The incipient rot

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

[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

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

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

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]