The ANC government in South Africa has had an intersting and challenging 16 year rule of the republic. When the government changed in 1994 the ANC was still uncertain of who best to ally with based on their struggles during apartheid. This writing assignment will require that you examine South Africa's attitudes to certain events that have taken place in the last 15 years and the country's attitude towards the nations involved in these events.
Event #1 - Analyse the ANC's perception of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. How did Mr. Mandela and Mbeki feel about the U.S. and British involvement in this country? Do you think that their feelings about the invasion were influenced by economics and the fact that both the US and UK were major trading partners with South Africa?
Event # 2 - An event of your choosing. Analyse ANC reaction to a major world issue by researching and reporting on how and why the South African government reacted as it did to the event.
This assignment must be posted by Monday April 4.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEvent I:
ReplyDeleteThe ANC government of South Africa lead by Thabo Mbeki strongly condemned the invasion of Iraq with Mbeki comparing the invasion to "force feeding a person on a hunger strike". The general sentiment was of opposition to militaristic foreign intervention with many feeling that the war was one being waged for resources. Both Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu condemned the invasion of Iraq. The Archbishop said that the war would merely cause death and that there were too many civilian casualties. Both leaders felt that the war set a bad precedent for the future. Mbeki was very critical of the implications of the war for future diplomacy, particularly in Africa where there are many corrupt and dictatorial governments. There were substantial protests in South Africa against the war with marches in the streets of most of the country's major cities. The protesters felt that the United States was ignoring the rest of the world and acting solely to obtain resources and power.
This type of sentiment is likely not only a reaction to the ending of Apartheid but also to the process of colonization where a stronger nation would use a pretext to invade a weaker one for control of resources. The invader would claim to be setting up a better system in the country that would last after they left and then would proceed to remain in the country and exploit the natural resources in the area.
Event II:
The ANC has generally opposed Robert Mugabe's brutal control of Zimbabwe. Thabo Mbeki has attempted the diplomatically improve the situation in Zimbabwe but there has been little success. One issue is that the ANC does not want to set a precedent of asking for European or American involvement in Southern Africa. The ANC has largely avoided condemnation of Zanu PF and Mugabe, especially Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki has avoided condemning Mugabe for generally recognized electoral fraud although the rest of the ANC did declare that there was a crisis in Zimbabwe. However, the government of South Africa would like to see the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Zimbabwe's main opposition party, be allowed to meet and run for office without harassment or brutality by Zanu PF.
The ANC also has to deal with some anti-white radicalism within its own ranks. Julius Malema, the leader of the ANCYL, has been repeatedly quoted calling for Zimbabwean style land seizures from white farmers in South Africa (as well as singing the banned song 'Kill the Boer'). Malema has repeatedly praised and defended Mugabe and Zanu PF's policies and condemned the MDC as being puppets of the west. He has been reprimanded for hate speech by the ANC and they have publicly broken with his positions on Zimbabwe.
Event #1
ReplyDeleteNelson Mandela has been very open about his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. BBC News reported him “breathing fire down the [phone] line” at British Prime Minister Tony Blair after the news of the invasion of Iraq. As former Welsh Secretary Peter Hain put it, "He was always full of praise for the way our government had trebled the overseas aid and development budget for Africa; he just felt that all of this had been completely blown out of the water by the Iraq invasion.” In his farewell address he spoke to the issue again. "We see how the powerful countries, all of them so-called democracies, manipulate multilateral bodies to the great disadvantage and suffering of the poorer developing nations." Mandela was a fierce critic of the 2003 invasion, and as demonstrated in his statements, largely because of the cost that would come to South Africa (and Africa as a whole) as a result of the war. He felt that a war between the US/Britain and Iraq, especially one not sanctioned by the United Nations, would pull funding away from the overseas aid budget for Africa. He also felt that starting a war that the UN did not approve of would “undermine the trust between America and a spectrum of international opinion.”
Thabo Mbeki holds nearly identical opinions to Nelson Mandela. At a joint World Council of Churches, All Africa Conference of Churches and South African Council of Churches conference on Nepad in Midrand in 2003, he stated that the war “puts Africa on the backburner,” as it would draw funding and international attention from the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad). However, he said that this might be a “good thing” because it meant, "we [Africans] will have to rely on ourselves, our own resources and our own efforts” to bring about change. Similar to Mandela, Mbeki is also concerned about the UN’s approval of the war. Presidential spokesperson Bheki Khumalo spoke for the president when he said that the war "is a blow to multi-lateralism.”
The South African leaders’ views on the war seem to be mirrored in the people, with events such as Declaration of South Africans United to Stop the War in Iraq and the Anti-War Campaign, held in February of 2003.
http://www.polity.org.za/article/iraq-war-a-blow-to-multilateralism-mbeki-2003-03-20
http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/iraq-war-puts-africa-on-backburner-mbeki-1.103649
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0510-02.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11277148
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2228971.stm
Serbia's finest wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe atmosphere in South Africa after the 2003 invasion of Iraq was one, which expressed the general attitudes of the people that such an invasion was unnecessary. A report by Philippa Green in 2006, a Johannesburg journalist and head of SABC Radio news, explained this atmosphere. She speaks of a dinner that she and fellow journalists were invited to by the American Ambassadors. There, the South Africans questioned the US Ambassadors on what plans were in place for restructuring of the country after the invasion ended. At the time of the publishing of the report, the war was still 3 years old and no signs of progress had been made. Mrs. Green described the atmosphere in the room as very tense between the two sides; South Africa and its people had not supported the invasion of Iraq by the USA.
The report then explains the effect that the invasion had on the people in the country itself. “Most South Africans, across a spectrum of politically conservative to left-wing, and across race lines, thought the invasion of Iraq ill-conceived and dangerous to the entire world.” There was a clear anti-war sentiment in the country regardless of political alliance. This is the problem with America, and not with the rest of the world. Here, people vote on an issue depending on what their political views are, and whether the intended course of action on the issue by the ruling party matches with their own. In South Africa for example, the issue at hand is much more important, and people realize that the consequences of the war were much graver and were able to transgress their political alliance. This also leads into the second effect that the war had on South Africans that was the way in which it clumped all Americans together. That is to say, that the perception in the country of Americans was that they all supported the war regardless of political stance or other demographic guideline. This contradicts the actual scenario in the USA, and was thus a negative effect, as described by the article. “Americans … are seen as responsible for all that’s bad in the world: global warming, tension in the Middle East, violence in Iraq, and rising oil prices.”
In terms of the country’s administration at the time, it is clear that Mbeki was against involvement in Iraq according to the fact that South Africa didn’t interfere, and very explicitly stated that war in Iraq should be avoided. Mr. Mandela expressed the same concern, added to the fact that he has always been a man of peaceful coercion and intervention, rather than violence. South Africa also had an interesting operation in 1988 whereby it sold 50 kilograms of enriched Uranium to Iraq for its Nuclear Weapons program. The implications this could have for policy and involvement by the South Africans would be one of choosing to support Iraq with which it had previous economic operations, as well as not wanting to interfere with a country militarily for which it knows has nuclear weapons.
Ivan Maric Part II:
ReplyDeleteSouth Africa’s major markets are actually the US, China, and Japan, as noted on the US Department of State Website. However, according to that same site, while the USA and South Africa enjoy good bilateral relations, they do lack a strong political agreement. Often, the two sides have disagreed on many political issues although this has not impeded economic involvement between the two. Therefore, this leads me to believe that South Africa’s decision to not intervene in Iraq was not at all influenced by its economic stance with the USA and UK. Ultimately, the decision not to intervene was on the basis that South Africa as well as the international community would fail to garner any real benefit from such involvement, and would ultimately cause more damage in the country. Similarly, as outlined by Mbeki in an article called “A NATION AT WAR: SOUTH AFRICA; Iraq War Sets Bad Precedent, Mbeki Warns” in 2003, Mbeki stated that intervention in Iraq would be like force-feeding democracy down an infant’s throat, whereby it wouldn’t work. He stated that democracy is a process that requires time to evolve to become functional. He also threatened that this involvement would set a bad precedence for the future whereby the USA would use “guns” to instigate democratic political systems in “little” (not much international diplomatic weight and power) African countries, as we have seen this year in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.
South Africa as a developing economy was deeply affected by the Global Financial Crisis. In 2008, social partners that comprise the Presidential Economic Joint Working Group, namely organized Labor, Business and Government, met to consider how South Africans should respond collectively to the more difficult economic conditions we now face, largely as a result of the international economic crisis. The result was a detailed report outlining a few key processes, which could be undertaken to respond to the Global Financial Crisis.
The first of those outlined in the report was a need for the undertaking of large infrastructural projects, worth upwards of 700 Billion Rand to finance the construction of airports, roads, highways, rail networks, dams, port operations, and housing constructions. These investments were intended to produce private job making as well as more potential investments in rural areas that would now be joined by such projects as roads and railways into rural parts of the country.
Secondly, the committee presented a macro economy policy response in which funds would be appropriated and used in fiscally responsible ways to ensure that the crisis did not cause a loss of jobs in the economy. Similar to this was the third point of the report, which outlined a very specific need to insure that industrialized production would actually increase during this period rather than to decrease. Specifically, members of the committee chose to target textiles, clothing, footwear, mining, auto, and capital sectors as parts of the economy which could be potentially vulnerable, and would be well-served by an increase in industrialization and financial support and investment.
Ivan Maric Part III:
ReplyDeleteAdditionally to these points on industrialization and international trade, the government in this report outlined specific strategies for increasing employment through the bolstering of industries in the private and public sectors, social reforms to complement initiatives taken by private companies to avoid retrenchment (loss of jobs) and instead promote training and dispersal of labor, and global coordination with South Africa’s economic and global partners. South Africa’s federal response to the global financial crisis was outlined in this document very effectively and immediately following the threats of economic downturn because of market instability across the globe.
The government needed to react to this event in such a way as to avoid serious economic downturn in a time of strong economic growth, up to 5% of the GDP per annum. The plan created a very strong outline and certain measures that would need to be followed to ensure that job losses wouldn’t occur and to promote industrial and infrastructural growth during the recession. As a result, jobs and pay would increase allowing investors, both foreign and domestic, to return to the happy hunting grounds of South Africa. Such investment would then turn into economic upheaval and manifest itself into further projects and potential wealth for the people of South Africa, limited to class of course and spread out depending on labor position and work. Ultimately, the document would help to outline and plan a response to the global economic crisis in a way that targeted potential vulnerable sectors in the economy so as to avoid major economic loss.
Event #1
ReplyDeleteThe 2003 invasion of Iraq was met with sharp criticism from the South Africa and the South African government. President Thabo Mbeki warned Africans that they could be the next victims of international bullying (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/world/a-nation-at-war-south-africa-iraq-war-sets-bad-precedent-mbeki-warns.html). ''The prospect facing the people of Iraq should serve as sufficient warning that in future we, too, might have others descend on us, guns in hand to force-feed us.” He also called the war a “blow to multilateralism”. Desmond Tutu said that America was abusing its power with an “immoral” war. Former President and ANC member Nelson Mandela slammed both George W. Bush and Tony Blair for their actions in Iraq. "It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations," Mandela said, and indeed, he expressed that he would only support actions in Iraq if they were condoned by the United Nations (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/iraq/main538607.shtml). And these opinions were echoed by the South African people, whose condemnation of the War in Iraq was exhibited both in protests (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/safr-f18.shtml) and in polls, which determined that approximately sixty-three percent of the population was against any action in Iraq (http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/majority-of-south-africans-oppose-iraq-war-1.100765).
It is possible that, as South Africa is a fledgling international trading power, it feels threatened by the massive powers of the United States and Britain. Like any newcomer to a powerful group, it does not want to be shoved out by other older, wealthier members. For this reason, it makes sense that South Africa would not want the US to go into another country—Iraq—and exert its power; for such an exhibit of force could foreshadow the same happening in South Africa itself, as Mbeki warned. Tutu’s argument especially speaks to this claim: that by invading Iraq and forcing democracy upon it, America was exploiting its power—particularly in a nation in which it has such great economic interests (oil).
Event #2
ReplyDeleteThe entangled politics of Libya and South Africa resemble those of two drama-ridden middle school cliques. The ANC had received backlash for its initial “soft” response to the recent events in Libya. It has been widely reported that Gaddafi had covered the legal costs for ex-president Jacob Zuma during trials on charges of fraud, corruption, and rape. Also, Gadaffi had donated “millions of rand” to the ANC to help them win the election in 1999. These relationships, many conjectured, would make the ANC reluctant to attack the Libyan leader. However, recently Zuma has declared any previous relationship or financial backing from Gadaffi during his legal troubles for “irrelevant”, saying, “Whether he supported a person or no person is neither here nor there. We are dealing with a situation in Libya where Gaddafi is shooting his people. We want to be effective.” Zuma also declared that the ANC has called on Libya to “seek a speedy and peaceful resolution to the current crisis in accordance with the will of the people.” Ebrahim Ebrahim, the party’s head of international relations, also claimed that South Africa “strongly condemn[s] violence against the protesters, which has left thousands of civilians dead. The ANC appeals primarily to the Libyan government to end the bloodshed and engage protesting citizens to understand and address their concerns,” he said.” For the ANC, the recent uprisings and violence in its northern neighbor have caused a sticky situation. Ultimately they have opted to overlook prior allegiances and support the most humanitarian cause.
Event 1:
ReplyDeleteThe ANC government was very opposed to the Iraq War and criticized the U.S. and Great Britain for deciding to invade Iraq. Mbeki felt that by deciding to invade Iraq, the United States and Great Britain were being “international bullies”. He even warned Africans they could be “bullied” next by the United States and Great Britain. Mbeki feels that the Iraq War was unfair and that the U.S. and Great Britain were forcing them to accept democracy. Mbeki stated that “real democracy was the product of evolution, not something to be imposed”. Mbeki even criticized Great Britain’s elections and questioned how fair they actually are.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Mandela criticized the U.S.’s actions and considered it a threat to world peace. When the invasion occurred Mandela criticized the U.S. even more and made comments against Bush. Mandela felt that the U.S. was undermining the UN in invading Iraq’ and that if the UN were for efforts against Iraq, he would be too. Mandela also felt that Blaire was making a huge mistake by supporting the U.S. in the Iraq invasion. Mandela felt by deciding to help invade Iraq, all the good progress Great Britain had made by helping other nations with overseas aid and development would be spoiled.
South Africa’s feelings against the U.S.’s and Great Britain’s involvement in Iraq could be influence by the fact that their economy and trading powers are so much lesser to America’s and Great Britain’s. By invading Iraq, the U.S. is demonstrating its power and shows a possibility for the U.S. to do the same to South Africa, as voiced by Mandela and Mbeki. South Africa fears they are being overshadowed by these powerful countries and fear they could be the next victims.
The US and UK’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was not well received by South Africa and most significantly Nelson Mandela. Mandela first and foremost saw the invasion as a way to exploit the resources in the Middle East for the benefit of the Western states. Whether he was right or not doesn’t matter because he shook enough ground to get the international community’s attention. Mandela openly bashed Bush and Blair to show his disapproval over the situation. “It is a tragedy, what is happening, what Bush is doing. But Bush is now undermining the United Nations,” Said Mandela in an open press conference the week the US announced it was gearing up for an invasion. Mandela worried that the invasion of Iraq would result in the modern holocaust and would create an extreme amount of unrest in the region.
ReplyDeleteMandela’s comments such as “Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly” and “All that Mr. Bush wants is Iraqi oil” were stabs at the US that imply an economic motive. Even though the nations share a large amount of trade, their political views are often different. The ANC did not agree on invading Iraq and both Mbeki and Mandela advised against invading the Middle East. This sentiment represents much of the feeling by other South Africans as well.
Mbeki took a much more political analysis to the problem and criticized the US’ goals. Mbeki famously said that trying to start a democracy in Iraq would by like force feeding it to a baby implying the difficulty of the task. Mbeki offered insight in saying that democracy had to develop on its own and needed to be a product of the nation’s population rather than an outside force. This political view just poked more holes in the invasion’s plan. There was limited support for the invasion outside of North America and Europe and Mandela and Mbeki were some of the few people to voice their opposition.
Event 1:
ReplyDeleteThe South African government seemed opposed fairly strongly to the type of involvement the US and UK were having in Iraq, not because of any qualms about Iraq’s right to WMDs. Mbeki in particular depicted it as an instance of a large and powerful country (the US) using its influence to ‘bully’ a smaller, weaker country like Iraq. In one statement issued in January of 2003 agreed with the aim of destroying any WMD’s that may exist, and cited South Africa’s own “comprehensive disarmament programme” following the fall of minority rule. Instead, the ANC pinpoints their problems with the Iraq war as large-scale bullying, and asks readers to think about whether African countries could face the same problems if this is a precedent for future actions.
As for whether being trading partners could have affects South Africa’s criticism of intervention in Iraq, I think it is a possibility but unlikely. The transitional government of Iraq, or CPA, planned to restructure Iraq’s government to that, in some cases, allowed for 100% ownership of assets like oil production. I understand that this is not necessarily specifically for the benefit of other nations, but it would seem to help foreign investors more than the Iraqis. In South Africa, they also have a country whose businesses are often in natural resources like Iraq’s oil. On the other hand, South Africa is arguably developed and weaponless enough that the international community has no reason to intervene. They have a stable government with no major or government-related human rights violations, making them seem almost immune from the type of allegation Iraq received.
Essentially, South Africa seems more worried about that precedent that powerful countries do not necessarily have to abide by the whims of the majority, especially as this could affect African countries, although South Africa’s seems to be the African government least likely to receive international intervention.
Event #1: 2003 American invasion of Iraq
ReplyDeleteBoth Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki strongly disagreed with the U.S. and Britain about going to war with Iraq. Mandela criticized the decision to get involved in Iraq as a decision solely based on gaining control of Iraqi oil. When addressing the U.S. stance on Iraq Mr. Mandela said the country was “arrogant” and that this would plunge the world into another “holocaust”. Thus, we can see that Nelson Mandela felt very strongly that going to war in Iraq was a selfish call for oil made by the U.S., and he was furious at the decision. President Thabo Mbeki too was not happy with U.S. and Britain’s decision to enter Iraq. Though Mbeki felt Iraq should have respected and implemented the decisions of the Security Council, he also felt that the problem of Iraq should have been resolved peacefully through the United Nations, not through the invasion by the U.S. and Britain. He felt that things should have been dealt with through peaceful means. South Africa wanted to stop the war by offering technical and legal assistance with the disarmament process, instead of attacking the country of Iraq. The African countries feared that the war in Iraq would greatly affect the continent, which would put all of the attention and all of the economic and financial support on the Middle East. This would potentially hurt African countries because they would no longer be getting the support their economy and programs needed, and it would hurt the global economy by raising gas prices, which affects all African countries. Another thing Mbeki mentioned was that since the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq primarily for oil, it would mean that South Africa could expect an American invasion because of its great mineral wealth in the future. Mbeki compared the invasion of Iraq to force-feeding a person on a hunger strike, and said, “real democracy was the product of evolution, not something to be imposed”. In conclusion, both Mbeki and Mandela disagreed with U.S. and Britain for going to war in Iraq. They felt the only reason the countries got involved were for economic reasons, oil. All of which appalled the ANC because they were not economically attached as the U.S. and Britain were.
Event # 2 - Libya
ReplyDeleteGenerally the ANC stays on the fence in most African country conflicts. However, in the recent events that took place in Libya, this is not the case. This time the ANC has made it clear to Gaddafi that his attacks on his own people were unacceptable and that they needed to be stopped. The ANC was very concerned about the civilian deaths created by Gaddafi and that the government and the people of Libya should “seek a political solution in accordance to the will of the people- something that will bring stability to the country, the region and the continent”. The protesting citizens need to rather understand and address their concerns. Thus, the ANC called on the AU to “constructively engage” the government and the people of Libya to find a solution to the crisis to avoid what has led to the unprecedented deaths of so many civilians in the country. Interestingly, the ANC had a close relationship with Gaddafi during the struggle against apartheid. Supposedly, he donated millions of rand to the ANC. Even though Gaddafi has supported the ANC in the past, the ANC still felt Gaddafi is shooting his own people and something needs to be done to fix the situation. The ANC felt that Gaddafi has created unacceptable violence that has lead to the loss of civilian lives and they feel a peaceful resolution to fix the crisis as soon as possible.
Event 2:
ReplyDeleteSouth Africa overall is opposed to Qaddaffi’s violence against his own people, however to what degree can be shifty at times. The ANC and Jacob Zuma have been tied to deals with Libya in the past, in which Qaddaffi gives large sums of money to the ANC to help win an election or Zuma to win a trial. However, this does not seem to have changed Zuma’s or the ANC’s view on the current situation in Libya. The ANC condemns Qaddaffi for such violence against his people and it seems correct that the ANC no longer supports Qaddaffi. South Africa did vote for a UN resolution that called for “all necessary measure” to be taken in Libya, including a no fly zone. However, South Africa is opposed to foreign occupation of Libya in the aftermath of the foreign involvement in Libya. They call for a peaceful resolution there by the “will of the people”. This is contradictory to what they had said a few days previous. While it is clear the ANC is opposed to Qaddaffi’s cruel conduct towards its people, the ANC does make whether it wants a peaceful or a foreign involvement solution complicated. It is apparent that they currently want a peaceful solution, but why they voted for the UN resolution that called for “all necessary measure” to be taken in Libya is a bit confusing. Perhaps the situation in Libya reflects the countries overall foreign policy, where it is confusing which type of situations the country is against since it varies so much.
Event #1 (2003 American/British Invasion of Iraq):
ReplyDeleteThe ANC did not have favorable outlook on the 2003 American Invasion of Iraq. Mandela deemed the invasion as “a threat to world peace” and viewed British Prime Minister Tony Blair and most of the Bush administration negatively because of this, with the exception of Colin Powell. He showed marked disapproval for Bush’s disregard for the Security Council, noting the need for the Security Council to maintain some form of power, as it is considered the only forum in which smaller nations have the chance to deal with the United States. When the U.S. announced that they would invade Iraq, both Mandela and Mbeki, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, expressed a fear that developing African economies would suffer as a result of increased oil prices and a diversion of funds away from African products, towards the war. Further, Mandela pointed out that the true intentions of the U.S. were not to investigate weapons of mass destruction, but for the purpose of controlling Iraqi oil, an egocentric move on the U.S.’s part. He also feared the negative repercussions of “a president who has no foresight” and the implications for the future.
Though many prominent political figures opposed the war, many South African citizens also protested it. South Africans took part in the world recording breaking anti-war protest on February 15, 2003, with demonstrations in over 800 cities around the world. Since 2003, multiple protests have occurred. Still, there is a sense of betrayal by the U.S. and U.K. amongst South Africans and ANC members.
Event #2 (Ivory Coast Disputed Presidential Elections):
ReplyDeleteSince the beginning of the riots in the Ivory Coast, South Africa has switched their position on the matter. Initially, South Africa implied support for Gbagbo, the internationally recognized loser of the 2010 presidential elections. South Africa’s surprising support of this leader, who is generally deemed as illegitimate, is not unfounded. In 2004, Ivory Coast was nearing a civil war, but South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki was asked to step in to help smooth tensions with political maneuvers, not military offensives. After the small, West African nation found some relative peace with Gbagbo in power, it is possible that South Africa wanted to try to maintain that state. Further, South Africa claimed that their previously “neutral” position was: motivated by the need to allow the [AU] ‘time to do its work.’” A representative for Gbagbo said at an AU meeting in Addis Ababa that, “There are large African nations which understand the meaning of our struggle and which know that our struggle goes beyond the interests of Côte d’Ivoire.” One of those implied “large African nations” is South Africa.
However, South Africa has changed its position and has recognized Alassane Ouattara as the legitimate winner of the elections, thereby supporting the official UN and AU positions. South Africa explained the switch in their stance by claiming that previously, there was some doubt as to who the winner was, but after further investigation and the release of “new information…about the polls”, SA joined the majority of the international community in supporting Ouattara.
Event 2:
ReplyDeleteSouth Africa’s relationship with Libya has ever been fluid. Historically, SA and Libya have ties going back to its fight for liberation. Now, the situation is as looking as though it might be as murky as ever. Although President Zuma thunders against Qaddafi’s mistreatment of Libyan civilians, and condemns in the strongest terms leader who would oppress their people so, he also send conflicting, but equally passionate, messages about the absolute unacceptability of the occupation of a sovereign state by a foreign power. He carefully toes the line between non-interference and justice and human rights, but Libya is one place where it is becoming increasingly hard for him to do so. In fact, he voted for the UN resolution to take “all necessary measures” to protect Libyans, just days before his speech praising the sovereign rights of a state. However, Zuma was not an unconditional supported of the resolution, saying that it “should not be abused and should be implemented in letter.” It seems that at least for this conflict, SA is falling mostly down the middle, with possibly a little more on the human rights side of the debate. Zuma is increasingly calling for a ceasefire and looking with most of the world for a peaceful solution. He has made it clear that the soulution that he is interested in and looking for is the one that leads to the longest lasting stability in Libya. It is, however, unclear as to what exactly that entails. For now the country is opposed to Qaddafi, opposed to foreign occupation, opposed to violence against civilians, all praiseworthy goals, but the country has yet to move toward a position that does something other than oppose that of others.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201104040394.html
Event one:
ReplyDeleteOn Saturday February 16th, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of South Africa in an effort to voice their disapproval of the United State’s drive for war against Iraq. The protests were organized by the South African Antiwar Coalition, comprising more than 50 organizations. Amongst the groups involved in the protests were the African National Congress, the Azanian People’s Organization, the Pan Africanist Congress, the United Democratic Movement, and many more groups. Protesters carried posters and banners condemning Bush’s war plans. One group of protesters had daubed themselves with red paint and were carrying a banner reading, “The United States of Aggression.” It was evident from the banners and posters that many participants saw a strong connection between the Bush administration’s drive for war and Iraq’s oil resources. Many students attending the University of Cape Town stated that they have little confidence in the United Nations, stating that, “The UN is controlled by America, and serves American interests.” Many protesters, as suggested by their chants and signs, agreed with the stance taken by President Thabo M’beki and Nelson Mandela, who have both criticized the Bush administration’s war plans for they believe that the U.S. is entering Iraq for the purpose of oil.
Event two:
“South Africa's position regarding Libya remains clear and unambiguous with President Jacob Zuma calling for a ceasefire and a peaceful solution in that country. Only a peaceful solution, based on the will of the people, will guarantee long-term stability in Libya," said the Presidency. In an effort to promote a peaceful solution, President Jacob Zuma, of South Africa, has sent a team to Libya to take part in an African Union fact-finding mission aimed at starting talks between the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and rebels who are trying to end his 42-year rule. Zuma has even taken direct action himself by “discuss[ing] with Gaddafi and condemn[ing] the actions he has undertaken and said it was wrong and he must stop doing it," said Zuma, referring to a phone conversation with the Libyan leader. Other efforts for a peaceful resolution between Libyan president, Gadhafi, and the Lybian people include freezing the assets belonging to Libya in the country of South Africa.
EVERYBODY READ THIS TESTIMONY ON HOW I GOT MY LOAN FROM A LEGIT AND TRUSTED LOAN COMPANY My name is Kjerstin Lis, I have been searching for a loan to settle my debts, everyone I met scammed and took my money until I finally met Mr, Benjamin Breil Lee He was able to give me a loan of R 450,000.00.He also helped some other colleagues of mine. i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wide world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need a loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i meant the GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr, Benjamin, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan, i invited him over to my family get-together party which he did not decline and i will advise any one who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr, Benjamin Breil Lee via email at (Lfdsloans@outlook.com ) because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender I have ever met with a caring heart. He doesn't know that i am doing this by spreading his goodwill towards me but I feel I should share this with you all to free yourself from scammers, please beware of impersonators and contact the right loan company Email us via: Lfdsloans@outlook.com or whatsapp +1-989-394-3740. .
ReplyDelete