Sunday, August 29, 2010

South Africa: the liberation's betrayal

So when did it all go wrong for ZA? My view is right from the start, and before.

Flashback to 1992. Whites were asked a question in a referendum to decide on whether to pursue a multiracial democracy or not. Many people voted "NO" The overwhelming majority voted "YES"

Was that a resounding YES? or was it a defeatist YES?

I maintain the latter. Whites had a gun to our heads. As De Klerk has pointed out time and again, and even in his latest interview a few days ago "We avoided a catastrophe and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives."

We were cuckolded. We had no choice. The question in the referendum itself was purely rhetorical. We had no choice. I personally voted YES (for which I have apologised online to all 875,000 people that had the courage to vote NO) yet at the same time I am faced with the dilemma, even today, that had I voted NO, there may have been large scale loss of life...

But then, why present me with a choice (YES or NO) unless NO was a potentially viable alternative?

The decision to accede to a multi party "democracy" had already been made in the 1980's by the Big Guns of Western Capital. A deal was spun, compromises were made amongst higher echelons and a few elites walked away from the deal with smirking faces.

Your vote in 1992 meant nothing!

My (our) only consolation is a certain sense of Schadenfreude (as morbid and shallow as it is) that after seventeen years the ANC has failed. But that failure has repercussions for all races, including whites that have chosen to live there, and the future in ZA at the moment is bleaker than it was in 1994.

So with that intro, I'm posting an article we have done before. It appeared about two years ago in the
Mail & Guardian when Thabo Mbeki was kicked out of office. I think it is appropriate to reflect, that as useless, arrogant and condescending as he was, his successor is even worse. The ANC has let down the masses, and all those living in ZA will have to pay the price for that.

2 Oct 2008

In an article for the Mail & Guardian, Johannesburg, John Pilger
describes the 'social and economic catastrophe' that replaced the
African National Congress's 'unbreakable' promise' to end the poverty of the majority.

The political rupture in South Africa is being presented in the outside world as the personal tragedy and humiliation of one man, Thabo Mbeki. It is reminiscent of the beatification of Nelson Mandela at the death of apartheid. This is not to diminish the power of personalities, but their importance is often as a distraction from the historical forces they serve and manage.

Frantz Fanon had this in mind when, in The Wretched of the Earth, he described the "historic mission" of much of Africa's post-colonial ruling class as "that of intermediary [whose] mission has nothing to do with transforming the nation: it consists, prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged."

Mbeki's fall and the collapse of Wall Street are concurrent and related events, as they were predictable. Glimpse back to 1985 when the Johannesburg stock market crashed and the apartheid regime defaulted on its mounting debt, and the chieftains of South African capital took fright.

In September that year a group led by Gavin Relly, chairman of the Anglo American Corporation, met Oliver Tambo, the ANC president, and other resistance officials in Zambia. Their urgent message was that a "transition" from apartheid to a black-governed liberal democracy was possible only if "order" and "stability" were guaranteed. These were euphemisms for a "free market" state where social justice would not be a priority.

Secret meetings between the ANC and prominent members of the Afrikaner elite followed at a stately home, Mells Park House, in England. The prime movers were those who had underpinned and profited from apartheid – such as the British mining giant, Consolidated Goldfields, which picked up the bill for the vintage wines and malt whisky scoffed around the fireplace at Mells Park House.

Their aim was that of the Pretoria regime - to split the ANC between the mostly exiled "moderates" they could "do business with" (Tambo, Mbeki and Mandela) and the majority who made up the those resisting in the townships known as the UDF.

The matter was urgent. When FW De Klerk came to power in 1989, capital was haemorrhaging at such a rate that the country's foreign reserves would barely cover five weeks of imports. Declassified files I have seen in Washington leave little doubt that De Klerk was on notice to rescue capitalism in South Africa. He could not achieve this without a compliant ANC.

Nelson Mandela was critical to this. Having backed the ANC's pledge to take over the mines and other monopoly industries - "a change or modification of our views in this regard is inconceivable" - Mandela spoke with a different voice on his first triumphant travels abroad. "The ANC," he said in New York, "will reintroduce the market to South Africa". The deal, in effect, was that whites would retain economic control in exchange for black majority rule: the "crown of political power" for the "jewel of the South African economy", as Ali Mazrui put it.

When, in 1997, I told Mbeki how a black businessmen had described himself as "the ham in a white sandwich", he laughed agreement, calling it the "historic compromise", which others were called it a betrayal. However, it was De Klerk who was more to the point. I put it to him that he and his fellow whites had got what they wanted and that for the majority, the poverty had not changed. "Isn't that the continuation of apartheid by other means?" I asked. Smiling through a cloud of cigarette smoke, he replied, "You must understand, we've achieved a broad consensus on many things now."

Thabo Mbeki's downfall is no more than the downfall of a failed economic system that enriched the few and dumped the poor. The ANC "neo liberals" seemed at times ashamed that South Africa was, in so many ways, a third world country. "We seek to stablish," said Trevor Manuel, "an environment in which winners flourish."

Boasting of a deficit so low it had fallen to the level of European economies, he and his fellow "moderates" turned away from the public economy the majority of South Africans desperately wanted and needed. They inhaled the hot air of corporate-speak. They listened to the World Bank and the IMF; and soon they were being invited to the top table at the Davos Economic Forum and to G-8 meetings, where their "macro-economic achievements" were lauded as a model. In 2001, George Soros put it rather more bluntly. "South Africa," he said, "is now in the hands of international capital."

Public services fell in behind privatisation, and low inflation presided over low wages and high unemployment, known as "labour flexibility". According to the ANC, the wealth generated by a new black business class would "trickle down". The opposite happened.

Known sardonically as the wabenzi because their vehicle of choice was a silver Mercedes Benz, black capitalists proved they could be every bit as ruthless as their former white masters in labour relations, cronyism and the pursuit of profit. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in mergers and "restructuring" and ordinary people retreated to the "informal economy". Between 1995 and 2000, the majority of South Africans fell deeper into poverty. When the gap between wealthy whites and newly enriched blacks began to close, the gulf between the black "middle class" and the majority widened as never before.

In 1996, the office of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) was quietly closed down, marking the end of the ANC's "solemn pledge" and "unbreakable promise" to put the majority first. Two years later, the United Nations Development Programme described the replacement, GEAR, as basically "no different" from the economic strategy of the apartheid regime in the 1980s.

This seemed surreal. Was South Africa a country of Harvard-trained technocrats breaking open the bubbly at the latest credit rating fro Duff & Phelps in New York? Or was it a country of deeply impoverished men, woman and children without clean water and sanitation, whose infinite resource was being repressed and wasted, yet again? The questions were an embarrassment as the ANC government endorsed the apartheid regime's agreement to join the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which effectively surrendered economic independence, repaid the $25 billion of apartheid-era inherited foreign debt. Incredibly, Manuel even allowed South Africa's biggest companies to flee their financial home and set up in London.

Certainly, Thabo Mbeki speeded his own political demise with his strange strictures on HIV/Aids, his famous aloofness and isolation and the corrupt arms deals that never seemed to go away. It was the premeditated ANC economic and social catastrophe that saw him off. For further proof, look to the United States today and the smoking ruin of the "neo liberalism" model so cherished by the ANC's leaders. And beware those successors of Mbeki now claiming that, unlike him, they have the people's interests at heart as they continue the same divisive policies. South Africa deserves better.

First published the Mail & Guardian, Johannesburg

13 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

South Africa has high unemployment because ANC opened the border to unlimited immigration. No immigration, no unemployment.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that De Klerk could have looked after the minority White's better. He could have negotiated our own homeland in the Cape and left the rest of the country to the black majority. The blacks always want what the Whites have - it's the never-ending story of SA. I have no doubt that the Cape would have flourished with the Whites in charge and they would've made a success without the mineral wealth of the rest of the country. Instead he leaped into bed with the communists without thinking what he was doing to his own people. He doesn't deserve any thought or accolades. He is a traitor because he didn't care.

Yves F. said...


Only part of the answer.

The end of apartheid meant the end of sanctions, joining GATT meant bringing down tarriff barriers, all this meant the SA economy could no longer employ a lot of unskilled labour since it now had to compete with the rest of the world. On the other hand, those still in employment did quite well (since produce and services were now more efficiently produced or bought).

Anonymous said...

Yes the liberation has been betrayed because, as the PAC and AZAPO, argue the land that successive generations of white thieves and robbers of the indigenous blacks (including Khoi, San and so-called "Bantu" in this definition) has still not been redistributed to its rightful owners. Don't play the "whites are victims" game when by and large whites remain the most economically privileged group in SA, notwithstanding some poor whites here and there.

white meddem said...

@Anon 31 August 2010 06:23: whites are entitled to either charge for improvements to land, or to use a scorched earth policy and raze the land to the ground if they are forced to hand it over to blacks. Other than a couple of wild berry and game eating Bushmen in the Cape, blacks were in any case not around until 1867 when the British decided to import them as cheap labour on the mines. You blacks will stop at nothing until you are running around bare arsed in the bush again, that is why you want land. That, and social grants. The money for making babies is running out and your descendants will be forced to eat dust. But at least it will have been your own choice, not so?

SA Greek said...

Anonymous 11.52 is right about the Cape.Unfortunately even the majority of whites back then did not support the idea.They thought they could keep their properties and businesses all over SA and continue living in safety.Well, u all know what happened eventually....

Anonymous said...

AMAZING, just the threat of Mining Workers joining the strike in sympathy resulted in the Gov. quickly upping their offer by .5% and Housing Sub. by R100-, on direct instruction from Zuma!
Methinks Zuma received a call from the Owl Building last night...

and people still don't believe!


With the privately-owned Central Banks holding more gold than anyone else, and the FIAT currency all but destroyed, the centralisation of Western Wealth is almost complete!

Anonymous said...

Hey Anony 6:23:

Make all the Nguni go back to East Africa and all the Sotho back to the Congo; give the Cape up to Mossel Bay to the Khoikhoi and Natal to the Khoisan AND then, and only then, will I move back to the Eastern Cape which was first inhabited by Trekboers!

In case you don't know your history, the Khoisan hunters inhabited the bushveld region from Natal north-east and then north-west into today's Zimbabwe. The Khoikhoi, from from today's Northern Botswana moved down to the Cape via Southern Namibia and the west coast, reaching the Southern Cape but never settling beyond the Mossel Bay area!
So don't talk KAK!

Social Anthropologist
PS. take away electricity and pipelines and both the Highveld and the Groot Karoo ("Big Desert" in Khoikhoi) will become uninhabited overnight!

Snowy Smith said...

Who were the WHITE “PUPPETS” of the New World Order in South Africa before 1994?
A challenge from me to those who think they know.
I have made a list, let’s see if you are correct.
Communism is essentially a deceitful New World Order system of international elite Zionist Jew control of the people.
Communism was and still is a plot designed to substitute a cabal of the rich for the rule of God. It is a utopian fraud hatched by the rich to thwart the dreams of ordinary people and stunt human progress.
Western Civilization is like a ship floundering in a sea of the New World Order evil, yet the passengers are too duped and distracted to realize it.
Bella Dodd had the courage to sound the alarm 50 years ago.
It is never too late to begin to resist tyranny.
The joint US-Russian war effort was to be the basis of the New World Order.
Also who were the New World Order WHITE “PUPPETS” in the USA Government and the United Nations that betrayed White South Africa before 1994?
The elite financed a sophisticated propaganda agency called the Russian Institute located on Park Ave. across 68th Street from Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations.
An amazing coordination between the Communist Party and the America's financial elite, Wall Street Bankers.
The expression "politically correct" in widespread use in America is an old Communist Party term.
Our politicians are mostly traitors “PUPPETS” of the New World Order.
It is never too late to begin to resist tyranny.
WFF its time to stand up and be counted.

Anonymous said...

Anon 22:21 - all those people you mentioned, Khoi, Khoisan, Nguni, may have migrated from elsewhere to what is South Africa. However, per a letter to "Rand Daily Mail" in June 1980 a Professor Louw then of UNISA (an Afrikaner by self-identification) stated that all of these people you mention- Khoi, San and Bantu pre-dated the first white settlers by thousands of years in the Cape. In the Eastern Cape there were Xhosa already there when Boers made their trek, who did you think they were fighting there? Don't try those anthropological games here, they won't fly anymore and blacks are beginning to wake up slowly but surely to the series of lies that white supremacists have perpetrated for centuries. Anthropology until recent times was nothing but a pseudo-scientific exercise to justify colonialism and, in the South African case, apartheid.
How do you know there was nothing but bush when the whites settled there? The Xhosa and Zulu fed themselves just fine. When you look at Africa nowadays, indeed there are many disturbing scenarios of famine, malnutrition, etc. But colonialism disrupted the balance, the evolution of African societies. Nowadays, since World War II you have IMF/World Bank constantly calling in loans from countries that had to borrow because during the colonial era the European colonizing countries robbed their resources left and right.

Anonymous said...

The "we were here first" is a typical example of the low IQ debates, that blacks love to engage in.

As per the "Out of Africa" theory all humans originated in Africa.

Thus no one can say that they were here first.

Where do you draw the line, 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago.

Like I said before it is a stupid debate, which is why so many black engage in it.


Anonymous said...

In any case the first border wars between the whites and the Xhosa are well documented and happened more than 100 years after the whites first set foot on African soil. Thus the date of first contact between humans and simians are well established.
The whites were not in

South Africa before the Khoi, but they were in South Africa way before the Xhosa and the Zulu.

Anonymous said...

It's nonsense. I will agree with unlimited immigration and then a host of other failures. Asia was rising while South Africa was recovering. Combine that with sky high labor cost and poor education - you can see the perfect storm.