Imperialists want Libya’s oil
Views such as those of Adekeye Adebayo (“Africa must support Libya intervention“, April 1) are sobering. But I still have an axe to grind with the opportunistic, neo-colonial, imperialistic super powers that Kwame Nkrumah condemned in his book, Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Is it ethical for these powers to be expedient in intervention action in countries rich with mineral yields and less so in those that are poor?
Bill Clinton, in his soul-searching autobiography, My Life, regrets the little attention he gave Africa. This regret is magnified by the “electioneering” intervention his administration made in Bosnia to check Serb aggression — Clinton used the Bosnian crisis to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
In African countries foreign policy seems to be taking precedence over domestic programmes. Such error or blatant lack of caring makes international laughing stocks of African governments. This pathetic leadership leaves voters apathetic and despondent, not comprehending why they should vote in the first place.
The naked truth is that African politicians are disgustingly apathetic when pursuing and executing their foreign policies. These are notes African leaders must take to avoid unnecessary bloodbaths, which, as I write, are manifesting themselves in Tripoli and Abidjan. Once in power, the African wants to die in power. We must find a way to think of the “next generation” and the “next election”.
Now Libya! The Libyan strongman holds on defiantly, but for how long? The United States and Europe’s voices of conscience were stifled during the Tutsi/Hutu conflict in Rwanda. Now that Gaddafi is killing civilians, the voice of international conscience is loud. Why was it not so loud when Nelson Mandela sat in prison for 27 years? The high quality of Libyan oil is valuable to the US and Europe, so Gaddafi has to be sacrificed the way the Iraqi leader was, to put in place a compliant government that will look the other way when the West draws barrels and barrels of oil to feed Western industrialisation with “cheaper” African raw materials. — Benjamin Seitisho, Phuthaditjhaba
American President Barack Obama said that they would be on the opposition’s side in the Libya conflict. But why would the US choose to be on the side of the opposition in such internal issues and to assist it? Is the US on the side of the opposition or on the side of the oil, as in Iraq?
In countries such as Zimbabwe and Swaziland the US has never been so radical in terms of coming to the side of the oppressed, yet the atrocities continue. The Swazi people will be staging an uprising on April 12 with the intention of toppling the dictator king. Should we expect that the US will actively support the people, as it is supporting the Libyan rebels? — Pius Khumalo, Soweto
Following the attacks on Libya it has become clear that, through its inconsistency the United Nations divides the nations of the world instead of uniting them. For instance, the UN has taken clear resolutions on Israel in the past, yet Israel continues to violate all those resolutions. It is appalling that the UN has suddenly forgotten about the Palestinian people and cares only about bombing Libya. In fact, if the UN was serious about resolving issues in such a manner, then the dropping of bombs on Israel would have happened a long time ago. — Thabo Thwala, Bothaville
It ought to be obvious that the democracies of the world (including South Africa) have a moral obligation to assist those populations who have shown that they wish to free themselves from the communist or nationalist dictatorships under which they suffer.
Far from selling weaponry to the Gaddafi dictatorship (“SA govt’s Libya arms bid”, April 1), South Africa ought to be delivering concrete assistance to the European and North American forces supporting the liberation struggle in Libya. Or do the idiot pipe dreams of South Africa’s lunatic fringe, the ANC Youth League, actually dictate government policy? — Oliver Price, Cape Town.
Arms control committee broke the law
The National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) is required to take a country’s human-rights situation into account before selling arms (such as ammunition for sniper rifles) to it.
In your article on South Africa’s attempts to sell arms to Libya (April 1), you quote the director of defence industries in the defence department, Colonel Trevor Mketi, as asking: “How can one country judge what human-rights issues are going on in another country?”
In fact, it is easy. You look up the websites of such highly respected organisations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW). In its report Libya: Rights at Risk (2008), HRW found that “Despite modest improvements in recent years, Libyans and foreign residents in Libya continue to suffer from serious violations of human rights.”
In the chapter on Libya in its World Report 2011, HRW reports that in 2010, “Government control and repression of civil society remain the norm in Libya, with little progress made on promised human-rights reforms.”
Let’s stop pretending. The Cabinet members who make up the NCACC have broken the law, either deliberately or because they are incompetent. The NCACC needs to be reformed so that transparency and principle are emphasised, as the legislation intended. — Geoff Harris, Durban
Social support failing women
The article “Rebuilding the village” (March 25) spells out the alarming context in which women bear and raise children. Traditional systems of support are “in tatters”, rates of poverty are high, relations “fragmented”, and maternal rates of depression extremely high. South African women, the article states, face additional pressures such as “unemployment, social drift, loss of family members through death or geography, violence and trauma — housing problems, social exclusion and a lack of ‘social capital'”. These are compounded by a lack of self-esteem, lack of self-sufficiency and food insecurity.
The difficulties that face women in raising children are many and complex. They are social in origin. They stem from lack of infrastructure, lack of support and lack of respect.
The solutions proposed seem ludicrous in the face of such failures. Omega 3, pushing prams and “lifestyle changes” simply do not recognise the social origins and context of maternal depression. The only point that holds the state and society responsible — to integrate better screening at antenatal level — presupposes that women receive proper and sustained care at such centres.
The recommendations require women to take responsibility for matters that have to do with poor resource allocation, unforgivable disparities in wealth, inexcusable violence and a lack of social and political will to change such factors. In other words, they imply that women are to blame for depression and for its consequent effects on children.
Come on South Africa, let’s recognise that the roots of child well-being lie in maternal health and let’s put pressure on government and communities to support women and children properly. — Fiona Ross, associate professor, department of social anthropology, University of Cape Town
Has York changed its mind?
I read with interest the seamless article by David Attwell (“A shared history of social equity“, April 1). It was articulate and persuasive. He says South Africa’s links with the University of York extend back many years, including a significant role played by the university in the anti-apartheid movement. Maybe, but some memories are short and selective.
In 1986 a letter from Professors Bill Davies, Peter Vale and myself was published in The Times Higher Education supplement. We called for British universities to be more selective about who they received from South Africa and to examine closely the anti-apartheid credentials of visiting South African academics.
I received a hostile response from Professor Ian Lister, then head of the department of education at York. In effect, he said he would receive whomever he wished, including, in the context of our letter, apologists for apartheid and the South African government.
That was 25 years ago. All is forgotten and British foreign policy has changed towards South Africa — or has it? Is the present need for universities in Britain to create international income-generation opportunities any different to the situation 25 years ago, when trade with South Africa guided British foreign policy? — Alan J Penny, former professor of education at Rhodes University, Grahamstown
Sanctions case not right
In “Apartheid-era diplomats’ own WikiLeaks” (April 1) Sean Christie quotes a collection of diplomats’ memoirs, from Verwoerd to Mandela. But in commenting on the extracts relating to unconventional diplomacy and sanctions, he makes a seriously inaccurate accusation: “At one point,” he writes, “diplomat Marc Burger describes how the inactive trust accounts of Jewish families killed by the Nazis were reactivated as international conduits for South African funds.” This amounts to an accusation that South Africa, the department of foreign affairs and diplomats (myself included) stole the money of Holocaust victims to circumvent sanctions. This is untrue.
No “inactive trust account” of any family was ever “reactivated”. The truth is as follows. A foreign institution identified an extinct family and offered its identity to South Africa. Very careful checks ensured that there were no living family members, no family trust or other financial interest anywhere. An entirely new family trust was then set up. All monies paid into this trust account came from the special account. Money disbursed from this account was subject to stringent checks and balances. No single official could spend it. Approval was required from the chief accounting officer of the relevant department, the minister and the treasury. All funds disbursed were audited by the auditor-general.
It is regrettable that Christie did not report on the full context and purpose of these efforts against sanctions. We did our best to buy time for the government of the day, while actively pursuing the other half of our dual strategy — working for reform from within and opening channels to (then banned) movements. — Dr Marc Burger, retired foreign-service officer