What kind of mind? What kind of desperation? These are the questions that must surely arise as you read the e-mails at the centre of the political storm besetting the country’s politics in general and its intelligence structures in particular.
We publish them this week with due caution and through a process of ethical decision-making. They are undeniably of public interest though many of the people named are extremely worried that in the present political climate the e-mails may be read as authentic.
The so-called “hoax e-mails” that we detail this week are certainly defamatory and much of the content seems palpably incorrect.
But the e-mails, and their genesis, are being probed by the Inspector General of Intelligence and the direction of the investigation so far appears to suggest they had their origin at the highest levels of the National Intelligence Agency — or at least some of the information, or misinformation — did.
In addition, the national executive committee (NEC) of the ruling party saw fit to table them and discuss their contents in some detail, before concluding that none of its members was involved in what it called “these smear campaigns”.
The three elements — the probe, the role of intelligence and the distribution of the e-mails at the African National Congress NEC — place the communications, fake or not, within the public interest.
If there is any truth in them, the communications disclosed suggest there is a form of political conspiracy afoot that is indeed a matter of great public interest and concern. If they are false and fake, then equally they represent a dangerous bid to smear senior people in the government and the suggestion that this attempt might be located within the State’s intelligence structures makes the situation even more serious.
Either way, we need to establish the truth. But we need to do it in a transparent way that restores the vital public trust that state institutions are not being abused for party political or factional power struggles — trust that has taken a severe battering in recent times.
In our view, if the e-mails and their implications are important enough for the ANC NEC to see, and discuss, ordinary South Africans deserve no less.
The same goes for the investigation by the inspector general, which up to now has been entirely secretive.
Another example relates to suspended NIA director general Billy Masetlha, accused of being party to unlawful surveillance carried out on businessman Saki Macozoma. When Masetlha challenged an attempt to interrogate him as part of an investigation by the inspector general, he made three demands: that he be accompanied by his legal team, that he be provided with the terms of reference for the investigation, and that he be provided with details of the evidence against him.
The fact that the inspector general baulked at a court battle over these basic legal demands and shelved his interrogation should give us all pause.
For the nation, a knee-jerk resort to secrecy is not justified. This is not a matter of national security. It is a matter of national interest.
A missed target in Montreal
Scientists predict that over the next 20 to 50 years maize production in South Africa will decrease by 20% as a result of climate change. Biological diversity will shrink by 35% to 55%, diseases like malaria will quadruple, water will become increasingly scarce and fires more frequent.
Despite this scary future, the government hesitated at the Montreal climate change conference to commit itself to obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. South Africa is not bound by Kyoto Protocol reduction targets, but developed countries put it and other rapidly industrialising countries, such as China, India and Brazil, under huge pressure to take on mandatory reduction commitments.
South Africa’s reliance on coal-powered electricity is earning the -country a bad reputation. It is ranked among the world’s top 20 worst offenders for emitting greenhouse gases.
Minister of Environmental Affairs Marthinus van Schalkwyk said he did not want to commit to binding reductions because his team was negotiating alongside a bloc of developing countries that were not ready to take on reduction obligations. These countries needed to grow their economies and regarded climate change interventions as a threat, rather than an opportunity.
South Africa favoured positive incentives under the global trading schemes set up to offset carbon emissions and had set itself several voluntary reduction targets, he added. But vocal NGOs pointed to rising global emissions and temperatures as evidence that voluntary undertakings were not enough if the world was to stave off irreversible global warming.
At least 37 countries have bound themselves to Kyoto reduction targets, including East European countries undergoing transition to a market economy and countries with struggling economies, like Portugal and Ireland.
Montreal 2005 was a missed opportunity for South Africa to join them. By taking on reduction commitments, the government would have sent a signal that it was serious about cleaning up our act. With South Africa due to become chair of the G77 next year, it would also have sent a sign to other developing countries that it is possible to grow economies and do the right thing at the same time.