Issued by African National Congress - Parliament
18 February 2003
War clouds are gathering with an increasing momentum as we pass the midway point of the second month of 2003.
A century and eight months ago another war came to an end at Vereeniging. In its day the Anglo-Boer War, which ended on 31 May 1902, was regarded as emblematic of the powerful bullying the weak. Under the pretext that Kruger's South African Republic was undemocratic, Britain had attempted to effect "a regime change". But Dr Stan Jameson was no Rambo. His mission failed even before he had out off, Kruger's government had recently subdued the neighbouring Venda kingdom in a war of aggression. African communities that had submitted to the Boer yoke earlier were rightless helots from amongst whom the Boer farmers could impress labourers.
When the war broke out in 1899, with the exception of Turkey, every European government opposed Britain. An unusual consensus ensued among otherwise mutually competitive imperial powers. They became off bedfellows in their shared antagonism towards Britain. It was generally acknowledged that Britain, the 19th century's principal imperial power, had precipitated the war to gain control of South Africa's mineral wealth. Within every nation in Europe, public opinion was overwhelmingly critical of Britain. On this issue Tsar Nicholas II, and his arch enemies - the populists, the social democrats and anarchists - found themselves in the same trench. In Germany, the Kaiser was able to exploit vocal anti-British sentiment to his advantage and piloted a naval construction programme through the Reichstag virtually unopposed. In France, the socialists and radicals sat comfortably in the company of their political opponents on the right in a movement not dissimilar to the broad spectrum of opinion opposing the war plans of the Bush Administration in our day.
Britain felt herself vindicated by her immense wealth as well as her system of government. Though women in Britain could not vote, men from the propertied and middle classes enjoyed a full franchise. The Reform Act had also extended the franchise to significant layers of urban working class men making Britain one of the more advanced liberal democracies.
The policies pursued in Britain is two southern African colonies, the Cape and Natal, seemed to confirm this. The Cape's policy of the franchise for all civilized men, in principle, was colour blind. African and Coloured voters in the Cape made up important constituencies that White politicians ignored at their peril. In Natal the more conservative White minority had effectively kept the franchise from all but six Black potential voters despite official rhetoric about a colour-blind property owner's franchise.
Compared to the two Boer Republics, which were explicitly undemocratic, the political arrangement in Britain, and her two colonies, were infinitely better.
But the Anglo-Boer War was fought and won at a time when the African continent was considered the empire-builders' oyster. We are at the beginning of a new century during which Africa will take charge of her own destiny through a comprehensive programme of renewal. During 2002 we inaugurated the African Union to replace the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The AU will take forward this new phase of the African struggle for emancipation. Its weaknesses and numerous faults notwithstanding, the OAU was wound up after successfully completing one of the principal tasks it had set itself in 1963 - the eradication of colonialism and apartheid from the continent.
The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) will join a long list of disheartening failures if it does not address the principal challenge facing the African continent: poverty.
The information revolution, sweeping the most developed parts of the world, has been compared with the agrarian and industrial revolutions, both of which radically transformed the way human societies were organized. The futurist, Alvin Toffler, referred to it as "The Third Wave". Measured against Toffler's projections, there is a real danger that Africa could be further marginalised, considering that the greater part of the continent still has to experience the industrial revolution.
"The Third Wave" differs from the earlier two because of its reliance on the technological innovations of the latter half of the 20th century. Telecommunications is the backbone of the information revolution and the key infrastructure for its growth and development. Trends in that sector have already established a daunting lead, separating the "telecommunications haves" from the "have-nots". Among the latter, Africa is one of the least endowed.
In Africa is not to be left behind, we need to consider what needs to be done, in South Africa in the first instance, and in the rest of Africa. The growth, development and sophistication of our telecommunications infrastructure self evidently will provide the platform. Clearly we must develop this as the service backbone of the information society alongside manufacturing, mining and agriculture, together with the requisite human resources.
The danger of a digital gap has been identified.
From 18th century Britain, where it began, the industrial revolution had spread to every part of northwestern Europe and the United States by the end of the 19th century. The latecomers built on the foundations laid in Britain. None of them was required to re-invent the steam engine or the various industrial processes pioneered by the British. They were thus able to leapfrog and even overtake the pioneer country. The United States, Germany and Japan did exactly that during the first half of the 20th century, offer even more interesting examples. Africa will be required to stand on the shoulders of other continents achievements. The roll out of a continental telecommunications capacity, alongside a transport infra=structure, is the sine qau none for the success of NEPAD.
It is now common cause that South Africa's economy is extremely distorted. Comrade President spoke of a dual economy. These distortions are rooted in the specific features of a capitalism that evolved through wars of colonial dispossession, a coercive labour system and a racially defined and disenfranchised proletariat.
The dogma that the state, no matter what its character, can only play an obstructive role in the economy will not stand close scrutiny. The 20th century is replete with examples that demonstrate the exact opposite. Not least among these the NICs of the Pacific Rim. The expansion of public works programmes is to be welcomed as is a more comprehensive approach to Black Economic Empowerment. But Black Economic Empowerment must avoid the perils of the old elites, emergent propertied classes, and greedy wa-Benzis, looting the state's coffers in an orgy of self-enrichment. Transparency in awarding government contracts and an attitude of zero tolerance to corruption will deter those who might otherwise be tempted.
Madame Speaker,
South Africa must remain seized of the problem of Zimbabwe for reasons of altruism and of self-interest. Zimbabwe is our neighbour and also our largest trading partner on the African continent. Besides the historical links between our two countries, the economies of South Africa and Zimbabwe development as intertwined. The repercussions of a total economic meltdown in Zimbabwe will felt in the streets of Johannesburg within hours. Self-interest dictates that we assist Zimbabwe back to its feet!
Assisting a neighbour in trouble does not translate into interfering in its internal affairs. The problems of Zimbabwe will be solved by the people of that country. But it is self-evident that the high degree of polarization in that society cannot be helpful, and some mechanism will have to be devised to draw the two sides of the conflict closer. The pressing need for a national dialogue among the key players, civil society and other stakeholders is recognized by both the government party and the opposition.
I would submit that the question of Zimbabwe's continued suspension from the Commonwealth and a regime of sanctions needs to be examined against that backdrop. The crucial question we must ask is: will the outcomes our actions are likely to produce benefit or harm the people of Zimbabwe?
As Comrade President has said, " ….we prefer peace to war." We want peace because we know from our own experience that peace is the condition for development. War brings death and destruction, and in their wake come poverty, deprivation and despair.
Our demand for peace is neither designed to let the Iraqi authorities off the hook nor to frustrate the UN's effort to disarm Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction… As a movement, the ANC has stood opposed to weapons of mass destruction for decades. And our opposition is not partial - we call for the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction - be they in the hands of Iraq, the USA, Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia or North Korea.
We would insist too that if the weapons Iraq allegedly possesses pose a danger to world peace and international security, the international community created an instrument, the UNO, for our collective security. No one has devolved on the USA and its alliance of the willing, the responsibility of safeguarding international security. And those who have read and understood the history of the League of Nations must remind President Bush and his willing helpers, that it was the bullyboy tactics of the powerful states and their unilateralism that reduced the League of Nations to irrelevance.
For those who actually live through and with the consequences of war, peace and stability are not mere abstractions. As the "chicken hawks", bar one, who lead the Bush administration, can testify, the sons of millionaires, the super-wealthy and other members of elites can usually buy their way out of fighting wars. The poor pay for wars with the sweat, tears, blood and the corpses of their young. In addition they also haul to pay taxes! When funds are diverted from social spending to defence and security, it is the poor who suffer.
This especially true in Africa where instability and wars have all but destroyed the promise of independence. The pursuance of stability and peace require the eschewal of zero sum politics in Africa. Democratic government is the essential ingredient for the success of that project.
Madame Speaker,
The gold standard established the centrality of gold as the international medium of exchange during the first decade of the 20th century. The First World War demonstrated that oil, both as an energy source and as our primary lubricant, would acquire an importance greater than gold in the future because it keeps the cogs of our industrial society turning. 4 days ago, the Beat generation poet, Lawrence Felinghetti published the following lines:
And a war vast paranoia sweeps across the land
And America turns of the Third World War
The war with the Third World
And the terrorists in Washington
Are drafting all the young men
And no one speaks
And they are rousting out
All the ones with turbans
And they are flushing out
All the strange immigrants
And they are shipping all the young men
To the killing fields again
And no ones speaks
And when they come to round up
All the great writers and poets and painters
The National Endowment of the Arts of Complacency
Will not speak
While all the young men
Will be killing all the young men
In the killing fields again
So now is the time for you to speak
All you lovers of liberty
All you lovers of the pursuit of happiness
All you lovers and sleepers
Deep in your private dreams
Now is the time for you to speak
O silent majority
Before they come for you!
Madame Speaker,
The past week-end, some 30 million people, spread over 600 cities across the world spoke out. It is our ferevent hope that the powerful are listening!