By Jane Flanagan
Mr and Mrs Dreyers have just returned from the funeral of Eugene Terreblanche and are filled with quiet anger over the loss of “Oom Gene” (Uncle Gene), under whose command of the AWB they had served for almost three decades. Looking through their “reminders of the golden years for the Afrikaners” offers them some comfort.
“These treasures remind me why Afrikaners belong here, why we could never leave, and why we and South Africa are one and the same,” Mrs Dreyers, a 64-year-old grandmother of five, explains quietly.
Her husband adds: “We fight to keep our land because our people suffered so greatly to win it. We fought wars and lost fine men for it, we worked this soil until our hands bled. We made this country what it is. Nothing bad can be done to us that does not serve to make us stronger.”
Like an increasing number of Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans, Mrs and Mrs Dreyers believe the lawlessness in rural areas, which claims the lives (MURDERED!!) of two or three White farmers or family members EVERY WEEK, can only end with another separation of whites and blacks. “A homeland for Afrikaners is what we want, and it is what God wants for us,” Mr Dreyers, 70, says, before expanding into the sort of rhetoric that made his leader reviled by both the black population and liberal whites.
“We have learned our lesson: Black people cannot run a country. They inherited a priceless jewel and made it worthless. They have not got the wisdom – they will never have the wisdom – to run a country. We have tried to teach them, but they have not learned and they are not grateful for what we gave them. They wanted the whole cake, and now there are only crumbs left.”
Struggling to name a black person he did have any fondness for, Mr Dreyers, a retired tanner, can only offer: “I would have been happy to walk alongside Nelson Mandela, once he was freed from jail. But they must have had a good reason to lock him up in the first place.”
“All these attacks against white farmers and elderly Afrikaners are more than just about crime,” says 24-year-old Kobus de Lange, “otherwise why would they be so vicious? Is it necessary to pour boiling water into the ear of a defenceless old woman who can’t put up a fight? That is what happened to a lady who lives near me. What threat is she to a bunch of young black robbers?”
The KK, too, believe a volkstaat [homeland] for the Afrikaners is the only way to prevent the country’s most serious race crisis since the end of apartheid from spilling over into civil war.
Abraham de Wet, a recent recruit to the Korps, acknowledges that the ANC government would never agree to such a solution. “The last thing the blacks want is to be separated from the whites. They cannot exist without us [Whites] being there to feed them and to employ them. Look at what has happened in Zimbabwe – the white farmers produced enough food to feed not only the country’s entire population, but people in other black countries, too. The black people in Zim have got all the land they ever wanted and now they are starving.” -Full Article
By Peta Thornycroft
The last few white Zimbabwean farmers are being thrown off their land.
Surrounded by soldiers from the Zimbabwe National Army clicking automatic weapons, Charles Lock, 45 yrs. old, handed them his security gate keys and drove down the dusty road from his farm for the last time.
That was two weeks ago.
Charles Locke and two daughters
In every commercial farming district, scores of white farmers and thousands of their workers are going through similar distress amid a sudden escalation of President Robert Mugabe‘s seven-year ethnic purge of commercial farming districts.
As of today, any white farmer still living and working on his farm is trespassing on state land. The previous deadline in February was extended as it was mid-season and the government needed revenue from the tobacco that was being grown.
In advance of this deadline, about 50 white farmers have been under enormous pressure. Some have been arrested or manhandled, others constantly harassed or their workers forced to stop land preparation for summer crops.
Most farmers have been summoned to appear at magistrate’s courts in towns around the country to be charged and then have their cases postponed to a later date. In September alone, five or six from Harare South have thrown in the towel, packed up and quit.
“I may have been forced off the farm but I will continue to fight in the courts,” said Lock. “I have five court orders allowing me to stay.”
He is not the only one. Other farmers also have files full of court orders which have been ignored.
Lock was “allowed” to continue farming after his first court appearance in 2003, when he proved that he had already given his own 2 500-hectare farm to the government and moved to his father-in-law’s farm, Karori, in the Headlands district, about 125km south-east of Harare.
He gave two-thirds of that farm away as well.
Lock has only 376ha left but still managed to produce a good income from tobacco, maize and horticulture in the past three years.
Then, last year, Brigadier-General Itayi Mujaji, a veteran of the war of liberation and a senior officer in the Zimbabwe Army, arrived at Karori and said it had been given to him.
Both vice-presidents, Joyce Mujuru and Joseph Msika, as well as the local Manicaland governor, all intervened to say Lock should be allowed to remain.
The military, however, is in control of Zimbabwe. Soldiers were sent to the farm. Mujaji claims they are his bodyguards and that he is entitled to them as a senior commander.
Lock went back to court and on September 7 Judge Charles Hungwe ordered Mujaji and his wife Pauline to be arrested for contempt of court or leave the farm and take the soldiers with them.
That order also carried a warning to Philip Sibanda, the army commander, and Augustine Chihuri, the police commissioner, that they would be considered accomplices if junior officers disregarded court orders.
It made no difference, and Lock was driven off the farm at gunpoint. >More>>
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) – 30 years earlier
By Jan Raath, The Times
Inflation is likely to bring Zimbabwe’s economy to a standstill within six months with the possible paralysis of President Mugabe’s Government and civil unrest, international aid agencies warned their staff yesterday.
The country’s plight is likely to force Mr Mugabe to introduce emergency rule, said a group representing 34 organisations, including the United Nations, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Oxfam.
The warning came as the country’s consumer watchdog reported that the cost of living for an average urban family had risen by 66 per cent last month. In April inflation stood at a record 3,700 per cent. The internal memorandum from the Heads of Agencies Contact Group is the first evidence that international organisations are taking steps to prepare for a collapse.“The memorandum is talking about a situation where there is no functioning government or a total breakdown,” said an agency official, who asked not to be named. “It is saying it is inevitable, not just a possibility. Our head offices have to know. Not many people have experienced this kind of crisis.” The document says that inflation will continue to snowball. “Thus economic collapse is expected before the end of 2007,” it adds.
By that point the Zimbabwean currency will have become unusable (worthless) and shops and services will “substantially cease to function”.
Mr Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia 1964-1979, often said: “we were never beaten by our enemies – we were betrayed by our friends“. The West essentially promised white leaders in South Africa that they would be allowed to continue practicing apartheid if they would stop arming Rhodesia in her war against communism. Between 1979 and 1980, Rhodesia fell into Marxist dictatorship under Mugabe and had its name changed to Zimbabwe .(1) The World Bank provided loans to Mugabe up until May 2000.(2) This is not an academic issue since millions face starvation because of Mugabe’s Marxist policy of seizing the nation’s farms. Ominously, Mugabe has turned to communist China to run farms in Zimbabwe.(3) In the 1980s the world saw starving children in Ethiopia, but what they did not realize was that this was a planned famine. The Marxist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam undertook nationalization of agriculture and massive population resettlement program modeled on Stalin and Mao’s starvation programmes in the 1930s and 40s which killed millions [of human beings]. Meanwhile the World Bank continued to send Mengistu millions of dollars, much of it intended for the ministry of agriculture undertaking the resettlement programme.(4)(5) The Wall St. Journal recently reported on a study by the The Free Africa Foundation which concluded that,
In country after country in Africa, there has been no accountability in the use of World Bank loans… Billions in World Bank loans have been embezzled in Africa and rarely anyone is held accountable and prosecuted.(6)
It comes as no surprise then that by its own admission, the World Bank’s purported policy of strengthening African free market economies by lending $50 billion for ‘Structural Adjustment programs’ and other projects over the past thirty years has been an abject failure. That’s because their real purpose was the exact opposite: The destruction of the property rights and the creation of socialist dictatorships. What else could possibly have happened after handing over $50 billion to undemocratic governments with no accountability?
Given a political system that is based upon a patronage system and governments run by uniformed bandits, the commitment to reform is almost non-existent as genuine economic reform would be politically suicidal. The result is a ‘reform charade,’ where “reforming” governments take one step forward and three steps backward.(7)
By 1982 almost every Third World government was running behind on its payments and Latin America was no exception. Over the next seven years, multi-billion dollar bailout packages failed to stem the economic decline. That’s because they were used to build cumbersome nationalized industries at the expense of the private sector. For example, the western banks funded large government run companies such as Petroleo Brasilerio S.A. in Brazil and Petroleus Mexicanos in Mexico. By 1990 these companies were failing miserably and dragging the rest of the economy down with them. Brazil was unable to produce enough petrol and Mexico became a food importer. Brazil is now controlled by the military and government run companies consume 65% of all industrial investment. Exactly the same process brought Argentina’s economy to its knees. It had an expanding middle class until its government became the recipient of massive loans from the World Bank and U.S. commercial banks during the 1980s. By 1989 inflation averaged 5000% and thousands of corporate bankruptcies followed. Government figures showed that in 2002, about 100,000 people dropped out of the middle class each week to become the new poor. A country that only 10 years earlier had Latin America’s highest standard of living was now on a level with Jamaica; half of Argentina’s 37 million people lived below the poverty level. The Government had subsidy programmes for about 2 million malnourished Argentines, but millions more got nothing. Some subsisted by scavenging through garbage. (10) (11)
Joseph Stiglitz’s discussion of the role of bankruptcy laws in the 1997 Asian financial crisis reveals how the IMF deliberately undermined domestic property rights. Here the bankers exploited the absence of the legal framework for implementing trusteeships when large numbers of firms were going bankrupt. The IMF encouraged the state to get involved in restructuring the companies, i.e. telling them how to run themselves instead of sorting out who really owns the firm. Countries such as Thailand followed their advice and languished whilst Korea and Malaysia ignored it and prospered.(14)
By the end of the 1980s the banks had successfully empowered and corrupted Third World governments with billions in bank loans. Liberal democracy and the free market had been strangled. Now for the second play: The sell off. The directive for the sell off came from the World Bank and IMF at the end of the 1980s as shown by World Bank documents signed by James Wolfensen and leaked to a BBC investigative journalist, Greg Palast. The World Bank flew in their teams who dictated their plans, an average of 111 conditions in a pre-written document, to each nation’s finance minister. If he refused he would be denied any further loans and the life blood which had sustained his government would be cut. These conditions included selling off the natural resources and national industries to foreign multinationals. In the case of Argentina, they required the nation to give up its gas water and oil to Vivendi, Repsol, Enron and a few other multinationals. In 1988 Jeb Bush made a call to an Argentine senator asking him to sell a gas pipeline to Enron at one fifth of its market value. In return, a percentage of the discount would be deposited in the senator’s Swiss bank account. The process has been called ‘briberization’ rather than privatisation.(15)
When making the case for such a grand conspiracy as this, it is helpful to call a whistleblower to the witness stand. Published in November 2004, the book entitled Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins ( now a New York Times best seller) is a public confession by an insider about the real purpose of Western loans to developing countries. Working in a private consulting firm, Perkins was one of the ‘economic hit men’ who carried out the plan detailed in the World Bank documents. Perkins describes a classical conspiracy between government and big business. The U.S. National Security Agency recruited and trained the ‘economic hit men’ to carry out their duties through private consulting firms and other corporations. The beneficiaries of the conspiracy were the international bankers and shareholders in the multi-national corporations. Unable to repay the loans organized by the hit men, developing countries had to surrender their national resources to their Western creditors. What an extraordinary scam: Destroy a country’s domestic capitalism and free-markets, get it into massive debt and then with financial gun to its head, shake it down for everything its got.
Full article here.
By Elias Biryabarema The Monitor (Kampala, Uganda)
Mr. Yoweri Museveni [President of Uganda] has a background of good education. A calm and well exposed man. Straight thinking and intelligent, his grasp of contemporary world affairs, including some quite complex stuff, is commendably firm.
For years he burned his young energies battling vile governments. Narrowly escaping death on occasions, he showed resolve, sacrifice, devotion to his people and a deep abhorrence for oppressive leadership. Sure. This man had no shortage of good qualities. And yet, to the astonishment of history, Mr Yoweri Kaguta Museveni has still failed us. [Twenty] years at nation building have produced incompetence so shocking that some think a psychopathic illiterate, Idi Amin, did better work.
Uganda has been fairly stable long enough. The conditions for an economic takeoff have been there for 20 years. Mr. Museveni has enjoyed generous goodwill from nearly all the world’s rich governments. Their largesse has poured in ceaselessly and in hefty amounts.
Uganda should have taken off. We haven’t. We’re stuck. And so is Tanzania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Eritrea, Malawi, Congo Republic and pretty much all of Black Africa, excluding the region’s sole economic power, South Africa. This led me to pose a question to myself: can Black people build prosperous societies?
Just about everywhere you look, evidence abounds. Vietnam suffered a war of colonial conquest and it was eventually subdued by France in 1884. For almost a decade, it again fought a devastating independence war until France was vanquished in 1954. And then came the epic battle of 1965 to 1973 with US military and its allies, seeking to squelch the North Vietnamese communists.
When the guns fell silent with the withdrawal of US troops in 1973 and the eventual fall of Saigon in 1975, the Vietnamese [death] toll stood at a horrifying three to four million. Diplomatically isolated, its economy shredded and its population maimed and traumatised on a scale unparalleled in any Black African nation (except DR Congo), Vietnam would seem to have no chance at success.
But just two and a half decades later, Vietnam is storming the world stage as an economic powerhouse. Its exports are flooding western nations; heavy and advanced manufacturing is thriving at a rapid pace. Its GDP, $258 billion, is having an average growth rate of 8%, the second highest in Asia after China. Europe had to put curbs on the country’s shoe exports after they nearly sunk much of the continent’s manufacturers.
According to a news report in New York Times on October 25, 2006, Vietnam now sells “nine times as much to Americans as it buys from there.” Since 1990, a space of 15 short years, Vietnam has pulled off one of the most stunning economic feats: reducing absolute poverty-World Bank standard: subsisting on $1 a day-from 51 to 8% of its population.
Back home here (Uganda), the sort of wars and the scale of devastation that Uganda has suffered since independence can hardly be said to be as crippling as the cataclysm that struck Vietnam.
This is true for many of the Black African nations. But the difference is staggering. Vietnam‘s economy is roaring. Sub Saharan Africa is dead stuck known more for: constant disease outbreaks, emergency food relief appeals, civil strive, genocide, chronic corruption, flimsy or nonexistent infrastructure, constitution breaches, state failure than anything else. This disgusting state of affairs after, according to an estimate by South Africa‘s Brenthurst Foundation, a colossal $580,000,000,000 (Billion) worth of donor money has been poured into the region since independence. Why have the Vietnamese overcome their historical setbacks and prospered while Black Africans stagnated or regressed?
Or if we may ask another question: why is it that White people prosper wherever they settle while Black people head for the opposite direction. The British crown started asserting its colonial rule over small territories on the continent of Australia in 1788, taking several decades before it brought all the areas into a unified Australian colony.
Throngs of Europeans emigrated en masse and settled there throughout the 1800s. These émigrés went ahead, starting from really little or nothing, and established one of the world’s economic and military powers that is Australia today. The history of New Zealand, the other White country in the Southern Hemisphere, is pretty much the same.
Now contrast these nations with Haiti, the only black nation outside of Africa. It gained independence in 1804. It’s near the US, the richest market on earth and Haiti has a coastline unlike other African nations whose landlocked status is blamed for their underdevelopment. And fine, it has had a fairly brutal past but nowhere near Vietnam‘s horrors. But what have our Haitian brothers made of these generous natural advantages: it remains the most backward country in the Western hemisphere, bound up by privation, cyclical coups, spasms of mayhem and blood-thirsty gangs. At home and away, that’s your Black people!
In fact Haiti is perhaps just about the best that we can achieve in nation building. Ethiopia never had colonialism. It registered impressively high levels of literacy as early as 1970, a fact a friend of mine brought to my attention recently. It has a rich and widely shared cultural heritage, a common ancestry. This should have propelled Ethiopia but see the shameful portrait of hunger and disease that this country projects to the world.
And so, to go back to that question that I have been chewing over and over again of late: can Black People build prosperous societies; I firmly believe the answer is a sad NO.
The dumbfounding incompetence of President Museveni thus is not a failure of an individual. It’s a failure of a people: Black People. Museveni only rose and touched our low ceiling. The shamefully limited achievement of his “fundamental change” regime thus should be interpreted in this cruel context.