graft.

While Mr and Mrs Smith celebrate their freedom, the wealthy individuals, corporations, industries pull the strings in Washington DC. You cannot vote them in or, more importantly, vote them out. And rather do not put your faith in your congressional representative and senator to stand in the cross-fire for you either. Meanwhile we all merrily tread the mill that line their pockets. Afterall, we need our defence, medicine, and let's not forget to fill that tank on the SUV.

However, while realising the dilemma is lofty, changing it is quite another matter. Those in power are not going to relinquish their grip to the plebes that churn their treadmills. Middleclass suburbia is too comfortable with their self-sufficient lifestyle to make the effort that will lift the wealthy from their plush cushions. These sorts of fundamental changes rarely happen without an endemic and enduring crisis, such as brought about the English revolution, the French Revolution, the South African revolution.

But the wheel goes round and round. Real political change starts in the minds of the middleclass. It is when they start writing about these ideas that the wheel gets rolling.

1st of July

2006-07-03T12:38:00.000-04:00

On the 1st of July, Europe commemorated the 90’Th anniversary of the first day in hell: The battle of the Somme. Whole villages from Northern England lost bands of young men - the Pal Brigades, mates in life and death, who had conscripted from factory lines to stand and fall together. How did they not fell? On that fateful day, Britain alone suffered 19,240 killed, 2,152 missing and 36,058 injured men [1,2].

All sides lost a million soldiers over the four months of blood, gore and incomparable courage. For once mankind was shocked at its insatiable appetite to destroy and maim its own kind. What passion drives Man to such depths of destruction and despair?

Perhaps it is the same passion that is driving the World Cup this year, as every four years. Watch them as the ball enters play. See the complete and utter involvement, the fire that lights in a striker's eyes when his strike hits the goal, his posture one of defiance. Hear the battle cries in the chanting of the crowds. Feel the anguish of humiliation at defeat as much as the glowing glory over victory with team and supporters alike.

Ours is a species of war. Our history is painted in the blood of our heroes and our villains. Sometimes we are fortunate to choose the football field as our battleground. But in our core we are still at war and perhaps would be until the end.

And yet, all is not lost. On 1 July, during the aftermath of the England-Portugal game, while despair and despondency reigned amongst devastated English players, one player from Portugal walked over to console a rather broken-hearted English player. It was tender, touching and humane. It gave hope for Mankind as much as it restored hope to one man.

USS New York

2006-07-02T12:35:00.000-04:00

In a shipyard in Louisiana, USA, an amphibious assault ship is being built. Its bow section will contain salvaged steel from the New York Twin Towers that were destroyed in the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The ship will be called the USS New York [1,2,3].

The wounds from treachery and deceit, callousness and savagery, have now given rise to a spirit of vengeance and war. In a culture of frequently over-hyped symbolic extravaganzas, simultaneously fed by and feeding the Hollywood industry, the advertising industry, the political stage dramas and the various lobbying enterprises, comes another symbolic gesture, laden with emotion that borders on the sentimental. In a time when the world could do with restraint and sobriety, the US authorities choose to fuel the flames of destruction. The spirit of the reborn Christian is glaringly absent in this symbolism.

Instead, the hurt and loss of many are being manipulated to feed a war mentality and, more importantly, lucrative defence industry. The very first and primitives reactions to hurt and loss are being nurtured to the peril of all, while the more mature response of stoic suffering and measured recovery are being cast out the window.

A more fitting symbol would have been to use the salvaged steel from the Twin Towers to contract another building on the original site. It would have sent the message that for the country once hurt, recovery will follow, externally as well as internally.

Yet, the opportunity has passed. The path has been chosen. The world is one step closer to meltdown.

Scare mongering

2006-06-17T13:33:00.000-04:00

The psychology of politics should get more attention in the media than it does. It is with a grave sense of déjà vu that one notices the political psychology of the Republican interest groups when they argue in Congress. War mongering and scare mongering are close allies in the game of manipulation of public opinion. The South African Nationalist Government used the same tactics to win votes from 1948 until 1991 in elections. Hitler did likewise.

When democratic voices gathered strength against the minority rule in South Africa, the National Party of South Africa would always pull the terror card from their collective pocket. At the time, South Africa was engaged in border wars against Soviet supported insurgents from neighbouring states. Internal terrorism from resistance movements such as the ANC and PAC was on the increase. All these factors were utterly useful components in an overall policy of fear and rescue. The National Party had the guts and the will and ultimately the ability to allay the fears and come to the rescue of the beseeched country. On the other hand, the progressive voices could not be trusted with your safety. Trust the National Party, fighting a just cause, to ensure your safety against this ongoing, prevalent evil. And so it seems, does the Republican Party in the USA. Only, for South Africa the cause turned out not to be just at all.

The NY Times has reported recent partisan clashes in both Senate and Congress on the issue of security and the wars that the USA is fighting [1]. How convenient, if unfortunate, that this new war remains rather indefinite: A war on terror – no specific enemy, no specific goals, and no exit strategy. It is this singular, perpetual monster in the closet. Convenient indeed, if one has to keep the votes going the right way – that is, if one assumes Republican and all it represents to be the right way.

Such a strategy for lobbying support has marvellous advantages: Not much opposition to enormous spending on endless wars; a paranoid and neurotic support base that tremble at the very mention of the faceless evil that waits to descend upon local shores to maim and destroy the good people of the USA. And all that is standing between all these good, innocent people and the wicked, faceless evil snarling at the gates are of course the Republicans with their interest groups from corporate America.

In fact, the above scenario is sickening in its repeatability. It is also chilling in its destructive regularity. The South African Nationalist programs of war and self-righteous crusades wrecked the economy of South Africa such that ten years on the country is still recovering. The USA is heading the same direction with a national debt that hits all records, foreign lenders getting nervous and the budget deficit knowing no end. All the while, the international community is getting increasingly fed-up with jock-boy playing Superman.

It is time for a wake-up call. As the so-called threat on South Africa was mostly caused by the unjust policies of the South African nationalist government, so the current alleged threat on the US has a lot of ground in the unjust international policies of the US government. Unfortunately, a democracy is of the people and therefore the wows of this country are of the people – a serious change of heart might be needed before the politics with change. But then, why should the nation calling itself the greatest need change? It took an economic, policical and international crisis to convince the ruling South Africans to change heart. And so it goes and so its goes.

Shut up and eat your meat

2006-06-03T19:20:00.000-04:00

The sheer audacity of the Minister of Safety and Security of South Africa, Mr Charles Nqakula, was the topic of much criticism in the weekend’s press. The honourable gentleman, though some would contend that phrase in this case, made the rather dishonourable statement that those who “whinges”, as he rather insensitively referred to complaints, should shut up or leave the country [1].

The tone of the Minister smacks of those fat cats in ministerial seats, north of the South African borders. His kind has come from nowhere in terms of safety and security suddenly to find himself plush in the cushions of power, with ministerial security and comfy facilities. Quaint how suddenly he seems to be out of touch with the latest police statistics. Speaking to my mother today, she had a tone of some disquiet when she told me that in the past week three elderly persons, mostly women, were killed by burglars in and around the Cape Peninsula. In fact, one was brutally bludgeoned to death with a hammer.

According to the official South African Police website, the following crime statistics were recorded for 2004/2005 [2]:

Murder	18,793
Rape	55,114
Attempted murder	24,516
Assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm	249,369
Robbery with aggravating circumstances	126,789
Burglary at residential premises	276,164

The total population of South Africa is about 45 million. It is a constitutional right of South Africans to live in safety and security, hence the portfolio of Safety and Security in the Cabinet. It is not for a minister to take an arrogant stance towards citizens, who pays his salary, when criticised over the state of affairs over which he presides.

The future of South Africa depends upon facing up to the truth of the realities and dealing with these realities, rather than scoffing at well-founded criticism and pretending all is hunky-dory when the truth says differently.

Of little consequence

2006-05-26T19:32:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-24T22:42:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-06T13:26:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-01T22:37:00.000-04:00

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?

The incipient rot

2006-04-22T13:10:00.000-04:00

The gradual abuse of power is an incipient rot that often pre-empts the inevitable demise of a corrupt establishment. The current US Administration has shown clear symptoms of this rot over the past two terms of parliament. But the onset of the rot seems to go back further still and as often the case elsewhere in history, the intelligence agencies seem to be hand in glove, in this case the CIA.

At least since the start of the Cold War era, the USA Government has followed a principle of "own interest first" in any foreign or domestic involvement. On the foreign side, the scene is rather grim. Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Iraq I and II - its reads like a terror tale from medieval days. Then there is the neglect - if we could believe the overt motives of humanitarian concerns for involvement elsewhere - Rwanda, Zaire (now ironically called the Democratic Republic of Congo), Angola [1,2], Mozambique, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. And there is the grossly misguided partisanship of modern international politics - Israel.

Domestically, things are taking on a rather gloomy tint as well. We had McCarthy and his witch-hunt in the 1950's; more recently the ongoing Republican collusion to stay in power and undermine rule of the country by the Democrats; the dilution of civil liberties by virtue of the Patriot act; the information scandal over Lewis Libby and CIA agents Joseph Wilson, which went over motivation for the Iraq war II; the newest CIA dismissal over the revelations of secret foreign detention camps.

The domestic rumblings in the CIA, if common opinion hold true, is a rather somber reminder how an intelligence agency becomes an instrument in service of a powerful few instead of the nation that pays its budget. This tendency can be noted elsewhere in history where the rot reached the core of the governing class. South Africa in the Apartheid days comes to mind. The KGB of the Soviet Union is another chilling example.

What scares me more than collusion of state power is the rot that seems to infest the recreational toys of the modern young American: War games; games of delinquency; games of pretence called roll playing. The ancient Romans on the way to the top and the fall that followed, entertained themselves on the brutality of gladiator fights at the Colosseum. There is an uncanny parallel with today in all this. The top rot starts quite at the bottom, as most rot do.

I stand aghast at the number of movies on a typical Blockbuster DVD shelf that deals in the topic of self-righteous violence as a means to an end. And this hogwash is rented as entertainment. There is enough of a market for such dribble to support hundreds such exemplars on the shelves. I should count them next time. All these movies were made in the USA. Look for the foreign movies and see what is on the shelf: Everything but violence and self-righteousness.

The inherent fallacy that one is right when one believes one is right as long as one has the biggest club in the club to enforce that believe goes hand in hand with the empty promise that all is fine as long as one is in fashion and cool. It would appear that too many US children grow up with a false sense of invincibility and an intellect fed upon instant gratification and violent games, believing as long as they are cool they are on top. What one ends up with is a crowd of self-serving manikins with overfed ego's that make it for either Congress or CEO so as to tell the rest of the world how it should be run and behave.

On the way up a wannabee member of this clan of sorts connects, pampers a few other egos, and collectively spends enough on an army and intelligence network to ensure that whatever they choose to believe will be enforced.

But the rot does catch up in the end. For Rome it was overextending itself logistically and leadership falling out of touch with the citizens. For the USA, it is not much different. The national debt is truly threatening to collapse the dollar. The military and political involvement outside its borders is threatening to outspend the economic generator of the country. There is a growing domestic outcry about the US leadership and ruling cliques that seem to exist.

Believing one is the cat's whisker should only be indulged in for a brief moment for therein lies an implied risk: That cat may just die one day - of natural causes, of course. That is the way of Nature, regardless of what one chooses to believe.

Unhealthy imbalance

2006-04-07T00:07:00.000-04:00

The BBC has commented some time ago on a health report released from Geneva. The summary was grim and the details even worse. This report deals with health on a world scale. In the summary it is mentioned that while North and South America suffers only 10% of the world's diseases, it has 50% of the world's health budget and 30% of the health workers. On the other hand, Africa suffers 24% of the world's diseases and has only 1% of the world's health budget and 3% of the world's health workers.

Worldwide, there is an estimated shortage of 4.3 million doctors, midwives, nurses and support workers, according to the WHO.

For some years now South African doctors have been leaving the country for greener pastures in Canada and the UK. This drain on much needed medical experts is hurting the country. Part of the cause are the conditions in state hospitals that have deteriorated since the change in the political system in 1994. The Minister of Health has introduced a compulsory three year service in state hospitals for medical graduates. Such draconic measures are much despised by especially white graduates. In response, many have left the country and are still oversees.

Organisations such as MSF from France, do a great deal to address the health situation in elsewhere in Africa. But MSF cannot make too much of a dent in the problem, due to the sheer size of the problem. It is a moral dilemma that stands and begs at the door of mankind.

Time to go

2006-03-19T17:34:00.000-05:00

In the words of Pink Floyd: "Time to go!" Mr Blair, it is time to go now isn't it. You and your party has become rotten to the core. All that remains is the smooth varnish that you have in such copious amounts. And even that is showing the strain of time and abuse with cracks all over the surface.

The Peerage for Money scandal has become the latest nail in your coffin and I dearly hope, with many British and other people, that it would be the final nail. What leaves me staggering are the claims from both the deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott and the treasurer of the party, Jack Dromey, now suddenly quite unfamiliar with the loans from wealthy benefactors to fund the last election. Let us just get a sense of perspective here: These loans under discussion were not small loans. These were loans to the amount of 14 million British pounds - more than half the budget of the Labour election campaign.

If the treasurer of the party did not know of the source of this money, where did he think this huge sum of money had come from? He must have known these amounts were loans - because he had to show that in the party's financial books. He had to know from whom the funds arrived, because he was supposed to ensure the loans would be repaid. That is what treasurers do, not so? Had this man taken leave of his faculties while those inscriptions were being made in Labour's financial books?

How could the deputy Prime Ministor not have known about the sources of these loans? Did not the party meet to discuss funding before the campaign? Did Mr Blair lie to the deputy Prime Minister and treasurer? Did he launder the money? Chaps, we are older than two around here. Kindly do not insult the common sense of your audience.

Mr Blair and Co, I can suggest a few suitable retirement spots in the warmer and drier parts of the world, where you would have a splendid time indeed. There are many rotten kinds hanging out there, enjoyings their spoils. You'd be quite at home.

Just get out of 10 Downing Street, would you?

Is there absolute good and evil?

2006-03-16T21:18:00.000-05:00

The short answer to the question "Is there absolute good or bad?" is "no". The argument why absolute good or bad are untenable concepts is rather straight-forward with a twist in the tail. It goes like this.

Absolute good or bad requires a centre of good or bad. Traditionally, cultures entertained a concept of God, which served as a centre of good. God blesses, watches over his/her creation. Likewise, the antithesis of good is a centre of evil, such as the Devil. A post-modern framework of logic, leaving God aside, leaves one in a void as to the centre of absolute good or evil. The only plausible alternative is some intrinsic sense in humans of absolute good and evil. Again, no go. Enter Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, his protagonist.

We are governed by our genes' singular motive to propagate unchanged, if one is to believe Dawkins. This fine gentleman convincingly argues that the evolution of a species is not driven by the survival of the group, but the survival of the gene in competing over resources. The human body, as a perfectly suitable example of a species, is a mere vessel to carry genes. Each of us is programmed by our genes to be selfish.

Humans evolved an elaborate brain with extraordinary intellectual capacity. Part of this capacity is used to develop frameworks of principles to govern groups of humans. The sole purpose of such frameworks is to improve the probability of the individual to survive and thrive, thereby enhancing the chances of the genes to propagate. There is no intrinsic good or evil at hand here. We merely depict as good such behaviour as conforms to the framework and as evil such behaviour as strikes out against the framework.

Substantiated by extensive practical observation, Steven Pinker argues that humans are hardly noble and to the contrary rather selfish. There is no evidence in history of a universal sense of goodness or evil. At best one can argue that humans have displayed some notion of the sanctity of human life, although there are many exceptions to this notion. Some exceptions are somewhat frivolous. In recent France, a man could flaunt the gauntlet over rather petty grievances to fight until death in a dual, with little consequence for the winner other than some battle scars for the less nimble.

The Incas had quite dire rituals of offering humans to appease their gods. More recently, some countries have cynically construed good vs evil for own political gains by vilifying a suitable candidate and mobilise the local population to go to war against that unfortunate candidate. Iraq springs to mind. In South Africa, the once evil resistance movement, the ANC, came good and to power in 1994 in the first elections under universal suffrage.

Good and evil require a context to exist. This context is drifting with the age of Mankind. We will have to concede that we are not so wise as to know the absolute of good and evil. Rather, good and evil are the folly of Man who has dared to stand upright.

The terror of absolutism

2006-03-11T21:45:00.000-05:00

An article in the latest New York Times online prompted this posting:
"For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats"

One of the darkest elements of the human condition is seated in the folly of absolutism. No other conceptual premise holds more ultimate fatality for humankind than absolutism. And religion has always been the cohort of choice for absolutism. We know it all too well: My God is the true God.

Religion has always been a key element of culture and ethnic identity. Religion is both a combining influence and a personal conviction. Cultural leaders can play on religion to combine individuals into a clan, exploiting religion as a strong element of group identity. Religion can also be very divisive as in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and Indonesia for example. Beyond greed, religion has been the fire that burnt many a civilization to ashes. Religion is power and power feeds greed. Why humans are so susceptible to religious manipulation is a matter for another discussion.

But a religion that is not absolutely true is open to opinion and opinion leads to dissidence and dissidence dilutes power, which alas, limits the exploits of greed. So, those most hungry for power need absolute truths more than they need air.

When the German tribes first got their eyes on a German Bible, courtesy of the brave and single-minded Martin Luther, it changed everything for them and ultimately broke the stronghold of Rome on the German society. But then, sadly, Protestantism descended into absolutism again with the Heidelberg Catechism.

It was the great Christian evangelical theologist, Karl Barth, that very clearly and eloquently explained how our insight and knowledge are only partial and only our interpretation of a deeper truth that may lie beneath our understanding. Quoting the Wikipedia, "Barth argued that the God who is revealed in the cross of Jesus challenges and overthrows any attempt to ally God with human cultures, achievements, or possessions. "

The essence of Barth's theology is in direct opposition to absolutism. Since we cannot rightfully tie God to our culture, we have to leave room for God to be also applicable in another cultural interpretation of God. No single culture can lay claim to absolute knowledge of God. Of course, the atheist might have excluded himself from this argument by virtue of the null hypothesis - there is no God.

Once absolutism has been negated, opinion becomes the basis for consensus on a believe structure. But the believe structure is only a partial understanding based upon premises that are only interpretations of a deeper conviction. We cannot sensibly prove or disprove God at this point in time, let alone go to war over our interpretation of God and God's guidance to Mankind. Who can rightfully claim that God is on "our" side. Why should he be not on the "other's" side? Because "our" interpretation of him is better?

The article referenced at the top speaks of a deep truth: We are dealing in the world today with a conflict between civilization and barbarism. But, it is not necessarily a Western civilization against a barbaric Middle East. Rather it is a civilization of universal freedoms and respect, as first demonstrated by the Greek and the Persians of 2000 years ago and affirmed in some modern democratic establishments, against a barbarism of manipulation; nepotism; lies; distortions; exploitation; corruption and oppression of opinion as demonstrated in the West; Middle East and Far East alike.

We need to seriously revisit our value systems in every culture of the world lest our homegrown versions of absolutism overcome us before daybreak.

Tony puts his foot in it

2006-03-05T21:05:00.000-05:00

Oh dear, Mr Blair, you have truly put your foot in that smooth-talking mouth of yours, haven't you?[1,2,3,4] In a modern state in the 21st century, we tend to keep religion out of politics. In fact, in the West we have been inclined to do so for the past 230 years, although seldom with much success. And since Britain does not have a formal constitution and does pose a state church, perhaps we should have expected some mixing of religion and politics.

So, on who's side is God now, Mr Blair? And which God are we referring to here? The very white, Western God of the Church of England as represented by the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the God of Islam as represented by imams of all kinds. Quite a dilemma, I would say. So, Mr Blair, when you pray, is God more likely to listen than to the Muslim 5000 km away, where your aeroplanes and tanks and men are occupying foreign, sovereign territory on your wild goose chase after phantom weapons of mass destruction? Who makes that decision, Mr Blair? Who calls the tune; who pays the piper? You, your cabinet, your Archbishop or your Queen? Oh dear, Mr Blair, which way shall He look? Your way, or their way?

In a parliamentarian democracy, leaders are judged by the voters and the elected parliament. When a leader has run out of room to maneuver, it is all too easy to fall back on absolutisms such as God shall be my judge. I am afraid, here on earth, the courts, the parliament and the electorate shall have first call. And after all, according to Christian believe, these powers are there by the power of God, Mr Blair.

After the last election in Britain, last year, when Labour was beaten back decisively to win by a much reduced majority, Mr Blair declared that he had listened; learned and thought people wanted to "move on" with regard to the Iraq war. Well, not quite so fast, Mr Blair.

There have been calls for impeachment and a parliamentary inquiry into the case made by the Prime Minister for commiting Britain to war in Iraq.

Shortly before the outbreak of war in Iraq, a top British weapons advisor, Dr David Kelly, died in an apparant suicide following pressure on him for disclosing inside information on the Iraq weapons dosier to the BBC. Dr Kelly alleged in the interview with the BBC that the potential threat to the world posed by Iraq had been souped up by Tony Blair.

Three ministers resigned on principle before the war.

The Law Lords of Britain have heard that there should be a court decision on the legality of going to war in Iraq.

A human rights lawyer has claimed that Mr Blair and Mr Bush made a pact before the UN resolution to go to war in Iraq.

This ghost is not going away, Mr Blair. It is returning to haunt you. Sleep well, if you will, Mr Blair.

Sensibility and hooliganism

2006-02-18T12:00:00.000-05:00

The row is raging on relentlessly. It started on 30 September 2005 with the publishing of cartoons of amongst others, the prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten. In the editor's own words, "The reporter's original concept was to investigate to what extent self-censorship exists in Denmark. Starting out with Kaare Bluitgen's children's book about Mohammed, to which apparently no illustrator dared openly contribute. There were other, similar, examples. That was how we started out. The idea was to write to 40 illustrators and ask if they would draw Mohammed for publication in Jyllands-Posten."

So the sense if not the sensibility of this project appears to be quite a valid one from a journalistic-academic point of view. However, that is not how Muslims across the world perceived the publishing and consequent republishing of these cartoons. In fact, a good deal - or is that a bad deal - of hell has since broken loose and the end is not in sight yet.

On Thursday, according to USA Today, more European newspapers, including Switzerland's Le Temps and Tribune de Geneve, published cartoons. Given the current outrage and row one stands aghast at such persistent schoolboy tactics from supposedly mature individuals and institutions. One would have thought that Europe has seen enough hatred and suffering over the ages to know when enough is enough. To continue taunting Muslims just because the press has the freedom, is tantamount to precipitating violence and then standing back with a smirk, pointing fingers. Such actions remind strongly and repugnantly of schoolyard tactics by some immature schoolboys, on a testosterone rush, taunting and teasing until havoc erupts.

The reaction from Muslims ranges from indignation through economic boycotts to naked violence. Raymond Lakah, an Egyptian magnate and owner of France Soir, fired managing editor Jacques Lefranc for republishing the cartoons. To which France Soir replied: "The best way to fight censorship is not to let it happen." French daily Liberation said: "Liberation defends the freedom of expression."

Right. At what price?

France has 5 million Muslims. These Muslims have different sensitivities from Christians. It is the apostle Paul who wrote that even though no food is regarded unclean to a Christian, it is out of respect for a guest that one shall refrain from exercising that freedom if, in doing so, one would offend the guest. If someone in one's community is not of one's own culture that person is a guest. In the modern world, with information technology at our finger tips, we have many guests around the world every minute of the day. We should know when to show respect at the price of some freedom. Self-censorship could be a wise decision, if not a macho one.

De Standaard Peter Vandermeersch, the Editor-in-Chief, put it this way: "Two values are in conflict here. One is respect for religion and the other is freedom of speech."

David Dadge of the International Press Institute in Vienna: "Newspapers have a right to express opinions. People also have a right to be offended."

It is for the individual to make a choice for sensibility against literary hooliganism, which brings us to the next point - naked, reactionary hooliganism.

According to MS NBC "Denmark has temporarily withdrawn its ambassadors from Syria, Iran and Indonesia because their safety was at risk. The Muslim leaders deny responsibility for fueling the flames and repeatedly have denounced the violence. "

Aljazeera reports that "up to 300 Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage in the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta on Friday. Shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest), they smashed lamps with bamboo sticks, threw chairs, lobbed rotten eggs and tomatoes and tore up a Danish flag. No one was hurt."

Aljazeera continues: "Yuri Thamrin, the Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman: 'It involves the whole Islamic world vis-a-vis Denmark and vis-a-vis the trend of Islamophobia'. European newspapers and officials defended the publication of the cartoons as an expression of media freedom.

[...] The editor of a Norwegian magazine that reprinted the Danish cartoons said he had received 25 death threats and thousands of hate messages. "

According to BBC News, 10 died in unrest over the cartoons in Libya.

The above examples of violent or threats smack of hooliganism. No matter how insulted one feels, to react with such primitive clan mentality is again tantamount to schoolyard tactics. The whole affair smacks of schoolboy gang mentality on both sides. Even though indignation from Muslims is completely understandable, violent reaction is not acceptable in a civilised world.

BBC News sampled opinions from the Arab world that can be summarised as follows: Nobody has the right to insult religious sensitivities in the name of freedom of speech. The publishing of the cartoons was a premeditated action against Islam. The publishing of the cartoons is no different from prevailing attitudes towards Islam in Western streets elsewhere. There are double standards when it comes to anti-semitism and anti-islamatism.

How do we climb out of this one? By putting our rights and pride in our pocket, our anger in the fridge and reach a hand of peace and apology to our brother on the other side of the river.

On democracy: respect and trust

2006-01-27T22:02:00.000-05:00

The world appears to be in a stupor. Every respectable newspaper editorial column wants to project a suitable tone of shock or indignation over the outcome of the past Palestinian election. Of course, democracy is what the West has been preaching to the Middle-East and installing there, rather ironically by force in some cases. Democracy has spoken in Palestine. The people have chosen. Hamas won. Apparently, the election was open and fair. The outcome was surprising; some would say, shocking. But in the end, the world has to respect the Palestinian choice. The world does not have to agree with the newly elected party's agenda or dealings. But the minimum the world can do, is to show respect for the choice of the Palestinian people.

The conflict in the Middle-East cries out for a permanent resolution that will lead to peace and prosperity for Palestine and Israel alike. The tit-for-tat exchange of face slapping between Hamas and Israel will not lead to this goal. Instead, such an approach will lead to the opposite outcome - mutual destruction and perhaps - oh dread - WW3.

Currently, Israel does not talk to Hamas and Hamas does not recognise Israel's right to exist. What a lovely start for a journey towards peace. Underlying these attitudes is one thing: a lack of mutual respect. Fear and disdain do not make for respect. Without respect there cannot be trust and without trust there cannot be lasting peace. The egos are in the way. Both sides have many wounds to show and many grievances upon which to grind their battle axes. But, peace can only be made when egos are buried with the dead of the conflict. When a clear understanding of the futility of sabre rattling and mutual destruction becomes a clear willingness to show respect for the other side, then trust can foster and peace be woven.

Is such a view unbearably naive? Not quite so. South Africa is a good example. The ANC was still a terrorist organisation when the then SA government decided to unban the organisation and allow their members-in-exile back into the country. The rest is a much praised history of reconciliation and reconstruction. Once the two sides stop labeling each other with negative stickers and start to show basic respect, trust develops. Then the issues and the fears can be put on the table and the healing can start. But first the egos must be buried.

Hamas will have to acknowledge Israel, but of their own choice. The birth of the state of Israel was fraud with unfairness; mismanagement by the world and the UN alike, but its existence today is a given and cannot easily or even feasibly be undone. Likewise, Hamas is a given and even though fraud with objectionable behaviour and agendas, will not easily be undone. On top of this, Hamas has won a democratic election in the Palestinian territories. That deserves respect. It is up to Hamas to show Israel basic respect and vise versa. Then the trust-building can start.

The fears and demands of Israel must be put on the table with the hurts and demands of the Palestinians. The sabres must be left outside the negotiating room. Better still, these should be hammered into ploughshares instead.

Hamas and Israel, for the sake of your children, please bury your wounds and egos and learn to respect and trust.

Imagine: A life incomplete

2005-12-08T19:27:00.000-05:00

Today, 25 years ago, a music giant was slain before his life was completed. John Lennon was shot outside his flat in New York City, USA. Mr Lennon formed the Beatles, the British pop group that created a new genre in popular music. He band members were Sir Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Star. The group's musical success is legendary around the world and they had 21 hit singles in the USA and 17 in the UK.

John Lennon left us with a legacy that is enduring and captivating. His music is frequently sharp; witty; often poetic and always personal. He had a vision and he sang about it. He suffered the life of a genius amongst mere mortals and sang about it. He loved and hated and sang about it. John Lennon imagined this world living in peace; mutual love and understanding. And he sang about it. "Imagine" is his signature song. This is my tribute to him.

Imagine I had the eloquence of words to do him justice
Imagine I had the love of which he dreamed
Imagine I had the tolerance for which he yearned
Imagine I had the courage which he displayed
Imagine I had the wisdom he proclaimed
Imagine I could bring the peace that he envisioned
Imagine - it's not so hard to do
Imagine - I wonder if you can?

To John. May he rest in peace.

Mightier than the sword

2005-10-27T20:57:00.000-04:00

It has been attributed to the Apostle Paul of Biblical fame that the tongue is the mightiest of all members of the human body. Surely, it can be more poisonous than the strongest snake venom. And even though the pen may be mightier than the sword, it is often the spoken word that inflames more mischief than the written word. So is true indeed of the president of Iran. According to the BBC and other reports the newly appointed leader has lashed out in brutal manner befitting an autocrat from the Middle Ages. And all the poison is aimed at Israel. One is almost inclined to conclude with "of course", for such is the acerbic rhetoric from Iran against Israel.

But, as always, the story has more than one side to it. The fumbled birth of Israel and her consequent nurturing by especially the USA, have been an enormous thorn in the side of Arab nations. Instead of carefully and sensitively treading their way towards the creation of the State of Israel by the colonial power, Britain, in 1947, there was the most blundering retreat in recent history.

Britain gained control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in 1917. Shortly afterwards, the Balfour Declaration stated the intent to establish a Jewish country in the Middle East without prejudice to the rights of indigenous inhabitants. An impossible set of borders were proposed in 1936. Immediate rejection by Arab nations and heated division amongst Jews followed. Ironically, in 1939 the British government realised the dilemma and declared in a white paper that it was not their intent to force a Jewish state upon a region where Arab people were in a significant majority. Rather, the white paper envisioned one country of Palestine inhabited and governed jointly by Jews and Arabs. This view was strongly opposed by Jews in Palestine as well as the British government. Arabs rejected the white paper on a basis of mistrust of ultimate British intentions.

The increasing immigration of Jews from mainly Europe continued to erg Arabs and the preferential and discriminatory pro-Jewish land purchases and employment practices in Palestine further fueled resentment amongst Arabs. According to the census of 1922, conducted by the British under their mandate established in 1919, the population was 752,048, comprising 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups. In 1945 a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups, according to the Wikipedia. Note the marked increase of Jewish people in Palestine over this period - 6.6 times compared to a mere doubling for Arab and other people.

Fresh from the horrors of the Second World War, Israel commanded huge international sympathy. Unfortunately for global justice, this goodwill capital was soon to be spent and abused on a frequent basis for Israeli interest. In 1947 the UN voted that Palestine should become independent from Britain. An impossible set of borders were drawn and hastily dumped upon the Middle East. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations rejected the plan. Britain retreated followed by an unilateral declaration of independence by Israel on 14 May 1948. The UN lamely approved. A year later, the five surrounding Arab nations declared war against Israel, which is understandable if regrettable. After all, here was a newly declared state inhabited by mostly European refugees who suddenly claimed to be a nation and have a heritage in what was for centuries Palestine - a majority Arab region that came under brief British rule through a foreign war not of Palestine choosing.

Later on, the USA had found a very useful strategic ally in the increasingly valuable oil-rich region of the world. The Israeli budget - especially in terms of defense - has ever since been richly sponsored by the US tax payer or supported by generous loans on favourable terms. Arab beneficiaries of US funds have been relatively sparsely supported by the US. [A search of official US Government budgets on the Web will support the forementioned claims. Unfortunately, for technical reasons, these search links are not persistent so that the author cannot store these links in this text.] Strong lobbying in the USA from Jewish groups also adds to the biased attitude of the USA towards the Middle East.

Such scenario as the above is fertile ground for all sorts of extremist ideologies and outrageous outcries - such as the most recent remark by the Iranian president that Israel should be wiped off the map. Such remarks serve no good purpose and is completely out of place in a modern international society. However, it takes one radical to latch onto ongoing international injustice and partisan behaviour by major players and we may have serious consequences.

A self-righteous approach by any party in the international conflict around Israel and Palestine is of no good to humankind. We need to think and talk and act reconciliation. We need to swallow pride and hurt alike. Harsh words will never cure the pain of injustice for anyone. Instead, a bigger hammer leads to bigger wounds. In the end, the fatality will be mankind as a whole when madness finally takes its toll.

What Beslan teaches us

2005-09-02T20:32:00.000-04:00

They stood around with grief on their faces and in their figures, staring at and lovingly touching pictures of their dear children lost in the senseless acts of brutal insanity that Beslan experienced one year ago. Mothers, fathers, family and friends, assembled in the remains of the battered school gym where the massacre happened when Chechen militants clashed with Russian troops at the end of the siege of a local Beslan school. The tears were laced with anger at the Russian Government for the hamfisted manner in which the siege was handled by the military.

Beslan teaches us that the bigger hammer response to terrorism does not solve the problem of terrorism itself. The terrorists who besieged the school did not score any points either. Neither side in this sad drama came out as winners. The losers were the innocent. That is the wretched irony of terrorism and counter-terrorism alike. That lesson has been taught elsewhere too, such as in Northern Ireland, Palestine, South Africa, Iraq, and recently, the UK. The common denominator in all these regions is the battle for justice. Unfortunately, each side has its own view of justice. As always, it is the innocent who suffers most.

Below the surface of the Chechen conflict lies a deeper level of strive. For Chechnya the fighting goes about the call for independence of Chechnya from Russia and the Russian response to this view. For many Chechens this boils down to a conflict fueled by their perception of an injustice being committed against them by the Russian government.

In Northern Ireland, the battle is clearly over the independence of Northern Ireland from the UK and consequent inclusion into Ireland. No British government in its right mind will deny that the battle is over that. However, now it would appear that both Tony Blair and Jack Straw have suffered complete amnesia over what often fuels terrorism. They now claims that terrorists grab for straws (no pun) to justify acts of violence. They would like us to believe terrorists are actually just evil gnomes without any real motives. Really? The IRA clearly states that their motive is to oppose the British government over the question of inclusion of Northern Ireland into Ireland. The very existence of the IRA is build around resistance to British rule there. Grabbing for straws? I think not. The cultural, religious and political strive run deeply in Northern Ireland. Violence commited by the IRA and the reverse violence from the British government have not brought Northern Ireland any closer to a solution. Thank heavens that the IRA has recently made a policy change to denounce violence. That is a major breakthrough - a change of heart in one of the parties involved in the spiral of violence.

In Palestine, Hamas, a rather controversial organization that also engages in terrorism against Israel, has clear motives to secure an independent Palestine state. They seem to go further and do not accept the existence of Israel. To call their motives a grabbing for straws of self-justification while Israel blatantly defies International Law and occupies land in the West Bank, often brutally oppressing Palestinians in the process, is a rather blatant stretch of the imagination. Instead, Israel and its supporters are handing Hamas fuel for the terrible fires of terrorism in a golden tanker. The ensuing conflict has only brought misery to all sides. The bigger hammer has not solved the bigger problem, Israel's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Violence has not moved the parties any closer to a solution, in spite of the high cost in human suffering. The recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a positive move. Let's hope Hamas can respond with its own positive move in return, rather than to make boastful remarks on TV.

In Iraq, complicated though the political and ethnic situations are, the insurgency is aimed clearly at resisting the US and coalition forces there. There was no insurgency before the invasion of Iraq. There were no Islamic militant actions in the UK before the invasion of Iraq. To suggest that Islamic militants are grabbing for straws to justify their vehement opposition to the invasion of Iraq, is an insult to the faculties of observation of the peaceful citizens of this world. The end of that conflict is not in sight - not along the current path.

In South Africa, the ANC, now the governing party there, ran a military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, for years. This wing committed numerous acts of terrorism in South Africa since its inception in the 1960's until the change in 1994 when the wing was dismantled. Their goal was clear - to oppose the injustice of Apartheid. To accuse the ANC of grabbing for straws in justifying their militant opposition of the nationalist government in SA would be a gross insult to the lot of black South Africans through those dark years of oppression. Yet, the bigger hammer approach of the nationalist government in SA did not bring about reduction in terrorism or a resolution to the inherent conflict. At the same time, terrorism did not end the oppression in South Africa. Only a change in heart, brought about mainly by economic sanctions in the 1980's, and - importantly, real dialogue - brought an end to the political and militant conflict in South Africa.

Violence does not solve problems. Instead, violence perpetuate and inflame problems. This is true whether violence comes from militants or the state. Sadly, when a faction of people feels disenfranchised and thus powerless in a society, whether national or international, such a faction often finds resolve in violence and militancy. The governments of the world must realise this phenomenon by now: Militancy is fueled by a perception of injustice by those who feels powerless in the face of the establishment. Violent and hamfisted response from states will only further fuel this militancy.

The solution to the above dilemma is in dialogue with a real willingness to hear and understand the other side's view. Only in dialogue do we find lasting solutions. Africa is rife with examples of both the success and failure of dialogue. Without exception, the consequences of failure in dialogue led to immeasurable anguish and agony for the innocent.

May the lesson that Beslan has taught us be a dear one not lightly forgotten.

Promised land

2005-08-18T20:29:00.000-04:00

They stood shouting and chanting while some were being carried away - defiant souls set on standing their ground. The police and soldiers were staving off physical and emotional opposition as best they could. Some broke down, overcome by the unbearable confrontation - kinsman against kinsman; Israeli evacuating Israeli from towns in the Gaza strip.

The scenes are reminiscent of the forced evictions in South Africa by police of black and coloured people from their houses. Yet, the circumstances are very different. Here in Gaza we have Israeli police and soldiers moving out Israeli citizens from foreign territory, occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. In South Africa we had mostly white police and soldiers evacuating, rather less delicately, thousands of people of non-white race from "whites only" areas within the territory of South Africa. Even so, many defiant Israelis claim to be on their land - the promised land, promised by God to their forefathers, to Abraham himself.

If one turns to a religious, Biblical, basis for the prickly debate over Gaza, then the picture becomes much more muddled than when sticking to modern, international law. According to the Christian Bible, God promised land to Abraham and his descendants. But, who were the descendents of Abraham? He had two prominent sons, Izaac by his wife Sarah and Ismael by her slave, Hagar, who became his wife when Sarah was still barren.

It is commonly accepted that the Arab nations trace their ancestry to Abraham through Ishmael and the Jews theirs through Isaac. But there the picture turns rather nasty. Religious Israel claims that Isaac was blessed by Abraham to receive his inheritance and not Ishmael, even though Ishmael was Abraham's first-born. The reason why Isaac was blessed instead lies with Sarah, who decided that Hager and Ishmael were rather too much of a domestic threat and had to be sent off into the Negev. She convinced Abraham to do so. However, legend would have it that God protected Ishmael and Hager in the desert and Ishmael had a great number of descendants, whom we today know as the Arab nations - including the Palestinians. According to Jewish theology and tradition, Isaac became the officially blessed one and through his lineage we had King David and, so it is claimed, today's Jewish people.

So, in the greater Palestine, including the state of Israel, we have a battle of brothers. That is, if one takes the religious point of view. Of course, this view makes the conflict all the sadder. One would think that brothers, even half-brothers, should at some point see the folly of their fighting and stop it all. Let's embrace, not obliterate, each other.

But, there is modern, international law to speak the last word on Gaza. We are not ruled by religion any more, but rather by secular law. At least, that is the case as far as the United Nations are concerned. According to international law and a UN resolution, Israel is illegally occupying the Gaza and West Bank regions of Palestine. Withdrawal, however painful after 30 odd years there, is the only right thing to do. Unless, of course, one gives the settlers a choice to become Palestinian citizens, once Gaza becomes a fully independent part of the Palestinian state, and let them stay.

The option to stay were followed in South West Africa (Namibia), which took independence from South Africa in 1990, after many years of international pressure as well as a bloody anti-insurgency war fought at the north of the then South West Africa. At the end of World War I, South Africa received Deutsch West Afrika as a protectorate under the Treaty of Versailles. The region were promptly renamed to South West Africa. However, in 1969, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that revoked South Africa's rights to South West Africa and called for immediate withdrawal of South African governance and troops. After many years of pressure and eventual sanctions, South Africa did comply. On 21 March 1990 its citizens, born in South West Africa, became Namibian citizens at the stroke of a political pen. The circumstances are legally similar in Gaza. Yet, the Sharon government has chosen to evacuate its citizens at great emotional and financial cost.

One can only wonder if Palestinians would have accepted Jews as Palestinian citizens and if Jews would have accepted Palestinian rule in Gaza, were the settlers to stay. Perhaps then, the brothers would have found each other again and laid to peace their bitter differences. Alas, as is often the case, it is better for brothers each to have his own kingdom to rule over.

Hideous

2005-08-14T22:54:00.000-04:00

The author is aghast, dismayed and bemused. And all these emotions are aimed at British Airways. It has been reported in The Times that BA had the impertinent insolence to let an undisclosed number of their flights depart with empty First Class and Business Class seats - that while 600 passengers were still stranded after the hideous experience of total service disruption of BA flights that started last Thursday and ended this Sunday - except for the 600 stranded travellers. The least these poor travellers deserved was to be pampered with an upgrade to Business Class or First Class. BA's high-handed response was that it is BA policy to keep passengers in the class of their ticket. What do you know - class is well and alive in Britain, now is it not? Just, in case some of us have forgotten that little detail, BA makes a quick point of reminding us. One would have thought that after the public relations fiasco of the past few day's BA would have at least had the common sense to do the right thing. Well, let them bleed.

Once upon a time, the author had great respect for BA, even preference. This weekend, that time has passed.

Shame on you, British Airways.

In the name of security

2005-08-09T21:09:00.000-04:00

On the 5 August, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, announced his tough stance on terrorism. In his speech he was quite adamant about the new, bigger hammer that he intended to raise at the bigger problem of terrorism. Amongst the things he proposed, was a new act declaring illegal any justification of terrorism. Now the question that springs to mind is exactly what would be judged as justification of terrorism? Would broadening of the understanding for the motives behind modern-day terrorism be regarded as justification in some implicit manner - enough to trigger the wrath of the already agitated British Prime Minister?

It should be rather clear from the earlier postings on this WebLog that yours truly sincerely believes the bigger hammer will not solve the bigger problem as the Prime Minister apparently believes and hopes it would. In fact, I am of the conviction that actually attempting to understand the motives of the Islamic terrorist in particular is worth the while in terms of potential avoidance of senseless death and destruction in the future. Would such a view make me a target of Mr Blair's ire?

For one, to argue that lending an ear in a sincere attempt to understand is equal to justification of terrorism or at the least, falling into the intellectual trap of extremism, is as illogical as to argue that having a serious chat with a delinquent is tantamount to condoning his misendeavours. The saying goes that if the shoe fits, wear it. So, am I and others who share the same sentiments on the approach to potential terrorists at risk of wearing Mr Blair's shoe of punishable misconduct under his newly proposed anti-terrorism legislation? I am afraid not.

In fact, I am even more afraid that Mr Blair has turned towards the spiral of coercion of state violence. This spiral starts very subtly indeed, like a worm-hole. In London, state violence started rather abruptly with the shooting by the police of an innocent Brazilian. Normally, it begins with the special curbing of human rights - of course always only temporarily, with the inevitable option to extend. Restriction of public expression is one - Mr Blair is proposing such, of course very qualified, restrictions. Control powers put one steadily on course for the accelerated section of the worm-hole. Mr Blair is also proposing those.

So, perhaps I'll escape Mr Blair's ire but become the laughing stock of his likes for being one of the bleeding hearts who is in constant need of rescue from imminent disaster by the brave and brash that fight his military battles for him. To those I say: Who started the war in the first place? Neither I nor the likes of me, now did I?

Right, Mr Blair would like those of us, who make an attempt to understand, to believe that Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian issue, or America's foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. No, if we were to believe Mr Blair, Islamic terrorists just like to blow up things, including themselves, mind you. Well, there is one simplistic world view from an eminent leader of a respectable Western nation.

Since the age of five, I have denounced the existence of Santa Claus, of my own accord. In similar vein, I reject Mr Blair's view of what motivates Islamic terrorists. Before 1948, when Israel unilaterally declared independence after Britain's blunderous exit from the Palistinian region, the level of Arab terrorism was almost negligible compared to what we have had since 1990. Between 1948 and 1990, there was a marked escalation of Islamic terrorism.

Unless the West sincerely sit down and listen to the objections and demands of Islamic voices, including extremists, we are not going to see the end of the spiral of violence. Violence breeds violence. The bigger hammer causes a bigger problem in this case; it does not solve the current problem.

"The promotion and protection of human rights is central to an effective strategy to counter terrorism. Inherent in this statement are two important and inter-related dimensions. Firstly, the need to ensure that measures designed to combat terrorism do not impermissibly limit human rights and fundamental freedoms and, secondly, the recognition that terrorism puts under threat the full enjoyment of civil liberties and human rights." [Human Rights and the Anti-terrorism Bill]

Terrorism destroys and therefore must be condemned. But the plight behind the acts of terrorism always deserves an ear. Greater understanding brings us closer to solutions. Let's stop shouting and start listening. We owe it to the victims on both sides and to our children.

True courage is not found in overwhelming firepower, but rather in humility. But then, Mr Blair and Mr Bush for that matter, should know this - they both claim to be Christians.

The day London bled

2005-07-07T20:35:00.000-04:00

Terrorism shows no respect. Today, London felt the grim reality of that adage to her core. Thirty seven common citizens died in a senseless act of maligned outrage. Over 700 people were injured. These victims were not powerful; leaders of nations or generals over battalions. They were Mr and Ms Smith next door, on their respective ways to respectable jobs.

Terrorism asks not the victim's religion, sex, orientation, alignment, convictions. It kills and maims and scars for life. It snuffs out the flame of lives not yet fully lived. Terrorism breaks and destroys. It neither corrects nor builds.

So tonight, London has to ask herself: Where-to now from here? Will acts of terrorism induce acts of revenge? Will an indignant and angry backlash send more violence down the path to the perpetrators? Will the clamshell of neurosis draw close around the boundaries and minds of London? Will tit for tat be the solution to the situation that underlies this tragic day?

I would hope not and here is way. Where is the evidence that violence eradicates violence? Unless one side or both obliterates the other, there is no ending violence with violence. The extreme of this policy is Assured Mutual Destruction. At the end of the Cold War, the world had decided to walk away from that piece of mindless folly. Or had it?

Assuming that, besides masochists, psychopaths and pathological psychotics, the human being does not prefer suffering and sacrifice over peace and prosperity, what motivates a common human to acts of terror? Has the Democratic West stopped barking for one minute to ponder that question? Is it but remotely possible that this problem has two sides?

Offer a man a viable option and he will consider it over self-sacrifice and a violent death. Has the Democratic West ever considered shutting up, sitting down and listening to the militants, the potential suicide bombers, that is - the terrorists? Will rhetoric and chest-beating solve the problem facing New York City, London, Madrid and who knows where else?

Once, the spiraling conflict in South Africa, threatening to destroy that country at the start of the 1990's, was defused and solved when progressive leaders came up through the ranks of Parliament and took the lead. F W de Klerk led the Nationalist Government in revolt against the then hardline President P W Botha and brought about the most heralded and dramatic political change of the Twentieth Century - in relative peace and with decorum. The White leaders of South Africa decided to free prisoners such as Nelson Mandela and un-ban the then terrorist organization, the African National Congress (ANC); they decided to shut up and sit down to listen. Only then, after listening, did the negotiations start towards a new South African constitution and real democracy for all citizens of South Africa.

Where once the ANC planted bombs and blew up people, they came to the table, once they were shown respect and a viable option to violence. The White people could put their views and concerns on the table. Negotiations, with a real will to change, commenced. The rest is history.

We of the rich and prosperous West should listen to the screams for justice hidden in the chilling thuds of exploding bombs. Whereas no act of terrorism can be condoned, the outcry amongst the violence deserves our concern and attention. The West, who is in a position of power and leadership, is in dire need of a change of heart.

The spiral of violence will not be won by a bigger hammer for a bigger problem. Blessed are the peacemakers .

Let us offer our hand to the terrorist and disarm his anger with our goodwill and forgiveness. To our surprise, the terrorist may just offer us in return his hand and forgiveness.

The long road to justice

2005-07-04T09:57:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, 2 June 2005, the World united across four continents, nine cities and several millions of people. In the words of Kofi Anan, it was the "real United Nations" meeting. It was a day of hope and goodwill. It was a day in which the ordinary people of the world gathered to speak up for justice. They voted with their presence, their time and their enthusiasm for the plight of the poor and destitute of Africa and elsewhere. For ten hours they showed the leaders of the G8 the direction. It was real democracy. It was a beautiful day. It was the day of the Live8 Concert.

It was a day of learning. The facts of Africa suffering are compelling and tragic, yet are appallingly unknown among people of the G8. Her plight has become the cry of the Third World, the symbol of international injustice. The facts shock and sadden. Relentlessly, every day across the World about 30000 people die of preventable causes, rooted in poverty and illness. The reasons are manifold. Colonialism and consequent revolution have left Africa in disarray for most. Corruption, nepotism as well as civil war obstruct and undo reconstruction efforts. Still, the G8 sees fit to drag its feet, quibbling over details and viewpoints. Alas, we seem to have become comfortably numb. But yesterday, common people of the G8 got up on their feet and voiced their vote: The tragedy must come to an end; the long road to justice must commence right now.

What is this road to justice? George Bush's paradigm of freedom and democracy? Gordon Brown's marshal plan for Africa? Nelson Mandela's Commission of Truth and Reconciliation? The road starts with a walk to freedom.

On 18 February 1990, the long walk to freedom reached a major milestone for one man and his country. Nelson Mandela was released from prison after 27 years. On 26 April 1994, South Africa became a democracy for all its citizens, but not through the barrel of a gun, not through shock and awe. On that day, the long road to justice started for the most powerful, yet deeply divided country of Africa. It is a long walk from oppression; from the disabling mental baggage left by a colonial legacy; to a new faith in new leaders, new government, a new vision, a new beginning and a better future. It begins with confidence in oneself. Today, South Africa, though still struggling with its legacy, nonetheless symbolises the hope of Africa - the hope of freedom, justice and prosperity. Mandela has become the symbolic moral leader of Africa, if not of the world. But one man and one country cannot save a whole continent of almost 400 million people. Africa cannot go this road alone. Africa, including South Africa, needs the companionship of the G8.

I watched my recording of Live8 on Sunday and gained hope again for Mankind. Against the demands of the selfish gene, people gathered across the G8 nations to show support for Africa. They put aside their busy schedule and their comfy chairs. For ten hours, they took to the streets and parks of London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Philadelphia, Barrie (Canada) and Johannesburg.

You may dismiss the day as yet another resurrection of the Flower Power; yet another idealistic crowd having a day of music and fun in the sun - Woodstock on a grander scale, with loftier motives. You may do so - after all, you are welcome to your opinion. Yet, as you speak, another child dies in Africa at the rate of one every three seconds. So, speak fast and finish soon, so that we the bleeding hearts can go and make a difference.

To the leaders of the G8 I say: This week you have an opportunity to make a difference; to change history for millions of suffering people. Over 15 million of the people of your constituencies have spoken for Africa. Every move you make, we'll be watching you. For we are the champions of this world.

Censorship on the ticket of "Don't offend"

2005-06-23T21:00:00.000-04:00

[The BBC will use delay to cut distressing live images]

In the name of Truth I ask of the BBC: What do you think are you doing? Now the BBC do not want to offend the viewer. Do not show the truth, if the truth offends. Show not reality in its often gruesome brashness. No, keep them comfy in their armchairs. Let them idle over the perils of mankind; the crimes committed against humanity by brutal dictators; the vile actions of ruthless criminals and sly manipulators. Do not disturb with the cruel reality of the Third World, the illusion of peace and tranquility of the living room in up-market London and New York. Show not the abuse of leaders in the name of freedom. Keep them calm and happy: One could just as well serve viewers a palate of Prozac.

Confirming the validity of news feed is one thing. Parading censorship on the ticket of "Don't offend" is quite another. The BBC has been a notably acclaimed bastion of independent and neutral reportage of the highest standards. I am afraid the age of information control has caught up with the BBC: The hero of news casting has feet of clay after all. The recent heavy-handedness of the British government over the David Kelly affair has scared the pigeons, it would seem.

Woe on you, governors of the BBC. I expected more backbone form you than this pitiful whimper.

What goes in and what comes out

2005-06-17T16:50:00.000-04:00

The ages-old quibbling between France and the UK is again at a boil. These days the two protagonists appear to have exchanged their guns for verbal daggers. And it is all about money - or so it would appear. In the past it was about many things, but mostly about pride and property - more particularly, about territory. [1]

This time, the territory is the EU budget. France is allergic to the UK rebate of 4.6 billion Euro and the UK gets a fever over the EU subsidies for France's agriculture. Now, if you study the net benefit from the EU budget of major countries in the EU, it becomes very clear that the UK and Germany are getting milked.

Were it not for the rebate, the UK would have been milked at the rate that Germany is. Spain on the other hand, seems to be having a ball. That country gains 8.8 billion Euros per year from the EU budget, mostly to benefit its agricultural sector. The UK and Germany are practically keeping the shoestrings on the Spanish budget. I do not understand how Germany can quietly tolerate such abuse of its immense economical power. Don't throw me the WW II bone. It is 60 years on. That bone is dry and chewed bare. Time to walk on.

More crucially, France keeps their agricultural industry alive at the cost of the German and UK public. Yet, Jacques Chirac has the audacity to insist that under no circumstances should the agricultural subsidies to France, or anywhere else in the EU, he adds politely, be tied to the argument over the UK budget rebate. Mr Chirac requests a "gesture of goodwill" from the UK.

Says Tony Blair: "First of all, Britain has been making a gesture, because over the past 10 years, even with the British rebate, we have been making a contribution to Europe two-and-a-half times that of France," he said. "Without the rebate it would have been 15 times as much as France." [2]

The reason for the rebate at stake comes from arguments forwarded by Prime Minister Thatcher during 1984. Basically, the UK used to have a much smaller economy than France and Germany and therefore won the rebate from the EU. Now, things go better for the UK. However, the BBC reports: "[If] the UK did not get a rebate, then France's contribution to the EU would be just 100 million euros while the UK's contribution would be 9 billion euros." [2]

Another view on the contributions is to express these contributions as a percentage of GDP. In this case, France made a net contribution of 0.12% of GDP in 2003, and the UK 0.16% of GDP, a difference of about 33%. [2]

The above was about what goes into the EU budget. Looking at what comes out of the EU budget, the picture appears like a page out of a Communist manifesto - well, at least as far as agriculture goes. The EU appears artificially to keep its farmers in business and a good life alike. [3]

According to British assessment of the EU budget, what comes out of that budget for research, science, technology and education is one seventh of what is spent on agricultural subsidies. It is one thing to sustain a traditional way of life for a large portion of the EU population, but times move on and the EU should look forward. It is quite another thing to ensure staying abreast and ahead of times in education and research. The EU should reassess how and where it spends its money. Britain is correct on this point and France knows it.

What appears as a turf war over the budget is at a deeper level a turf war over the basic role of the EU and who steers the EU to that role. In the recent referenda on the EU constitution, the populations of France and The Netherlands have spoken on the hopes and fears for and over the EU. It is time the EC listens.

I support the UK on the point of right now reviewing the role and long terms goals of the EU, reconnecting the EC with the EU population. Starting with the EU budget is as good a place as any. After all, money makes the world go round - or so some claim.

[1][Last effort to break EU impasse]
[2] [Fact check: Britain's EU rebate]
[3][How the money is spent]

They need your help

2005-06-16T15:14:00.000-04:00

Imagine these children on the streets of Boston, like we see them on the streets of Cape Town and Pretoria and Johannesburg and Durban and my hometown, Stellenbosch. Imagine thousands of children everyday without a home, food, care and love. Can you? Here, where we live in abundance, can we imagine those children? I cannot forget them.

In South Africa, I tried to steer around them and out of the stare of their pleading eyes. I tried to avoid the outstretched hands, the asking in a mumbling, soft and subservient voice, "A few cents, please, melani". Inside, it often tore at the seems of my emotions, wrestling with my resistance to give in and ... What, start to care? Start to cry? Because, it gets to one, seeing them every day on the sidewalks and in the park yards: The bands of homeless children tirelessly swarming to the next man or woman on his or her way from the car to the shop, with money to pay for things needed and things nice to have alike. Yet, we have so little time for them, if any at all. They become to us like the African flies in summer that we just wave off.

But, come winter, they are still on the sidewalks and in park yards.

In Africa we have a culture called Ubuntu, which means to share with one another. It means those who have are obliged to share with those who don't. Far it is from me to impose one culture upon another and demand that the rich of the West help the poor of Africa. To do so would be arrogance. Still, I can only beseech the rich of this world: The children of Africa need your help.

Today.

[ Appeal to help Africa's orphans]

For democracy

2005-06-15T17:05:00.000-04:00

The Financial Times has some praise to lavish on the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, for his firm stand and sacking of Deputy President Zuma, who finds himself in the middle of a fraud scandal.

I am waiting with bated breath for the next move of Mbeki.

His courage may come at a price. The political scene around Mbeki is rather fraud with pitfalls and undercurrents. He might just have pried open a fissure through which he himself very soon could be tumbling into oblivion. Ambition runs high in the new black South African political stratosphere. As of yet, there is no clear successor to Dr Zuma in the wings. The tension between the common expectation of the masses and the opportunistic ambitions of some leaders-in-waiting might prove a rather rambunctious genie let out of the bottle by this sacking of Zuma.

Interesting times ahead Down Under.


[Mbeki's Stand]

Principle over Politics

2005-06-15T16:47:00.000-04:00

So, off he went - Jacob Zuma, Deputy President of South Africa; sacked by President Mbeki. For once, my president has done the right thing at the right time: Place principle above politics.

Jacob Zuma landed himself in an intolerable situation with his financial advisor having been found guilty of fraud in his line of duty. Zuma even had the flagrant audacity to claim a clear conscience based on ignorance in the whole affair, which involved his advisor receiving substantial bribes for deals on military equipment. Out with him, I say.

If Africa is to progress along the road out of accute corruption, then the above present the kinds of integrity and courage that are required of all the leaders of Africa. Well done, Mbeki. Let's hope continued wisdom prevails at the appointment of the next Deputy President of SA.

[ Press backs Zuma sacking]
[Shock at Zuma's sacking]
[ Zuma: Mbeki's toughest decision]
[ South African leader sacks deputy]
[Jacob Zuma]

The pot and the kettle

2005-06-15T16:22:00.000-04:00

'In a keynote address at an Asian security conference here, Mr. Rumsfeld argued that China's investment in missiles and up-to-date military technology posed a risk not only to Taiwan and to American interests, but also to nations across Asia that view themselves as China's trading partners, not rivals.

'Mr. Rumsfeld previewed findings of the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, saying: "China's defence expenditures are much higher than Chinese officials have publicly admitted. It is estimated that China's is the third-largest military budget in the world, and now the largest in Asia."'

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/04/international/asia/04rumsfeld.html?th&emc=th>

I would like Mr Rumsfeld to inform the world which nations in his opinion take first and second spot in military spending.

The pot can hardly accuse the kettle.

Such blatant hypocrisy has not been heard in this world since the fall of the Third Reich.

I think I am going to grow dreadlocks, join Green Peace and start smoking pot. But then I'll have to learn to tolerate Reggae. Darn! There goes my new career.

Turning point: G8 approves real aid for Africa

2005-06-11T16:39:00.000-04:00

Friends, lend me your ears

As you may be aware by now, the plight of Africa lies close to my heart. Therefore, I am rather delighted as you can imagine, to read this morning about the real deal struct by the G8 nations on aid to Africa. The first part of this deal is to clear the debt of 18 poor countries, removing a major obstacle for these countries to get on with development as these countries get theirrespective houses in order.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4083676.stm

I am also particularly encouraged to see agreement between the US and the rest of the G8 on this matter. It would seem that I had no need to put on my picket outfit after all. Darn! Oh well, we'll find another reason for a day of fun in the sun.

You may have them back now. Your ears, I mean.