Populariteit: 6% [?]

Door John Allen
Kaapstad

De slachtoffers van apartheid die 23 belangrijke multinationale bedrijven in Amerikaanse hoven vervolgen omdat de bedrijven met het beleid samenwerkten zijn ontruiming gegeven om hun geval vooruit te nemen.

The United States Supreme Court issued an order in Washington, DC, on Monday affirming a decision by a lower court, the effect of which is to allow the case to go ahead. The Supreme Court was unable to hear the case because four of its nine members had to recuse themselves, leaving the court unable to form a quorum.

The Khulumani Support Group, an organisation of apartheid victims and survivors, welcomed the court order as a “significant development” in a statement issued in Cape Town on Tuesday.

It said the decision meant “the critical arguments that corporations should be held accountable for aiding and abetting the perpetration of gross human rights violations, can now be interrogated.”

However, New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse reported on Tuesday that it was still “highly uncertain” whether the case would ever go to trial.

She wrote that the court had been sceptical in the past about using the two-century-old American law under which the case is being brought, the Alien Tort Statute, as a means of pursuing cases arising out of human rights violations committed outside the U.S. In a footnote to a previous case, it had said of the apartheid case that there was “a strong argument that federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch’s view of the case’s impact on foreign policy.” The Bush administration, as well as the South African government, have opposed the case.

Greenhouse also suggested that the court was unable to hear the apartheid case as a consequence of three judges holding stock in defendant companies, and the employment by another company of the son of a fourth judge.

“The outcome calls attention to the occasionally uncomfortable consequences of the justices’ ownership of stock in individual companies,” she wrote. “With solitary recusals being much more frequent, a 4-to-4 deadlock is a more common outcome than an inability to proceed with the case at all.”

Khulumani said its case targetted the multinationals “for having aided and abetted the perpetration of gross human rights violations in South Africa under apartheid by equipping and financing the apartheid government’s military and security agencies.”

It said all the defendants had operations in apartheid South Africa, and it was seeking damages for “specific violations of internationally recognized human rights norms… by the apartheid government following the United Nations’ classification of apartheid as a crime against humanity.”

It named the defendants in the case as: Barclay National Bank Ltd., British Petroleum, PLC, Chevrontexaco Corporation, Chevrontexaco Global Energy, Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Commerzbank, Credit Suisse Group, Daimlerchrysler AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG, Exxonmobil Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Fujitsu, Ltd., General Motors Corporations, International Business Machines Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase, Shell Oil Company, UBS AG, AEG Daimler-Benz Industrie, Fluor Corporation, Rheinmetall Group AG, Rio Tinto Group and Total-Fina-Elf.

Popularity: 8% [?]

By: Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu

Nobel Peace Prize winner and human rights advocate — Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu

When we were struggling in South Africa against the vicious racist policies of apartheid, it was exhilarating to proclaim to our people that our God was encountered first not in the peaceful quiet of a sanctuary. No, our God was out there in the rough and tumble of the politics of the day. Our God revealed Himself in the utterly vulgar world of setting a fractious rabble of slaves free. Our God was/is the great liberator God of the Exodus – the paradigmatic event that helped to define God as the God who is never unbiased, but is always biased in favor of the oppressed, the marginalized, the down and outs.

This God in Jesus Christ continued to demonstrate this bias – Jesus companied not with the high and mighty, Archbishops, Presidents, and such like, but with the scum of society, prostitutes, sinners, the despised. This was the God who had an extraordinary identification with the little people – inasmuch as you have done this(clothed the naked,fed the hungry,etc.) staggeringly you have done it as to God. Wow. Our God did not give good advice from a safe distance. No, our God entered the fiery furnace to be there as Immanuel, God with us in our anguish and agony. Our God was not deaf, but heard our cries, was not blind but saw our suffering and would as of old come down to deliver us from our bondage too, so that we would enjoy the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Jeremiah Wright has said really no more than this which falls squarely in the ambit of black theology, black religion to answer the anguished questions of black people suffering under the brutality of white racism. It ultimately seeks reconciliation, but you cannot be reconciled with one who has his boot on your neck to keep you in the gutter. To be reconciled you must stand up right to look the other in the eye.

Black theology and religion seek the liberation of all, oppressor and oppressed, black and white together – as we accomplished it in South Africa for freedom is indivisible. Whites won’t be truly free until blacks are free. Listen to Condeleeza Rice in the Washington Times. Obama is a person of courageous integrity. He could have ingratiated himself to white Americans by repudiating his pastor completely. He did nothing of the sort. That speaks volumes for the man. America will not find peace with itself until you really deal with your history. You need something like a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to help you come to terms with your past.

Another Jeremiah, the prophet of old shocked his compatriots when Jerusalem was being besieged by the Chaldeans. He urged his compatriots to desert and join the enemy. What price patriotism.

About The Author: Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the cause of racial justice in South Africa. He served as the first black African archbishop of Cape Town from 1986 to 1996.

Prior to this role as spiritual leader of the Anglican Church in South Africa, Tutu served as General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches from 1978 to 1985. It was in this position that he became an international voice for the anti-apartheid movement and received the Nobel Prize.

In 1995, South African President Nelson Mandela appointed Archbishop Tutu Chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the body set up to investigate human rights violations under that country’s apartheid governments from 1960 to 1994. Tutu retired from in 1996 and was given the honorary title of Archbishop Emeritus.

Since then, Archbishop Tutu served as a visiting professor and scholar at the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. He has received numerous awards and has authored two books, No Future Without Forgiveness and God has a Dream.

Tutu continues to write, lecture, and travel the world as an advocate of human rights and social justice. He is currently involved with a number of non-profit organizations working for peace and equality, meeting the needs of disadvantaged children and fighting HIV/AIDS.

Popularity: 14% [?]

In 1991, A prominent African leader stood up against injustice in a neighbouring land. “The cry for freedom, as well as the cry for justice, stops at no border,” he declared.

That leader was Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe. He was speaking in Harare, opening the Commonwealth meeting that would decide to begin lifting the people-to-people sanctions that had been imposed against South Africa.

“As you stand on Zimbabwean soil,” President Mugabe said, “only a stone’s throw away from South Africa, the world expects us to spare no effort in helping to achieve an outcome there which will bring comfort to the oppressed people of South Africa.”

It is now well past time that South Africa returned the favour. Quiet diplomacy is dead. One of Africa’s brightest hopes has turned into the continent’s most dismal failures. In an era in which our continent is meant to be embarking on an African Renaissance, Zimbabwe is both an obstacle and an embarrassment.

President Thabo Mbeki’s policy of “quiet diplomacy” in Zimbabwe has finally been denounced as a disaster by world leaders. The criticism has extended beyond muted signs of displeasure to condemnation.

Senior ANC leaders have urged Mr Mbeki to alter his stance, while MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai has expressed a desire for South Africa to be replaced as mediator in the crisis.

It is worth examining what effects this policy, which has led Mr Mbeki to claim there is no electoral crisis in Zimbabwe, has had on the country.

Zimbabwe, once one of the healthiest economies in Africa, has been plunged into a crisis that worsens every day. Inflation stands at over 100,000 per cent, and is predicted to hit the 1.5 million per cent mark by the end of the year.

Its healthcare system has failed, with many children orphaned by an Aids crisis, which Mr Mbeki refuses to take seriously. Political violence, intimidation and corruption remain endemic. None of this has been ameliorated by South Africa’s diplomatic efforts.

This policy has resulted in strengthening Dr. Mugabe’s regime and other countries’ desire to effectively address the plight of the Zimbabwean people.

By indulging Mugabe’s insistence that the criticisms levelled against him are part of a neo-colonial plot, President Mbeki has granted the man a legitimacy that he would not otherwise have.

It is never quite clear to anyone precisely what quiet diplomacy is meant to accomplish. Is it supposed to bring about a fresh round of elections — free and fair this time round? Is it meant to bring about a transfer of power to the MDC or within a “reformed” Zanu-PF? Is it meant to bring about some kind of government of national unity?

South Africa’s treatment OF Zimbabwe’s opposition has been shameful. President Mbeki’s public embraces of Mugabe and his Zanu-PF cronies contrasts sharply with his studied avoidance of Mr Tsvangirai.

The ANC’s unswerving loyalty to its fellow liberation government has undermined any claim it might have wished to make as to the even-handedness of its approach. This, of course, reflects the ANC’s attitude towards political opposition more generally.

The tragedy has been that it is in the interest of all to stand firm in condemnation of the actions of the Zimbabwean government. It lacks the economic and military clout to seriously threaten its international critics.

There is everything to gain in pragmatic terms by supporting reform in a country that has demonstrated such economic potential, and a moral mandate to criticise Mugabe’s corrupt despotism.

A far better response would have been the more robust one. Standing up to the Zimbabwe government would have limited their ability to manoeuvre diplomatically and politically, making it harder for them to acquiesce in the current crisis.

Had South Africa been firmer from the outset in dealing with the regime and challenging its actions, it might have been able to limit the machinations of Zanu-PF and the generals now lining up to try and succeed Mugabe.

A tough stance that refused to indulge Mugabe’s delusions might not wake him up to reality, but his isolation would afford him less political protection than he currently has.

This is not to advocate a US-style hawkish diplomacy against Zimbabwe. That would be entirely inappropriate for the situation and the country, and would have a very dubious prospect of success.

Rather, to stand up to Zimbabwe would involve stronger words supported by resolute action, a refusal to indulge Mugabe’s fantasies, and joining the rest of the world in the sanctions they have placed on the regime.

The world currently awaits the results of this most contentious of Zimbabwean elections. A change of stance from President Mbeki might go miles in delivering a resolution. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

The South African government should tell Mugabe that the human rights abuses, police brutality, arbitrary arrests and beatings of opposition politicians have to stop. These actions should remind South Africans of the worst days of apartheid.

About The Author: Donald Mogeni —

Popularity: 19% [?]

Mohammed Allie — in Cape Town looks at whether racism is still thriving in South Africa, 14 years after the end of apartheid, as President Thabo Mbeki suggested in a speech to mark Freedom Day.

Earlier this month, the owner of a South African tourist resort refused to allow a film crew to shoot on his property because of a “whites only” policy.

This came shortly after a racist video made by students at the Free State University and the alleged killing of four black people in an informal settlement by an 18 year old white man.

All of this seems to show that racism is still alive and well in South Africa.

Albertus Pretorious, who owns the Broedestroom Vakansie-Oord resort in North West Province, stood by his whites-only admission policy.

His action comes despite being fined R10 000 ($1,500) and ordered to change his policy three years ago by the Human Rights Commission.

He was fined then for evicting a white family who had brought two black children along with them to the resort.

The producers of Mr Bones 2, a sequel to South Africa’s highest grossing movie, have since decided to move the location of their film shoot away from the venue, because of the owner’s unrepentant attitude.

Mr Pretorious was defiant when a local newspaper enquired whether the whites-only policy was still in operation.

“Yes, it is,” he answered, “I don’t allow black people onto my property. I don’t trust them and it’s my own property, so I can decide myself who I allow.”

Truth but not much reconciliation

When South Africa held its first democratic elections in 1994 to officially mark the passing of the Apartheid era, many felt it also spelt the beginning of the end of discrimination in a country where classification by skin colour was still crucial to determining an individual’s future.

Jody Kollapen, Chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission, describes South Africa’s transition to democracy as “amazing” but says the reconciliation part of the process was emphasised at the expense of transformation.

White denial is the real problem — Christi van der Westhuizen, author

Kollapen believes while the Truth and Reconciliation Commission exposed the excesses of Apartheid, very little was asked of whites during the reconciliation and transformation processes.

Christi van der Westhuizen, author of “White Power and the Rise and Fall of the National Party,” agrees that a refusal by whites to acknowledge the impact of Apartheid on black South Africans is largely responsible for the current racial tensions.

“White denial is for me the real problem because they refuse to acknowledge the effect of Apartheid and colonialism in denying black people opportunities,” she says.

“Whites should look at how to use their resources and skills so they can address the imbalances of the past.”

Van der Westhuizen says government policies like affirmative action and black economic empowerment (BEE), which she believes are necessary to redress the years of oppression of blacks, have further hardened white attitudes.

“You must bear in mind that white identity post-1994 has also taken on some notion of victimhood, because they feel they suffer under BEE and affirmative action.

“There is a definite resentment among some members of the white community about having lost power. The Free State video and the shooting incident are just extreme manifestations of a continuing problem in our country,” says van der Westhuizen.

Khanya Gwaza, a black first year student at the University of Cape Town believes racism is not a problem at the institution.

“We get along perfectly across the racial lines,” he says, “one of my best mates is a white person so we do not really see colour as an issue.”

But Simeon Linstein, a second year student, says he sees incidents of racism almost every day.

“I know for example that some white students mock black lecturers for their accent - they presume everyone should speak the way they do.”

The apparent recent increase of incidents of racism is of huge concern to the Rainbow Nation.

But given that racial discrimination started in South Africa with the arrival of the first Dutch settlers in 1652, it is unrealistic to expect it to disappear just 14 years into the new democratic dawn.

Story from BBC NEWS

Popularity: 21% [?]