|
South Africa and Darfur Fact Sheet
By Abdelbagi
Jibril, Executive Director
Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre
The government of South Africa
is playing an increasingly important role in the
political and economic affairs of the continent of
Africa. South Africa’s increasing political role is
directly linked to its economic might as its economy
accounts for about 45% of Africa’s GDP. In other words
South Africa’s economy is the equivalent of three times
the size of the second biggest economy in Africa, which
is Egypt. It seems that the economic interest in, and
importance of, South Africa are the driving forces
behind its political stands on some crucial situations
facing Africa today including Darfur. Within the African
Union (AU), South Africa is member of the influential
Peace and Security Council where some vital measures
that affect issues of peace and security in Africa are
discussed and action taken. At the international level
South Africa is currently member of the UN Security
Council and the UN Human Rights Council.
South Africa and Sudan, South
Sudan
South Africa has developed a
special relationship with Sudan especially after the
signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in
January 2005. The two countries collaborate in various
economic and commercial fields. They also have a growing
cooperation in the energy sector as well as the security
and military fields. Immediately following the signing
of the CPA, South Africa decided to establish a
diplomatic mission in Sudan, which was opened soon
after. President Thabo Mbeki was the only African Head
of State outside the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD) to attend all the concluding sessions
of the important phases of the political negotiations
between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and Army
(SPLM/A) and Khartoum that ended in Nairobi with the
signing of the CPA on 9th January 2005. He
was also among the few African heads of state to attend
the coronation of the late Dr. John Garang as the First
Vice-President of Sudan in July 2005.
After the defeat of apartheid
and the establishment of a democratic nation in 1994,
the ANC government in South Africa made a strategic
decision to support the people of South Sudan and their
representative organisation the SPLM/A. A good number of
SPLM/A cadres had received training and education in
South Africa. Cooperation in this field continues
through the Pretoria-based Centre for African
Renaissance Studies at the University of South Africa. A
considerable contingent of scholars and students from
South Sudan are now attending South African
universities. Following the increase in the production
of commercially viable quantities of Sudanese crude oil
and the establishment of the autonomous Government of
South Sudan the relationship between the two countries
has been further strengthened and consolidated. The
struggle of the people of South Sudan for justice and
equality was the corner stone of South Africa’s
interest. This is why the government of South Sudan has
strong influence on South Africa’s stands as far as the
situation in Sudan is concerned.
It has been observed that some
SPLM/A supporters, especially those who participated in
the Inter-Sudanese Peace Talks on Darfur (part of the
delegation of the government of Sudan), hold unusual
enmity against the insurgent movements and people of
Darfur. These cadres have aggressively rejected the
demands of the people of Darfur for a proportionate
share in the economic and political life of the country
on the ground that such demands will affect the CPA.
Some of them even made the incredible claim that the
people of Darfur instigated the destruction of their
region in order to sabotage the CPA. Since then some
SPLM/A elements launched a sinister campaign against the
demands of the people of Darfur for justice and equality
which has reached many parts of eastern, western and
southern Africa.
South Africa and China
South Africa has strong trade
and economic ties with China as well as some political
and ideological affinities inherited from the era of
black South Africa’s revolution against the oppressive
apartheid regime. This relationship has created a
complicated dynamic especially at international
decision-making foras on the issue of Darfur. Both China
and South Africa are currently members of the UN
Security Council and of the Human Rights Council. At the
international level we have observed that South Africa
and China assume similar positions on some issues in the
area of international peace and security and human
rights in particular the situation in Darfur.
South Africa and the Arab Gulf
States
South Africa has strong trade
and economic relationships with countries in the Arabian
Gulf region. In fact the Gulf region is becoming an
important trade zone for South Africa. It holds great
potential for South Africa not only as an export market
and a source of energy but also as a strategic source of
foreign direct investment. During the past few years the
oil-rich Arab Gulf States have invested billions of US
dollars on surplus oil revenue in real estate, and
private equity investment, infrastructure development,
tourism and other related business affairs in South
Africa.
The Sudan represents a special
area of geopolitical interest for the Gulf States and
protecting the Arab-centric government of General El
Bashier is one of the main factors, which brings
together all members of the League of Arab States in
their support of Khartoum. On the other hand it is clear
that most states in sub-Saharan Africa have yet to
understand the full ramifications of the crisis in
Darfur – a crisis which is largely driven by the quest
for encroachment on land owned by the indigenous African
tribes.
South Africa and Darfur
The position of the government
of South Africa vis à vis the situation in Darfur
is characterised by indifference to the suffering of the
victims of this human tragedy. Although South Africa
participated in the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS) and has
sent some military and police forces to Darfur, the
effectiveness of this contribution remains
disproportionate to the political leadership role that
it actively pursues in relation to the situation in
Darfur. Out of AMIS’ total authorised troops of 6,171
military and 1,560 police personnel, South Africa
contributed some 600 individuals.
As of recently we observed
that the government of South Africa increasingly
supports the government of Sudan in its handling of the
situation in Darfur. South Africa continues to use its
membership of the AU Peace and Security Council to back
and advocate the position assumed by Sudan and its north
and east African allies within the AU institutions.
At the international level
they follow a similar policy. On no less than a dozen
occasions they used their membership of the UN Security
Council and the Human Rights Council to oppose, and
finally water down, projects of resolutions which could
have helped provide the victims of the armed conflict in
Darfur with the necessary protection and relief. Below
are some examples of South Africa’s callous position on
Darfur.
On 12 July 2007 three members
of the UN Security Council (Britain, France and Ghana)
have submitted a draft resolution for consideration and
action by other members of the Council. Because of the
gravity of the situation on the ground in Darfur the
resolution was tabled under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter. The draft text approved the "hybrid" African
Union-United Nations force. Although the text was
reasonably prepared it ran into strong opposition from
some council members in particular China and South
Africa who took the lead. South Africa's Ambassador to
the UN in New York
Mr. Dumisani Kumalo labelled
the draft resolution as "totally unacceptable,"
and further accused the sponsors including Ghana of
"throwing everything of the kitchen into the sink".
He strongly supported the position of Sudan that the
resolution should be "more Sudan friendly" and it
should drop "irrelevant" and "alien"
issues like the threat of "other measures," which
usually meant sanctions.
It should be noted that
Ambassador Kumalo has been consistent on this position.
In March 2007 when he was President of the Security
Council said that: " … the UN can't send troops into
Darfur without the permission of the Sudanese Government
… UN can't just order the marines into a country."
This assertion is totally irrelevant as it purposely
mislead its possible audience into believing that UN
peacekeepers would be drawn from the US marines.
The irony of it is that the
government of South Africa seems to be supporting Sudan
blindly despite evidence that Khartoum – on most
previous occasions - reneged from agreements in a few
weeks. On 17 June 2007 at a press conference by UN
Security Council delegation following a meeting in
Khartoum with Sudan’s President, Ambassador Kumalo was
quoted saying that: "I can tell you that the Foreign
Minister told us in no uncertain terms that the
Government of Sudan accepted the hybrid operation
without any conditionality. The President himself just
confirmed the same thing to us."
Indeed Sudan’s President did
not miss the occasion to declare that: "…no Western
European soldier will touch Sudan’s soil" thus
belied Mr. Kumalo’s statement. On 21st
September 2007 and at the High Level Meeting held in New
York, Sudan supported by some AU members formally
objected to the deployment in Darfur of infantry
contingents from Uruguay and Thailand. They also
objected to the deployment of a military engineering
unit from Norway. These objections are clear violations
of the AU agreement with the UN on the UN/AU hybrid
military presence in Darfur. It totally disregards the
letter and spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1769
(2007) which authorised the UN/AU Hybrid Operation in
Darfur (UNAMID).
At the fifth session of the UN
Human Rights Council held in Geneva (12th –
30th March 2007), many human rights activists
were shocked when the delegation of South Africa stood
fast in support of GoS. Together with Algeria they
endorsed a weak text of resolution that praised Sudan’s
for its criminal handling of the situation in Darfur.
This occurred despite the almost unanimity of opinion
among delegates from sub-Saharan Africa, including SADC
countries, that they would no longer extend
unconditional backing to the government of Sudan in its
crimes in Darfur. When their efforts failed the
delegation of South Africa used all kinds of tactics to
water down the resolution introduced by the EU on the
situation in Sudan.
The position of the ANC
government in South Africa vis à vis the
situation in Darfur is utterly disappointing. Providing
unconditional political and diplomatic support to the
government of Sudan in its attempts to cover up the
crimes it has willfully committed in Darfur amounts to
certain complicity. More so, efforts of the government
of South Africa to abort robust regional and
international plans to protect the defenceless civilian
population in Darfur betray the ideals of justice, human
dignity, equality, liberty and peaceful coexistence for
which the South African masses fought a heroic rebellion
against the racist apartheid regime.
Because of such glorious
history of that nation, the position of the ANC
government in South Africa in support of GoS in the
crimes it continues to commit in Darfur disturbs the
victims of this tragedy more than the position of China,
Egypt, Algeria, Russia or other friends of Sudan.
External observers too could easily say that even if
Africans don’t give a hang about African victims of the
Darfur tragedy why should the rest of the world care?
In 2010 South Africa is
expected to host the FIFA Football World Cup. This
important global manifestation will focus the world’s
attention on South Africa as a preferred destination for
tourism, trade and investment. Hosting this prestigious
global tournament should place a certain moral
responsibility on the host nation regarding the values
of solidarity, friendship, peace, justice, and human
dignity.
What we see in South Africa’s
policy towards Darfur is the antithesis of all these
high moral values and should be rejected by all
peace-loving people. The world should know that by
protecting the government of Sudan in its mishandling of
the situation in Darfur, South Africa has tainted its
hands. It supports a killer regime that actively pursues
a policy of imposing conditions of life that will
eventually lead to the destruction in whole or in part
of a specific group of people because of their ethnic or
tribal background. It is tantamount to genocide of
Africans in Darfur.
* * * * *
|
The Haitian Revolution, 1791 to 1804: Or,
Side Lights On the French Revolution
By
Theophilus Gould Steward
This is a reproduction of a book published
before 1923. This book may have occasional
imperfections such as missing or blurred
pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc.
that were either part of the original
artifact, or were introduced by the scanning
process. We believe this work is culturally
important, and despite the imperfections,
have elected to bring it back into print as
part of our continuing commitment to the
preservation of printed works worldwide. We
appreciate your understanding of the
imperfections
in the preservation process, and hope you
enjoy this valuable book.—Amazon.com |
 |
The Haitian Revolution, 1791 to 1804. By T. G.
Steward. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1915. 292
pages. $1.25.
Reviewed by J.R. Fauset. The
Journal of Negro History.
Vol. I., No. 1, January. 1916.
In the days when
the internal dissensions of Haiti are again thrusting
her into the limelight such a book as this of Mr.
Steward assumes a peculiar importance. It combines the
unusual advantage of being both very readable and at the
same time historically dependable. At the outset the
author gives a brief sketch of the early settlement of
Haiti, followed by a short account of her development
along commercial and racial lines up to the Revolution
of 1791. The story of this upheaval, of course, forms
the basis of the book and is indissolubly connected with
the story of Toussaint L'Overture. To most Americans
this hero is known only as the subject of Wendell
Phillips's stirring eulogy. As delineated by Mr.
Steward, he becomes a more human creature, who performs
exploits, that are nothing short of marvelous. Other men
who have seemed to many of us merely names—Rigaud,
Le Clerc, Desalines, and the like--are also fully
discussed.
Although most of
the book is naturally concerned with the revolutionary
period, the author brings his account up to date by
giving a very brief resumé of the history of Haiti from
1804 to the present time. This history is marked by the
frequent occurrence of assassinations and revolutions,
but the reader will not allow himself to be affected by
disgust or prejudice at these facts particularly when he
is reminded, as Mr. Steward says, "that the political
history of Haiti does not differ greatly from that of
the majority of South American Republics, nor does it
differ widely even from that of France."
The book lacks a
topical index, somewhat to its own disadvantage, but it
contains a map of Haiti, a rather confusing appendix, a
list of the Presidents of Haiti from 1804 to 1906 and a
list of the names and works of the more noted Haitian
authors. The author does not give a complete
bibliography. He simply mentions in the beginning the
names of a few authorities consulted.— J.
R. Fauset.
* * * * *
The Journal of Negro History issues at Project Gutenberg
The
Haitian Declaration of Independence 1804
/
January 1, 1804 -- The Founding of
Haiti
* * * * *
* *
* * *
 |
The Price of Civilization
Reawakening American Virtue and
Prosperity
By
Jeffrey D. Sachs
The Price of Civilization is a
book that is essential reading for every
American. In a forceful, impassioned,
and personal voice, he offers not only a
searing and incisive diagnosis of our
country’s economic ills but also an
urgent call for Americans to restore the
virtues of fairness, honesty, and
foresight as the foundations of national
prosperity. Sachs finds that both
political parties—and many leading
economists—have missed the big picture,
offering shortsighted solutions such as
stimulus spending or tax cuts to address
complex economic problems that require
deeper solutions. Sachs argues that we
have profoundly underestimated
globalization’s long-term effects on our
country, which create deep and largely
unmet challenges with regard to jobs,
incomes, poverty, and the environment.
America’s single biggest economic
failure, Sachs argues, is its inability
to come to grips with the new global
economic realities. Sachs describes a
political system that has lost its
ethical moorings, in which ever-rising
campaign contributions and lobbying
outlays overpower the voice of the
citizenry. . . . Sachs offers a plan to
turn the crisis around. He argues
persuasively that the problem is not
America’s abiding values, which remain
generous and pragmatic, but the ease
with which political spin and
consumerism run circles around those
values. He bids the reader to reclaim
the virtues of good citizenship and
mindfulness toward the economy and one
another.
|
* *
* * *
|
Ratification
The People Debate the Constitution,
1787-1788
By Pauline Maier
A notable historian
of the early republic, Maier devoted a
decade to studying the immense
documentation of the ratification of the
Constitution. Scholars might approach
her book’s footnotes first, but history
fans who delve into her narrative will
meet delegates to the state conventions
whom most history books, absorbed with
the Founders, have relegated to
obscurity. Yet, prominent in their local
counties and towns, they influenced a
convention’s decision to accept or
reject the Constitution. Their
biographies and democratic credentials
emerge in Maier’s accounts of their
elections to a convention, the political
attitudes they carried to the conclave,
and their declamations from the floor.
The latter expressed opponents’
objections to provisions of the
Constitution, some of which seem
anachronistic (election regulation
raised hackles) and some of which are
thoroughly contemporary (the power to
tax individuals directly). Ripostes from
proponents, the Federalists, animate the
great detail Maier provides, as does her
recounting how one state convention’s
verdict affected another’s. Displaying
the grudging grassroots blessing the
Constitution originally received, Maier
eruditely yet accessibly revives a
neglected but critical passage in
American history.—Booklist |
 |
posted 3 October 2007 / updated 17
March 2008
|
