Not so long ago the mere suggestion that an African team might win a World Cup would have been dismissed out of hand – all of a sudden, the idea no longer seems far-fetched. Could this be Africa’s time? Unperturbed by his 1977 prediction that an African side would triumph by the end of the 20th century, Brazil legend Pele genuinely believes it can occur next year.
BBC: Close your eyes and try to imagine the scenes of jubilation across Africa if a team from the continent were to win the 2010 World Cup.
A celebration like no other, one billion people reveling in one of the greatest sporting and cultural achievements.
For the first time in its 80-year history, football’s blue riband competition is coming to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped land.
How better to mark the occasion than with a first African champion?
“Winning the World Cup would be one of the proudest moments in the history of that country and our continent as a whole,” former South Africa striker Shaun Bartlett told BBC Sport.
“Every African nation has its internal problems but football can do wonders for people and nations, which is a huge incentive.”
Nobody is saying it is going to happen but the groundswell of opinion suggests South Africa 2010 is the best opportunity yet. [ READ MORE ]
The Genius of Pele
The 2010 Draw:
Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France
Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, Korea Republic, Greece
Group C: England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia
Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana
Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon
Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
Group G: Brazil, Korea DPR, Côte d’Ivoire, Portugal
This happened towards the end of his second term in 1984. The “MYTHICAL” Republican used the word NEGRO — a racist slur when referring to the ethnicity of African Americans, despite the fact that the term is still used in some contexts for historical reasons such as in the name of the United Negro College Fund.
Note: Reagan wasn’t a very bright man. His oratorical skills camouflaged this weakness quite effectively. The old man was as much a LYING WAR-MONGERING THUG as George Bush.
Ronald Reagan was a serially lying Republican with a heart of darkness who made Americans feel good about themselves. He supported and propped apartheid South Africa government, claiming in 1985 that the “reformist administration” of South Africa had “eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country.” In 1986, Reagan gave a speech where he said Mandela should be released but denounced sanctions with crocodile tears, claiming that they would hurt black workers, who were already ridiculously impoverished.
Reagan’s go-slow speech was denounced by Bishop Desmond Tutu, who said: “I found it quite nauseating. I think the West, for my part, can go to hell . . . Your president is the pits as far as blacks are concerned. He sits there like the great, big white chief of old.”
Later in 1986, Reagan made his greatest demonstration yet that black bodies were “expendable.” Congress had finally had enough of the carnage to vote for limited sanctions. Reagan vetoed them. Congress overrode the veto. Reagan proceeded to put no muscle behind the sanctions. Mandela remained in jail and at least 2000 political prisoners remained detained without trial.
In 1987, Reagan published a report that said additional sanctions “would not be helpful.” The gleeful South African foreign minister, Roelof Botha, said Reagan “and his administration have an understanding of the reality of South Africa.”
Reagan’s and Botha’s “reality” was rendered a fantasy by the force of world opinion and a more enlightened leadership inside South Africa.
Only a year after Reagan left office, Mandela was released. One can only wonder how much sooner he would have been released and how many lives would have been saved had Reagan not behaved like the white chief of old.
The Gipper was as EVIL as every Republican I have ever heard of. They ALL are …anyway! [ READ MORE ]
Just ahead of this week’s African Union summit in Libya, South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma has advocated an old and discredited approach for dealing with African heads of state facing international justice, write Comfort Ero and Piers Pigou.
When a leader of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress speaks on such critical issues as impunity for the perpetrators of human rights violations, the rest of Africa listens. We listen because we recall with passion how apartheid was dismantled, ushering in a new era of democracy for South Africa.
So it comes as a shock that President Jacob Zuma used the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum for Africa to call for a continental policy favouring impunity. Sharing a roundtable conversation with President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Zuma proclaimed that the “world has changed” and that we must “do things differently and … not emphasise punishment” in dealing with leading perpetrators of serious crimes.
His statement is embarrassing and retrogressive, especially because the world has indeed changed – but not in the ways Zuma assumed.
What has changed is that over the last two decades a global consensus has grown that amnesty for violent crimes is morally and legally unacceptable. Africa led this change in many respects, and the newly-democratised South Africa enthusiastically supported the creation of the International Criminal Court in 2002.
What Zuma now proposes is not a “new” approach but an old and discredited one that would reinforce outdated visions of an Africa which resists human rights and is willing to tolerate the worst forms of brutality.
At a time when Radovan Karadzic is being brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, Charles Taylor faces justice before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and Peru has tried and convicted Alberto Fujimori, Zuma has chosen to make the worst kind of rationalization for African exceptionalism.
Even worse, Zuma’s statement was made just ahead of this week’s African Union summit in Libya, which has on its draft agenda at least two reports dealing with attempts to bring to trial African heads of state. Zuma’s “new” approach, coming just as the continent faces pressures from some of its leaders to thwart justice, threatens to undermine the legitimacy of international humanitarian law.
Zuma’s approach would protect the perpetrators and architects of violence at the expense of redress for their victims. Not only is no thought given to providing reparation to victims of such violence, but their right to see justice done would be extinguished. When societies fail to make victims’ needs a priority, those societies risk new cycles of violence.
President Zuma did not distinguish between short-term peace processes and durable peacebuilding. His “bold approach” would do more to promote political violence as a means of gaining power than promote peace. He would invite leaders of political violence to look forward to impunity and a mansion in a neighbouring state.
Zuma presents this position – a safe retirement home for African despots – as being “for the sake of our people,” when clearly this protection is antithetical to the public interest. His position suggests that domestic, regional and international legal commitments can be airbrushed away, cloaked under the rubric of the pragmatic notions of what best serves Africa.
Zuma Proposes – a safe retirement home for African despots, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe,
Many commentators assume Zuma’s remarks refer mainly to President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Zuma is indeed faced with a serious problem in Zimbabwe that is likely to be resolved only when Mugabe is persuaded to step aside.
Mugabe’s decision to leave the scene will likely depend on guarantees of impunity being extended to members of his inner circle. That is all the more reason that accountability should not be bargained away. Prospects for sustainable transformation in Zimbabwe require more, not less accountability, extending to economic crimes and corruption.
Perhaps Zuma’s public remarks are a tactical gamble, presenting himself as “on side” with the recalcitrant leaders while knowing full well that Africa’s political leadership can provide no meaningful guarantees of impunity. If this benign interpretation is true, is it worth the egg that has landed on his face as a result of appearing an apologist for the continent’s perpetrators?
He took the oath in front of 5,000 invited guests and crowds of supporters who had gathered at the Union Buildings in Pretoria for the ceremony. In a speech, he described it as a “moment of renewal” for South Africa, and vowed to work for reconciliation. Correspondents described a festive atmosphere in the capital that was not dampened by earlier rain and cold.
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa – Jacob Zuma took the presidential oath Saturday and became leader of the continent’s economic powerhouse after overcoming corruption and sex scandals and a struggle for control of his party.
Zuma, the fourth president since apartheid ended 15 years ago, enjoys a popularity often compared to Nelson Mandela’s. Many impoverished black South Africans believe Zuma’s personal battles and eventual triumph give him special insight into their own struggles and aspirations.
Zuma survived corruption and sex scandals and an internal power struggle so vicious it led to a split in his African National Congress party. The ANC won last month’s parliamentary elections and Zuma was elected president by parliament on Wednesday. [ READ MORE ]
PICTURE: Jacob Zuma is sworn in as president of South Africa by Chief Justice Pius Langa (L) as former South African President Thabo Mbeki (R) and his wife Zanele look on in Pretoria May 9, 2009. Zuma was sworn in as South African president on Saturday after a remarkable political comeback and quickly highlighted the challenges he faces as Africa’s biggest economy heads towards recession.
PICTURE: Newly installed South African President Jacob Zuma (right) greets Nelson Mandela during Zuma’s inauguration at the Union Buildings in Pretoria, May 9, 2009.
[PIC]: A Zuma Supporter in Traditional Xhosa Dress Smokes A Pipe.
The Daily Mail: The 67-year-old enjoys a popularity often compared to Nelson Mandela as many impoverished black South Africans believe that his personal battles and eventual triumph give him special insight into their own struggles and aspirations.
Mr Mokoena said that while Zuma may not have had much formal education, his leadership of the ANC’s intelligence wing during the anti-apartheid struggle was proof he was smart enough to be president.
Mandela and Zuma share rural roots and an easy warmth in crowds, though Zuma’s origins are much humbler.
Mandela, 90, has ties to Xhosa tribal royalty and was groomed for leadership from an early age, attending some of the best schools and universities then open to blacks, earning a law degree.
Zuma herded cows instead of attending school as a boy, and began working as a teen to help his impoverished family. He later rose through the trade union movement and the African National Congress guerrilla force.
Jacob Zuma sworn in as S Africa leader (Coverage of Swearing In Ceremony)
Mystery surrounds spouses of polygamist president-in-waiting Zuma. With Zuma’s African National Congress party’s overwhelming victory in the parliamentary election, the first lady question is making headlines. Parliament elects South Africa’s president, putting Zuma in line for the post when the new assembly votes in May.
KWANXAMALALA, South Africa – There’s little question who will lead South Africa (after last Wednesday’s national election). The real mystery lies in who will be the country’s first lady.
As Jacob Zuma, the man preordained to be the country’s next president, voted in his rural Zulu homeland Wednesday, one of his two current wives stood to the side watching patiently as he was mobbed by cheering crowds and reporters.
But Nompumelelo Ntuli, 34, Zuma’s newest and youngest wife, was soon attracting her own crowd of admirers. Women whispered, “Isn’t she beautiful!” as Ntuli decked out in an apricot and blue tie-dye outfit beamed happily.
“Jesus is Lord!” is all she would say in response to questions.
Zuma, 67, a Zulu traditionalist and an unabashed polygamist, has married at least four women over the years. Only two are still with him: Sizakele Khumalo, whom he married in 1973, and Ntuli, who he wed last year.
PIC: ANC president Jacob Zuma’s youngest wife, Nompumelelo Ntuli, 34, after her husband
cast his ballot for general elections in the village of KwaNxamalala, South Africa, on Wednesday.
Of the other two, Kate Mantsho Zuma, committed suicide in 2000. He divorced the other, Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, in 1998, although she remains a trusted aide and as the country’s foreign affairs minister is expected to join his cabinet. He is said to have more than 10 children.
Multiple wives legal
South African law recognizes such traditional marriages, though fewer and fewer younger South Africans are entering into them because they are seen as expensive and old-fashioned. It remains common among several tribes, though, including the Zulus and Swazis.
To this point, neither of his wives has played much of a public role in his life or politics.
Khumalo presides over the family compound near the school where Zuma voted in KwaNxamalala (pronounced KWAH-nxah-mah-lah-lah). She is known to be shy, and was not spotted Wednesday.
Ntuli, who uses her maiden name as is customary in polygamous marriages to differentiate among the wives, has been slightly more active outside the home. She organized a prayer meeting in southeastern South Africa earlier this year, calling for political tolerance, and established a community development foundation.
With Zuma’s African National Congress party’s overwhelming victory in the parliamentary election, the first lady question is making headlines. Parliament elects South Africa’s president, putting Zuma in line for the post when the new assembly votes in May.
Neither Zuma or the ANC have offered any answers to the question, saying the matter of his marriages is personal.
The Sunday Times newspaper in South Africa quoted Don Mkhwanazi, a trustee of the Friends of Jacob Zuma Trust, as saying Zuma most likely will be guided by tradition and choose his first wife, Sizakele, to act in that capacity.
Usually unaccompanied
Zuma usually is unaccompanied at official functions. His daughter Dudzile, a staunch supporter who has been seen on the campaign trail recording his activities with a small video camera, also could be a possible official escort.
Zuma, of course, would not be the first leader in the world with more than one wife. In the Gulf, the number of a ruler’s wives and who among them is paramount are a constant source of rumors. Publicly known first ladies in Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and even Saudi Arabia do charity work and some are outspoken women’s rights’ activists ? though their pictures never appear in the newspapers.
In recent years, rulers in Dubai and in Qatar each have designated one of their wives to speak at U.S. universities and international humanitarian foundations on pressing issues concerning the Arab world and its relations with the West.
Zuma’s father, who also had multiple wives, was a policeman who died when he was a boy. His mother worked as a maid in the coastal city of Durban. He was denied a formal education and by 15 he was doing odd jobs to help support his family.
Zuma joined the ANC in 1959 and by 21 he was arrested while trying to leave the country illegally. He was jailed for 10 years on Robben Island, alongside Mandela and other heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle. In prison, Zuma resumed his schooling and began making a name for himself among ANC prisoners.
He left South Africa in 1975 for 15 years of exile in neighboring Swaziland, Mozambique and Zambia, where he was appointed chief of the ANC’s intelligence department. Following the lifting of the ANC ban in 1990, Zuma was one of the first of the group’s leaders to return to South Africa.
Khumalo stayed with him despite those long absences.
At a small market in Eshowe, a town near Zuma’s homestead, vendors selling oranges, avocados, pineapples and bananas were more interested in chorusing a long list of woes facing South Africa than the question of who would be its first lady.
After all, post-apartheid South Africa has never really had an American-style first lady in the glamorous mode of a Michelle Obama or Jackie Kennedy, or the policy-engaged model of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
One of the market vendors, Phindile Mbatha, 21, said she thought Dlamini Zuma would make a fine first lady.
Told that Jacob Zuma had divorced her some 10 years ago, Mbatha then declared that maybe the country did not need a first lady after all.
