ANC Today --------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 7, No. 41, 19-25 October 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS WEEK: * Letter from the President: Go Bokke, go! * Africa-Europe Relations: The Africa-EU summit must go ahead * The South African child: UNICEF - Born to serve the children? --------------------------------------------------------------------- LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT Go Bokke, go! On 14 October, two days after the publication of the last edition of ANC TODAY, the Springboks defeated the Pumas of Argentina to qualify to play England in the final match of the 2007 Rugby World Cup at the prestigious Stade de France in Paris. Our nation salutes the Springboks on the succession of victories which has led them to the Rugby World Cup final they will play on 20 October, the first time they have reached this stage of this tournament since 1995, when they defeated the New Zealand All Blacks to bring the Webb Ellis Cup to our country. All of us are confident that our winning Springbok team will repeat at the Stade de France in 2007 what they did at Ellis Park in 1995, and walk away as rugby world champions. We are confident that they will respond magnificently to the united national call - BRING THE CUP HOME! We therefore wish the Springboks all success as they engage England in a peaceful contest of skill and strength the day after the publication of this edition of ANC TODAY, confident that they will win! We assure them that they have the unqualified support of our government and our united nation. I also know that the Springboks know that they will walk into the Stade de France, on 20 October, carrying the hopes and best wishes of the rugby nations of the South, who sent their best fighting squads to France to bring the Webb Ellis Cup back to the South, away from its temporary sojourn in the North. National heroes During the last ceremony, in September, held to admit new members into the esteemed ranks of Members of our National Orders, I was greatly privileged to discharge the solemn responsibility, according to our Constitution, to admit into these ranks two national titans of the sport of rugby, Kitch Christie, posthumously, and Morné du Plessis. Both these national heroes stand out not only as leaders in the area of rugby, but also as determined activists in the continuing struggle to achieve national reconciliation and build a winning, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa. As the Oration delivered by the President only during the National Orders Award Ceremony directs, to them, Kitch Christie and Morné du Plessis, we say - Bayethe! The outstanding performance of the Springboks at the 2007 Rugby World Cup tournament has, once again, drawn attention to the critical role that sport plays in strengthening national cohesion and unity, giving us our national identity, and inspiring in all of us a shared and new patriotism. Clearly we are a long distance away from the tumultuous events beyond our shores which led our nation to admit into the esteemed ranks of the Order of the Companions of OR Tambo, the militant New Zealand activist against apartheid, Trevor Richards. The citation read by the Chancellor of National Orders on the day of Trevor Richard's admission said he was being honoured, in Gold, for "his exceptional contribution to the struggle for the attainment of a non-racial, free and democratic South Africa through consistent advocacy of non-racial sport and the boycott of apartheid sport". The longer text explaining the place of Trevor Richards in the making of our nation said: "Incensed by the apartheid regime's use of sporting exchanges and international sport to attempt to give what was in reality a tyrannical society a veneer of normality, Richards, together with Ton Newnham, John Minto, David Nickham and others formed the organisation called Halt All Racist Tours (HART) in 1969, initially to co-ordinate opposition to the 1970 All Black tour to South Africa. "Over the next twenty years, HART - of which Richards was national chairperson for ten years - actively contributed to the international campaigns to stop all sports tours to and from South Africa, establishing close working relationships with the South African Non-racial Olympic Committee (SANROC), the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa." This speaks to the years when the Springboks were an all-white apartheid team, inevitably condemned to play their role as an instrument for the perpetuation of the apartheid system. The road to transformation However, in the end, the time came when an ANC delegation, which included the late Steve Tshwete, himself a rugby player for whom we continue to grieve, met the late Danie Craven and Louis Luyt in Zimbabwe in 1988, to take to the road that led to the deracialisation of rugby administration, the democratisation of our country, and the birth of the new Springboks which are now the pride of the nation. No one among us would not have been moved by the comments the captain of the Springboks, John Smit, made after the victory over the Pumas. He said he was 17 years old when we became rugby world champion in 1995. He said our country had made great strides in the 12 years since 1995. He observed that the racial integration of the Springboks reflected the progress our country had made towards creating a non-racial society. He further observed that he spoke for all the players in the Springbok team when he said the squad was conscious of its responsibility to the nation, and its task to contribute to the achievement of the tasks of national reconciliation, nation building and creating a non-racial society. I have watched the Springboks as they sing our National Anthem with manifest passion, at the beginning of the matches they have played during the 2007 Rugby World Cup. I have seen them sing the entirety of our Anthem, undeterred by the fact that it uses four of our official languages. When I listened to John Smit speaking on television after the match with the Pumas, I could see in the mind's eye the Springboks singing our National Anthem, standing in a straight line on the playing fields of the French Republic. Thus I knew that John Smit was telling the truth when he said all the Springboks of 2007 have, unlike the Springboks of 1977, become combatants for the creation of a united South African nation. The challenge ahead However we would be greatly mistaken if we took this immensely positive development as signifying that the rugby administrators, the players and the nation have accomplished the shared goal of building rugby as a non-racial sport at all levels, on a sustainable basis. The depth of the challenge we all face in this regard was identified by Marja Spierenburg and Harry Wels in the publication, "Culture, Organisation and Management in South Africa: in search of equity". They wrote: "The organisation and management of rugby can perhaps be seen as a micro cosmos of South Africa's larger world of organisation and management. The parallels and the type of complexities with regard to the implementation of equity policies will emerge in the various chapters in this book as will the perpetuation of many of the inequalities in the 'new South Africa' that developed under colonialism and apartheid." Just ahead of this they wrote: "In 1995 the South African rugby team, the Springboks, a sport typically associated with white South Africa as is the world of business and management, won the Rugby World Cup. It was celebrated as a triumph for the Rainbow Nation and the image of a cheering and dancing Mandela, celebrating the victory, is inscribed in the national memory of the country. "In 2003, just before a next Rugby World Cup, the nation is torn apart because of alleged racism in the national rugby team. Mark Keohane, the team's communication manager, who resigned in August 2003, because 'he refused to be part of a cover-up of racism in the Bok team', wrote a report for the South African Rugby Union (Sarfu). In it he specifies his claim that racism is rife in rugby in South Africa. As South African business and management is as white as its rugby, one of Keohane's described incidences might be of particular relevance to the theme of equity in this edited volume: "'Team selection race issues: every team selection announcement was preceded with a discussion about the number of black players in the squad and how I [Keohane] could explain this to the media. In 2002 Straeuli [the coach] had selected five black players in his match 22 and started with four on occasion. However, in 2003 the number to start never exceeded three and on two occasions only one black player started. Straeuli justified it by saying he had to pick the strongest team and that we could have no passengers in the big games'." Normal sport In Volume 5, No 29: 22-28 July 2005, ANC TODAY published a 'Letter from the President' entitled: "Go, Boks, go!" We cite a relatively long extract from this Letter to make the point that - a luta continues! The struggle continues! In that July 2005 Letter, just over two years ago, we said: "The day before the publication of this edition of ANC TODAY, our media gave prominent coverage to the composition of the Springbok team selected to play the Australian Wallabies on 23 July at Ellis Park Stadium in the second match of the Mandela Challenge Plate tournament. "In part, this heightened attention derived from the fact that the Wallabies had convincingly outplayed the Springboks in the first match in Sydney, Australia, winning by the wide margin of 30-12... "But equally important and exciting was the unprecedented number of black players included in the Springbok side. Reporting on this development, one of our newspapers carried the front page banner headline '9 BLACK BOKS'. "Another newspaper report said the changes made by the Springbok coach, Jake White, after the humiliating Sydney defeat, 'have resulted in a record nine black players being included in the match 22, with six black players set to start the match for the first time since South African rugby's readmission to the international fold. "Jake White was reported as saying that the selection of a record nine black players was 'very special for me. When I took the job 18 months ago I said there were black players good enough to play for South Africa. It is about creating opportunities. To be able to pick nine black players in a Test against Australia shows we are creating these opportunities.' "The national rugby coach insisted that he had selected a team he was convinced could and would win the match against the Wallabies. In other words, the black players he had selected were 'good enough to play for South Africa.' They had been chosen on merit, as excellent rugby athletes. "This view was echoed by the ANC national spokesperson, member of our National Executive Committee and former rugby player, Smuts Ngonyama. He said: 'I know Jake White and he won't pick a team that he doesn't think can win. Winning is always first and foremost on his mind. It is wonderful, and I think we have a backline and pack of forwards that will beat the Australians. Now (that) we have speed and power, it should be a brilliant match.' (The Springboks managed to retain the Plate by defeating the Wallabies 33-20 at Ellis Park!) "Jake White and Smuts Ngonyama were communicating the message to our country and people that the Springbok team selected to play the Wallabies both represented a talented and potentially successful rugby team and confirmed that we are gradually advancing towards the achievement of the goal of 'normal sport in a normal society'. "This had been the central goal pursued by the sportspeople, such as Sam Ramsamy, who for many years worked relentlessly for the isolation of apartheid sport and the birth of a non-racial and democratic South Africa. "That it is now possible to carry a newspaper story under the headline - 9 Black Boks - is a tribute to the sacrifices they made, to create the possibility for the black and white youth of our country to go onto the playing fields together as one team, proudly to represent one country and one people, united in their diversity. "As we move further and further away from the apartheid years, so do some people find it difficult to understand that much of what we are about today, focused on the reconstruction and development of our country, represents the continuation of a protracted struggle under new conditions - a struggle whose fundamental objectives have not changed. "These new conditions demand much less sacrifice from those who continue to engage the challenges facing our country as agents of change. In this situation it becomes relatively easy to debase and vulgarise the noble effort to create a new South Africa that belongs to all who live in it, black and white. "Among other things, this makes it absolutely imperative that we should constantly recall the example set by those who fought for this new South Africa, when to do so was to invite immense suffering and pain." From the bottom upwards, to the top There might be many among us who might have dismissed the comments made by Springbok coach Jake White on the eve of the Ellis Park Mandela Challenge Plate match in 2005, who have also adopted the same attitude with regard to the remarks made by Springbok captain, John Smit, on the eve of the Stade de France Rugby World Cup final in 2007, concerning their commitment to the achievement of the important national objective of 'normal rugby (and sport) in a normal society'. However, we know the distance we have travelled to arrive at the point when the Springbok coach and Springbok captain can make the remarks they made in 2005 and 2007. Today, on the eve of the final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup, we can reel off a list of names of Rugby Union managers and Springbok players, which gives our nation a picture of the exciting promise born of the struggle that Sam Ramsamy and Trevor Richards waged, of what Steve Tshwete did when he met Danie Craven and Louis Luyt almost 20 years ago, of what Jake White and John Smit meant when they spoke as they did. What is perfectly clear is that to build on what Jake White said in 2005, expressing his conviction that 'there are black players good enough to play for South Africa', SARU, our government, sponsors and everybody else concerned, should work together to mobilise the greatest possible numbers of young people, from the primary schools upwards, to play rugby. Thus will we attain the goal of the 'normalisation' of the sport of rugby, when none would doubt that every player in our winning Springbok teams proudly goes into battle dressed in green and gold, because they deserve to do so as our best rugby athletes. For now, what I know is that Bryan Habana, Percy Montgomery, Akona Ndungane, JP Pietersen, John Smit, Juan Smith and each and everyone of their Springbok team mates, have worked together as the united national team that must, on 20 October, bring the Ellis Webb Cup home. Go Bokke, go! Thabo Mbeki --------------------------------------------------------------------- AFRICA-EUROPE RELATIONS The Africa-EU summit must go ahead In an article in the British newspaper, 'The Independent', on 20 September 2007, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote: "It is also right that I make clear my position on the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit. I want this summit -under the leadership of [Portugal's] Prime Minister Socrates - to be a real success. It is a serious opportunity to forge a stronger partnership between the EU and Africa in order to fight poverty, tackle climate change, and agree new initiatives on education, health and peacekeeping... "I believe that President Mugabe's presence would undermine the Summit, diverting attention from the important issues that need to be resolved. In those circumstances, my attendance would not be appropriate." The EU-Africa Summit will be held in Lisbon, Portugal in December, the first having been held in Cairo in 2000. Except for the UK, the member states of the African Union and the European Union are, as far as I could establish, of one mind that all member states of both Unions should attend the Summit. A shared concern Africa has rightly insisted that all countries have a right freely to constitute their delegations. Except for the UK, the EU has accepted this. The UK is demanding that the EU should instruct Zimbabwe to exclude President Mugabe from its delegation, arguing among other things, that he is under an EU travel ban. The British government claims it has taken these and other positions on Zimbabwe because it is concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe and the role of the Zimbabwe government. Yet, all the other governments that will attend the EU-Africa Summit are equally concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. Because of this concern, after many years of continuous engagement with the leaders of Zimbabwe, in March this year the Southern African Development Community (SADC) took two important decisions. One of these was that President Thabo Mbeki should facilitate a dialogue between the government and ruling party of Zimbabwe and the opposition to arrive at an agreement that would address Zimbabwe's political challenges. During the recent visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to our country, President Mbeki reported publicly that the negotiations were proceeding well and would soon be concluded successfully. Everybody, including the British, knows that already, as a result of an agreement arrived at during the dialogue facilitated under the direction of our President, the Zimbabwe ruling party, ZANU PF, and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) groups jointly sponsored a constitutional amendment in the Zimbabwe parliament. The second decision taken by SADC was that the community's executive secretary should undertake a review of the Zimbabwe economy and make proposals about what the community should do to assist the economic recovery of Zimbabwe. Having concluded his work, the SADC Finance Ministers are now seized with the task of working out a practical programme of action. The simple truth, therefore, is that SADC, with the full support of the AU, is not only concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. It is acting on this concern, with the full support and cooperation of the government, the ruling party and the opposition political formations of Zimbabwe. Clearly the British government believes all this means nothing. It is suggesting that it is morally superior to everybody else in the EU and the AU. The question to ask is whence this extraordinary sense of superiority. Regime change Perhaps the answer lies in an editorial in the British periodical, 'The Economist', of 5 July 2007 headed "The virtues of isolationism". It said: "In a blistering attack on Mr Mugabe's rule, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube, said that the state of the country was now so bad that foreign governments (particularly Britain's) should intervene to 'remove' Mr Mugabe from power... Mr Ncube's appeal to the West to remove Mr Mugabe should be taken as a cry of pain, not a reason for the West to invade... it is only the Africans, and particularly the southern Africans, who can apply the strong pressure needed to get rid of him quickly. "Yet the Portuguese do now have a way to give the African Union a much-needed jolt. They should refuse to let Mr Mugabe come to Lisbon. That will force Africa's leaders to reconsider their priorities. If that stops the summit from taking place, so be it: a firm stand would send a powerful message of solidarity to all those in Zimbabwe who long to be rescued from their plight. Welcoming their tormentor to Lisbon for the sake of a jamboree would be a corresponding disgrace." It is regime change and nothing else. The demand is made in clear language - Southern Africa must carry out this task. The question that needs to be asked is whether this demand reflects the views of the British government. As a movement, the ANC has always assumed the British Labour Party was anti- colonial and a principled defender of the right of all nations to self- determination. In the post-war years these positions were eminently represented by the Labour Party MP, Fenner Brockway. Another historical fact, manifested over many decades, is that in our region the British governments have consistently appeased the racist white minorities, and refused to align themselves with the African majorities, honestly responding to their legitimate demands. In 1910 the British government betrayed our people by handing power in our country to the white minority. The British Labour Party followed this route with regard to Zimbabwe when, as the governing party on 11 November 1965, it refused to suppress the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) rebellion of the white minority against the British Crown, led by Ian Smith. Addressing the British House of Commons on 11 November 1965, Prime Minister Wilson said: "I repeat that the British Government condemns the purported (unilateral) declaration of independence (UDI) by the former Government of Rhodesia as an illegal act and one which is ineffective in law. It is an act of rebellion against the Crown and against the Constitution as by law established, and actions taken to give effect to it will be treasonable... "We did not seek this challenge. The House will concede that we did everything in our power to avoid it, but now it has been made, then, with whatever sadness, we shall face this challenge with resolution and determination. Whatever measures the Government, with the support of this House, judge are needed to restore Rhodesia to the rule of law, to allegiance to the Crown, these measures will be taken." The measures the British government took to respond to what Prime Minister Wilson characterised as rebellion and treason did not include any demand or action to achieve regime change. On the same day, the British newspaper, 'The Guardian', said: "The sanctions announced (by the Wilson government) are inadequate for the job they have to do - to break the Rhodesian Government." The Labour government, led by Prime Minister Harold Wilson, did not call for regime change. The change of regime, the "breaking" of the Rhodesian Government, was brought about by the struggle of the oppressed masses of Zimbabwe, led by their liberation movement, during which thousands of African lives were lost. Similarly, regime change in our own country, to reverse the British betrayal of 1910, came about because of the protracted struggle of our own people, led by our liberation movement, again at great cost in African lives. The costly victory of the Zimbabwe liberation struggle gave the British government the possibility to resume its responsibility as the colonial power charged with handing over power to the people of Zimbabwe, as it had done in all its colonies in the Caribbean, Asia and Africa, except South Africa. A promise betrayed Charged to preside over the 1979 Lancaster House negotiations to decide the future of the Zimbabwe, the British government still tried everything it could to protect the interests of the same white minority in Zimbabwe whose actions it had denounced in 1965 as illegal, rebellious and treasonable. As a result of these efforts, for 10 years after independence, liberated Zimbabwe was prohibited from acting in a decisive manner to change the pattern of land ownership born of the colonial land dispossession of the indigenous majority, in favour of the white minority. This was because the British government recognised the centrality of the land question to the colonisation of Zimbabwe, white minority interests, and therefore the liberation struggle. To balance its insistence that the right of its kith and kin to hold on to the land that had been acquired by force had to be respected for 10 years, the British government, supported by its US counterpart, undertook to provide the government of Zimbabwe with substantial financial resources to acquire land to address the land question, insisting that this should be done on the basis of the "willing seller, willing buyer principle". After a long period of negotiations with the British Conservative Party government, led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, her successor, Prime Minister John Major, finally agreed that the British government would honour the undertakings made during the Lancaster House negotiations, in the same way as the Zimbabwe government had respected its commitments in this regard. However, the British Labour Party took power in 1997, inflicting a humiliating electoral defeat on the Conservative Party. It has remained in power ever since. As a successor government, and contrary to international convention and the rule of law, it unilaterally repudiated the undertakings made by the John Major government on the land question in Zimbabwe. To add insult to injury, it arrogantly asserted its right to impose what amounted to a neo-colonial diktat on the government of Zimbabwe. All this was reflected in the infamous 5 November 1997 letter written by the then British Minister for International Development, Claire Short, to Kumbirai Kangai, the then Zimbabwe Minster of Agriculture and Land. She wrote: "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers... "Again, I am told there were discussions in 1989 and 1996 to explore the possibility of further assistance. However that is all in the past. If we look to the present, a number of specific issues are unresolved, including the way in which land would be acquired and compensation paid - clearly it would not help the poor of Zimbabwe if it was done in a way which undermined investor confidence... It follows from this that a programme of rapid land acquisition as you now seem to envisage would be impossible for us to support." This position stands at the heart both of what has happened in Zimbabwe since this letter was written, and the positions the British government is taking today on the forthcoming EU-Africa Summit. To right a wrong - miserable advice Many things have gone wrong in Zimbabwe over the years. Our movement, the ANC, has engaged both ZANU PF and the MDC on these matters continuously, honestly and frankly, over many years. We know that the South African government, led by the ANC, has done the same, including initiating serious dialogue with the British and other governments, seeking to assist in finding solutions to all the problems affecting Zimbabwe, in the interest of its people. We have avoided detailing our efforts in public, because we were convinced, as we continue to be, that this would facilitate the speedy resolution of the problems confronting the sister people of our immediate neighbour, Zimbabwe. We have done so deliberately, understanding that it is more important to work, practically, for the resolution of the challenges in Zimbabwe than to engage in fruitless and self-serving rhetoric as many others have done. These, by contrast, have presented themselves as the true friends of the people of Zimbabwe. This has led to the situation where the British government makes bold to present itself as being superior to everybody else in Southern Africa, Africa and the EU. On 7 April 2002, the British 'Observer' published extracts from a paper written by Robert Cooper and published by the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) entitled "The post-modern state". Cooper contributed his paper to a publication of the FPC focusing on the topic, "Reordering the World: the long term implications of September 11." 'The Observer' described Cooper as "Tony Blair's foreign policy guru". The FPC said: "Senior British diplomat Robert Cooper has helped to shape British Prime Minister Tony Blair's calls for a new internationalism and a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention which would place limits on state sovereignty." Among other things, Cooper argued that the collapse of imperialism and colonialism has resulted in global chaos, including the emergence and survival of 'failed states'. To respond to this, he said: "The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one employed most often in the past, is colonisation. But this is unacceptable to postmodern states. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse and no colonial powers are willing to take on the job, though the opportunities -perhaps even the need - for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment. "AII the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet a world in which the efficient and well- governed export stability and liberty seems eminently desirable. "What is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle." An AU-EU partnership We do not know whether these unapologetically backward and reactionary ideas inform the approach of the British government towards Zimbabwe, but they are consistent with what Claire Short said in her letter to Kumbirai Kangai. The EU-Africa Summit, long delayed by the British insistence that President Mugabe should be excluded, should go ahead as planned. It must attend seriously to the important issues that are of fundamental concern to Africa and the EU, rather than allow itself to be imprisoned and paralysed by dangerous and destructive neo-colonialist ambitions. In a 2007 document, the EU commits itself to a strategy that "proposes forging a strategic security and development partnership between the EU and Africa. The strategy focuses on key requirements for sustainable development such as peace and security, good and effective governance, trade, interconnectivity, social cohesion and environmental sustainability. New initiatives have been launched, most notably a governance initiative and a Euro-African Partnership for Infrastructure, which was launched in July 2006. "Under the Governance Initiative, the EU will, for instance, provide support for reforms triggered by the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a unique tool for peer review and peer learning in good democratic governance by and for Africans. And in the context of the Partnership for Infrastructure, the EU will support programmes that facilitate interconnectivity at continental level to promote regional trade, integration, stability and development." These are some of the matters that should be discussed during the December EU- Africa Summit. Others must include comprehensive EU support for NEPAD, the strengthening of the AU, sustained resource transfers to Africa to help us to meet the Millennium Development Goals and sustained development to defeat poverty and underdevelopment, and genuine respect for the independence and sovereign voice of the peoples of Africa. Japan, China and India are engaged in dialogue with Africa to help us, themselves, and all humanity to address the "special needs" of Africa that were recognised in the unanimously adopted UN Millennium Declaration of 2000. It would be very good if all member states of the EU go to Lisbon in December to follow this example, and enter into dialogue with Africa on all issues that Africa and the EU place on the common agenda. If some countries decide to absent themselves from this critically important dialogue, to, feed their celebration of their holiness, regrettable as it is, we surely have the liberty to repeat what 'The Economist' said - so be it. ** Kgalema Motlanthe is Secretary General of the ANC. --------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHILD UNICEF - Born to serve the children? Earlier this month, on 12 October, our media reported on comments allegedly made by a highly-placed representative of the UN inter-governmental specialised agency charged with the task to respond to the challenges facing children globally, UNICEF. One report said: "South Africa is neglecting most of the 100,000 children born there every year with HIV/Aids and half of them are likely to die before the age of 2, a senior UN official said on Tuesday. 'This is unacceptable,' Ann Veneman, executive director of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), told Reuters in an interview. 'The child really has been in some ways forgotten.'. "Veneman called on both the government and community leaders to end what she called a state of denial and to recognise the magnitude of the problem.Veneman noted some progress on her four-day visit to South Africa, during which she discussed efforts to alleviate suffering with Nelson Mandela, who has his own Aids charity. She also met pregnant women and mothers infected with HIV/Aids. "She said death statistics were nevertheless still astonishing. An estimated 12% of South Africa's 47 million population have HIV. 'There are 500,000 new infections every year,' including 100,000 children, said Veneman, adding, 'There are 400,000 people who die every year.' "South African officials, including President Thabo Mbeki, have infuriated Aids activists by questioning accepted Aids science and endorsing unproven treatments. Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has been dubbed 'Dr Beetroot' for her promotion of beetroot, garlic and other foods as a treatment for HIV/Aids." The lessons learnt According to this report, Ann Veneman spent four days in our country. During her visit she "discussed efforts to alleviate suffering" with our esteemed leader, Nelson Mandela. We do not know what this discussion amounted to. It was also reported that she "met pregnant women and mothers infected with HIV/Aids." We do not know who else she met, and what she learnt from the encounter with pregnant women and mothers. How many of these were white, and how many black? How many came from the rural areas, and how many came from our towns and cities? How many were working class, and how many middle class? What did she learn about the condition of our children from each of these distinct social groups, to empower UNICEF to make or recommend the required specific actions that would, practically, improve the social and family material and psychological circumstances that affect the South African child? We do not know whether Veneman met our Ministry and Department of Health. We do not know whether she met the Office on the Status of Children, deliberately located in the Presidency of our system of governance. We do not know whether she met our official statistics agency, Statistics South Africa, in part to get a comprehensive picture about the morbidity and mortality trends in our country. We know that Veneman did not meet the ANC, the democratically elected ruling party in our country, and a leading activist in the fight for the rights and welfare of the child. We also do not know what study she made about the overall conditions that affect the health and welfare of our country's children. Accordingly, we do not know what she thinks about the impact of poverty and underdevelopment, as well as the deeply-embedded legacy of colonialism and apartheid, on the critically important issues of the health and welfare of our children. Therefore, we do not know what assessments she might have made about the health of our children relating to such issues as infant and child mortality, which has many causes, maternal mortality, violence against children, and so on. For the sake of the children We do not know what assessments Veneman made about the interventions democratic South Africa has made and is making to improve the lives of our children. These include free medical care up to the age of six, which also entails free HIV and AIDS mother-and-child treatment in the public health system. These interventions also include the school feeding scheme and the designation of many schools as non-fee paying, to liberate poor families from the burden of fees imposed by autonomous School Governing Boards (SGBs), transferring to the public purse the responsibility to provide the required resources, where justified in terms of the all-round needs of children. They also encompass the far-reaching Child Support Grant, which supports millions of children. They include the special measures provided for in our criminal justice system to respond to the unacceptable social phenomenon of crimes against children. They also include the national obligatory interventions prescribed by the Children's Act. In the light of the foregoing, and much else besides, including the government- led "16 Days of Activism against Violence against Women and Children", now extended to 365 Days of Activism, we do not know what Veneman meant when she said, "The child really has been in some ways forgotten." UNICEF - A reliable partner? We count on UNICEF to work with our government and people as an honest and reliable partner in the important fight to advance the rights of children, centred on their health and general welfare. We do not expect that UNICEF will allow itself to fall into the trap to elevate its public profile, presumably to raise funds, by surrendering to the deadly temptation to join a counter- productive propaganda bandwagon. The comments allegedly made by Veneman created the space for some in our media to repeat the shameless and tired lies about our President and Minister of Health contained in the media text we quoted at the beginning of this article. The media did not attribute these lies to Veneman, and neither do we. However, given our reality, characterised in part by a determined effort to impose on us certain views about HIV and AIDS, despite our comprehensive National Strategy, and the concrete actions we have and are taking to implement this strategy, Veneman should have known that her highly tendentious remarks would inevitably be used by some for purposes she did not intend. Perhaps needless to say, this means that we presume that she is genuinely interested in our country and the well-being of our people, especially the children, sufficiently to understand what some have done and are doing to present a particular negative image of our new democracy. As part of their mandate to help us respond to the health and welfare of our children, Veneman and UNICEF have an obligation directly, honestly and frankly to engage our government, acting as an inter-governmental organisation, further to empower us to do everything necessary and possible to ensure a happy future for our children. This noble cause will not be served by four-day visits to our country by "senior UN official(s)", and their involvement in dishonest propaganda campaigns. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This issue of ANC Today is available from the ANC web site at: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2007/at41.htm To receive ANC Today free of charge by e-mail each week go to: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/subscribe.html To unsubscribe yourself from the ANC Today mailing list go to: http://lists.anc.org.za/mailman/listinfo/anctoday