Today the EFF tabled a motion today in parliament to have a resolution that all apartheid laws should be repealed. The purpose of this motion was to allow a process that makes sure all the legislation passed under apartheid with the intent of realising the superiority, rule and dominance of white people over blacks are removed. After humiliating and factually weak inputs, the ANC caucus elected to vote against this motion. The implication of this vote is that we will continue to live with apartheid laws, 22 years after democracy, thus condemning our democratic dispensation to continue live under the shadow of the murderous apartheid regime.
The ANC has refused to change apartheid laws because they want to continue to use them to fight battles against political opponents. This is clearly demonstrated by their usage of the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1956, which is about protecting and advancing the dominance and supremacy of the white minority. The ANC brought charges against the CIC Julius Malema in the Newcastle Magistrate Court using this act with a view to suppress him and the Economic Emancipation Movement. This same Act was used in the Treason Trail against anti-apartheid activists who were in turn jailed for decades.
This rejection of repealing apartheid laws must be seen as yet another sign of ANC’s degeneration and that it is following on the path of post-colonial failure. That apartheid legislation is still here and alive 22 years into democracy is a sign of unfinished liberation. This is a political failure on the part of the ANC. It means finally, we can actually say with confidence that the ANC has not only failed to provide economic freedom, it has also failed to provide complete political freedom.
ISSUED BY THE ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS
MBUYISENI QUINTIN NDLOZI (National Spokesperson)
Contact: +27 (76) 834 7308
Naledi Chirwa (Media Liaison) +27 (61) 482 6589
Facebook: Mbuyiseni Quintin Ndlozi || Twitter: @EFFSouthAfrica and @MbuyiseniNdlozi
There are rules and regulations as the 10th Parliament are starting the Forum for Democratic Change National Executive Committee had talks and a meeting where the FDC top management was certainly discussing its policies and who to challenge for the shadow government, as much as it is to become the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) in the Parliament.
But with the Intimidation, with the detainees, with the Police Force monitoring the Party and the members lingering in prisons and at police post, all the forged up charges against members and leader of party; while still the defiance campaign have been made illegal, but good news to hear that the Forum for Democratic Change Headquarters are not besieged and a crime scene anymore.
The FDC have to make smart and wise decisions, not the ones of Professor Baryamureeba who recently wanted the FDC to be loyal to the Parliament and change tune to make it possible for NRM and the regime to work without fuzz and create havoc. Well, the FDC should not follow men who are loyal to NRM and Museveni, as they are not supposed to follow that party-line as they have already standing legal issues and other aspects of being intimidated and harassing members, even torture of FDC leaders. That should worry the leadership and not silencing them, because that is all that the NRM Regime has right now.
FDC had the votes and the real crowds during the pre-election period and on Election Day for a change of guard and wishing to usher in Dr. Kizza Besigye. That was there, but the Electoral Commission and other forces have done whatever needed to rig and destroy proof of conspiracy of the electoral rigging and sham election. That even now after the EU and other Western Powers accepts, even if they know this.
That certain hardliners will claim that the ones in Parliament from the FDC that goes into the Shadow Government are traitors are understandable, even if they are not so, as in fact they are just doing a duty that are bound by the rules of Parliament. Still, they should have defied this and stay loyal to the President who are detained instead of thinking of their pockets and honors in the chambers; at the same time we cannot expect all lines of a party be such Nobel as the hardest wishes for change that are in the FDC. I am sure that certain parts of the ANC was not happy that after the releasing of Nelson Mandela from prison back in the day, that he went and still negotiated with the ruling regime and the last part of the minority rule in South Africa. I am certain that some of his close allies hated that he did so, but that mended the fences between the old and new, so South Africa had some sorts of softer landing after the election after years of struggle against the Apartheid regime.
Why I am saying this, is because the same will initially happen with certain members of FDC and certain opposition fractions, not talking about the UPC, most of them have already sold the party to National Resistance Movement, after the agreement between Hon. Akena and Museveni. That certain Democratic Party members are also in tail with the NRM are to be seen and should not flabbergast anybody, that independent candidates and MPs are naturally for MPs after this elections, as the independent are often NRM Primaries losers, who run again on their own ticket and was even facilitated by Museveni and the State House.
The FDC should be wise now and not self-destruct as the intimidation and the aggression have been so high. That certain member’s wants glory in parliament is to be understandable, as some wants to eat and are clinging on the Regime and the rules of Parliament instead of direct hardline loyalty!
There will be the ones who are more ideological for the struggle against the aggressor and the ones who eat of the state and take it for it is own gain, not-so-honorable Museveni and his elite. The Police Force are following the FDC and are looking for the men and woman they also can control, as the NRM wants to own the country and have everybody under line and the vision of Museveni. That is known, so if there moles and un-loyal people in the FDC, that should be expected. But we should not quickly drag the FDC who are fighting for the LOP or Shadow Cabinet position as they want to have a position in Parliament and have name in print. People are vain; politicians are even vainer and have more vanity as they want glory and capital.
The FDC should ask them what they want to be, as if they want to recognize the “Elected” Parliament and the “Elected” President. As the members and loyal supporters should ask if they want accept business as usual as they know with that, that the stakes of fortunes of crude oil and other resources will not benefit the Ugandan State, instead the Museveni Elite.
What would be interesting is how Dr. Kizza Besigye would take the persons and feel about the men and woman who accept a shadow government position since he is risking everything; while certain allies of him is in a way showing credibility like EU delegates after the walkout of the Swearing-In. The non-sense of attacking them directly and self-destruction is not advisory; it is more of the long-term process of knowing who is really wanting the democratic change and who wanted quickly to earn bucks on the Political Capital that a man of the stature of Besigye.
That is an important to ask, as the people who votes for a candidate and the ones that candidate endorse, together with the loyalty of party-line and the initially wish of actually making a difference. That is what the FDC have to ask as they, have been through wind and fire during the recent months and days. The Police Force and Army have attacked together with the Judiciary have used all methods to silence and all kind of types of aggression to bring the FDC to their knees. No questions as even FDC leaders been taken without warrants from their own homes into cars and driven from Kampala to Northern towns of Gulu/Lira and so on, in safe-houses to be tortured.
With that in mind, the FDC have to ask how much and who will stand by and be the ones that want to collaborate with the Regime that does that to fellow brothers and sisters. That the regime has uses tear-gas and guns against citizens, and the ones that arrest demonstrators instead of letting them demonstrate against the regime peacefully, something they should not be allowed to do. Therefore the questions are open and should be asked. What kind of party does FDC want to be? Certainly not sell their soul and party as Hon. Akena did during the Pre-Election Period. Since their “Presidential Candidate” and the ones Sworn-In before the Treason Charge is lingering now in Luzira, while the FDC NEC is playing shadows games that Museveni will enjoy.
The only one winning on the political inner-battle is not Besigye, is not the voters who voted for Besigye and the FDC. The ones that wins on internal battle of the Party is the NRM and their Museveni. Just as he did with UPC between Akena and Otunnu, as he has earned on the weakness of DP and their leaders endorsement of Mbabazi, Hon. Mao. There are too many Opposition parties and leaders who haven’t matched the Machiavellian and Orwellian leader of Museveni. Only one seems to have the stamina and diligence and that is Besigye. He is not totally perfect, he is human and has his weakness, still all his hardliner and ethical standpoints are there and components are there now and he seems to be the only one. As he have fought and fought ever since leaving the NRM.
Now is the time for FDC to decide on ONE primary question; either they are legitimizing the NRM and Museveni with his 10th Parliament with his selected candidates; if not doing so, they should defy the Parliament and the rules; show that they are really the ones who have the legitimacy of the people and does not need the stolen government funds that Museveni will spoil to the ones who are dancing to his tune. Peace.
This here will be about how American and British interest we’re in the draconian Apartheid regime in South Africa in 1970s and 1980s. I been looking into how businesses at the time went through hoops and not caring about the United Nations Sanctions and resolution 418 of 4th November 1977 states this:
“Determines, having regard to the policies and acts of the South African Government, that the acquisition by South Africa of arms and related material constitutes, a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security; Decides that all States shall cease forthwith any provisions to South Africa of arms and related materiel of all types, including the sale of transfer of weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, para military police equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall cease as well the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture of the aforementioned” (UN, 1977).
So with that in mind, we can see how businesses of United States and Britain started and worked as subsidiaries in South Africa during the Apartheid, where the instances of FORD Motors and Leyland Vehicles we’re produced and used by the Police under the worst atrocities of a regime who used their laws, security agencies to harass the majority; while keeping the minority rulers and their economic incentive intact by any means. So that big business and other ones defied the Sanctions and even collaborated with necessary arms, cars and other procurement for the totalitarian state; shows how far the Corporation goes for profit and serve even governments who has no quarrel with prosecuting innocent citizens. Therefore the history of these corporations and their dealings should come to light and be questioned. As business today does the same under regimes that are totalitarian and militaristic with the favor of elite and harassing the opposition. That is why we can see at the tactics of the 1970s and 1980s and see how they might be used today.
So with that introduction take a look at my findings and hope you find it interesting.
How to start the discussion:
“Johannesburg Star (South African daily), Nov. 26, 1977, at 15. See also 1978 Hearings, supra note 13, at 846 (statement of John Gaetsewe, General Secretary of the banned South African Congress of Trade Unions) (“The ending of foreign investment in South Africa … is a means of undermining the power of the apartheid regime. Foreign investment is a pillar of the whole system which maintains the virtual slavery of the Black workers in South Africa.”); Christian Sci. Monitor, Feb. 21, 1984, at 25 (statement by Winnie Mandela, wife of imprisoned African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela)” (Hopkins, 1985).
Some money earned by the SADF at the time:
“According to official SADF accounts, the money that would have been recouped from the sale of ivory would flow back into funding the Unita rebels. However, Breytenbach knew that in the year 1986/1987 alone, the SADF’s assistance to Unita through military intelligence totalled R400 million (ZAR2005=R2,5 billion) and this excluded the supply of almost all Unita’s hardware and fuel. It is therefore unlikely that this was the reason behind the SADF’s interest in ivory smuggling. It is more likely that the potential for self-enrichment that this presented to SADF officers was enormous. General Chris Thirion, Former Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, agrees and suspects that Savimbi was in fact over-funded at the time” (Van Vuren, 2006).
How much RSA used on Military Equipment during Apartheid in the 1980s:
“According to evidence presented to the UN Security Council arms embargo committee in 1984, out of its annual total arms procurement budget of some R1.62 billion over R900 million was to be spent on arms purchases from overseas” (…)”This R900 million is spent on the procurement of arms directly by the regime from overseas and via the private sector. No official figures are published about how much is actually spent on direct imports of armaments. However, it can be estimated from figures contained in an in-depth survey by the Johannesburg Sunday Times in July 1982 that imports from overseas were 15 per cent of defence spending which then stood at R3,320 million per annum” (AAM, 1985).
How that happen:
“Those breaches of the arms embargo which have been exposed have also revealed the myth of South Africa’s self-sufficiency. Equipment smuggled into South Africa include weapons such as machine guns, rifles and pistols as well as spares and components for them. In a trial at the Old Bailey, London, in October 1982, the Court was informed that South African efforts to produce components for pre-war machine guns had not been successful. This points to the serious deficiencies in the quality and reliability of even minor items manufactured in South Africa” (AAM, 1985).
Export of R.J. Electronics International:
“Britain’s refusal to strictly implement the UN arms embargo and its continuing military collaboration in various fields are not totally surprising since much of this arises out of its traditional relationship with South Africa” (…)”They failed to re-appear in Court on 22 October 1984 and the following weekend gave a press conference. At it, Colonel Botha disclosed that they had operated as undercover agents for five years and “had saved the country at least R5 million on purchases of vital equipment”. Metelerkamp claimed he was only a consultant to Kentron and was the Managing Director of R J Electronics International. However, it emerged that he had been employed by Kentron up to a month prior to his arrest, and R J Electronics International was “a company used to purchase illicit arms” (AAM, 1985).
“One cargo of FN rifles was initially exported by air to Red Baron Ltd at an address in Zurich before being forwarded to South Africa. This company, however, was not Swiss, but registered in England. Its directors were Mr Trinkler and two others who had also been directors of Kuehne and Nagel in Britain” (…)”The most controversial case was that of the British Aerospace naval reconaissance aircraft, the Coastguarder. In Hay 1984 it was disclosed that British Aerospace had been approached by the South African Government and that initial discussions had taken place concerning the purchase of eight aircraft. These were to replace the Shackleton aircraft which were having to be phased out. The South African authorities had sought to evade the arms embargo by forming a Coastguard service as a civilian authority through which the order for the aircraft would be placed. Repeated efforts to secure from the Government an undertaking that the Coastguarder would not be granted licence for export to South Africa met with the response that “it would not be proper for me to offer a definitive view now on the hypothetical question on the issue of a licence for the export of an aircraft such as the Coastguarder to South Africa” (AAM, 1985).
Shell Corporation working with the Regime:
“The South Africans agreed and supplied a cash advance that allowed the traders to purchase a tanker, shipping company and the required insurance. The tanker docked in Kuwait and filled its tanks with oil owned by Shell. The oil was registered for delivery in France. However, en route to Europe from the Gulf the tanker stopped in Durban and off-loaded almost all of its oil crude oil—almost 180,000 tonnes—with the South Africans paying the difference between the purchase price and the fees it had advanced for the purchase of the tanker. The Salem was then filled up with water in order to create the impression that it was still laden with oil. Off the coast of West Africa (Senegal), at one of the deepest points of the Atlantic, the ship was scuttled and the crew, who were prepared for the evacuation, were conveniently ‘rescued’. They had hoped to make an extra $24 million off the insurance claim for the lost oil. Following investigations by the insurance company the main perpetrators were prosecuted. The biggest loser next to Shell was South Africa, asit agreed to pay the Dutch multinational US$30 million (ZAR2005=R436 million) in an out-of-court settlement. Shell was left to carry a remaining loss of US$20 million. The use of corrupt middlemen had cost South Africa almost half a billion rand. There was no prosecution in South Africa of the officials at the SFF who had authorised South Africa’s procurement of a full tanker of oil from three novice (criminal) entrepreneurs” (Van Vuren, 2006).
British Subsidiaries in South Africa:
“Many of these subsidiaries are British. They include Leyland (Landrovers and Trucks); ICI (through its 40 per cent holding in AECI) (Ammunition and Explosives); Trafalgar House (through Cementation Engineering) (artillery shells); ICL (Computers); GEC including Marconis (Military Communications Equipment); Lontho (aircraft franchises); Plessey (Military Communications Equipment); BP and Shell (oil and other petroleum products for the military and police)” (…)”An impression of the full extent of the role of British subsidiaries in South Africa in undermining the arms embargo can be obtained from studying Appendix C. This is a list of British companies with subsidiaries in South Africa which are also known to be engaged in the manufacture of military and related equipment” (AAM, 1985).
“British mercenaries, some recruited. originally for the forces of the illegal Smith regime, are serving in a number of South African Defence Force units, including the infamous “32 Battallion” operating out of Namibia into Angola. A British mercenary was killed in the South African commando raid on the residence of South African refugees in Maputo, Mozambique, in January 1981” (AAM, 1985).
“British Government policy so far has been to grant permission for Officers to serve in the South African Defence Forces.” (…)”This was explained by Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Heseltine, in a letter to the Rt Hon Denis Healey:
“An Officer is required to resign his commission before joining the forces of a country that does not owe allegiance to the Crown, and if he did not do so then the commission would be removed. As you will appreciate, this is the only power that we can exercise over an officer who has already retired from the Services. Guidance is given to officers about these procedures before they retire, but no specific recommendations are made about which countries’ Armed Forces an officer should join; nor do I believe that it would be right to do so.” (AAM, 1985).
American Businesses under Apartheid:
“Approximately 350 of the most prominent companies in the United States, including more than half of the Fortune 500’s top one hundred firms, operate subsidiaries in South Africa . Another 6000 do business there through sales agents and distributers . The United States holds fifty-seven percent of all foreign holdings on the Johannesburg stock exchange, including gold mines, mining houses, platinum mines, and diamonds . The State Department estimated that U.S. direct investment amounted to $2.3 billion in 1983, down from the $2.8 billion calculated by the South African Institute of Race Relations for 1982 . Other estimates put overall American investment, including loans and gold stocks, at $14 billion ” (…)”rcent . U.S. exports to South Africa, however, grew from approximately R1.2 billion in 1979 to R2.7 billion in 1981 . As a result, the United States emerged as the Republic’s largest trading partner . Apart from its quantitative impact, U.S. business investment has a qualitative impact disproportionate to its financial value” (…)”John Purcell of Goodyear concurred, asserting that economic pressures will not encourage nonviolent social change in South Africa; rather, this will be brought about by “economic growth, expanded contact with the outside, and time” ((Hopkins, 1985)
Ford sold cars to the Apartheid regime:
“Ford Directed and Controlled its South African Policies from the United States, Exported Equipment from the United States, and Acted to Circumvent the United States Sanctions Regime: (New York Southern Cout Case, P: 65, 2014)
“Thus, despite the tightening of U.S. trade sanctions in February 1978, Ford U.S. still announced a “large infusion of capital into its South African subsidiary. Ford injected $8 million for upkeep and retooling” (New York Southern Court Case, P: 67, 2014).
“Ford support was significant: “[B]etween 1973 and 1977 [Ford] sold 128 cars and 683 trucks directly to the South African Ministry of Defense and 646 cars and 1,473 trucks to the South African police. Ford sold at least 1,582 F series U.S.-origin trucks to the police” (…)”Despite the prohibitions, Ford continued to supply vehicles to the South African security forces with the purpose of facilitating apartheid crimes. Ford denied that its continued sales to the South African security forces ran counter to the U.S. prohibitions, on the basis that the vehicles did not contain parts or technical data of U.S. origin” (…)”Notably, into the 1980s, Ford sold vehicles that did not need to be “converted” by the apartheid government for military or police use but were already specialized before leaving the plant in South Africa” (…)”Ford built a limited number of XR6 model Cortinas known as “interceptors” that were sold almost exclusively to the police. The XR6 was special because it had three Weber model double carburetors, as opposed to all other Cortinas that had only one double carburetor” (…)”Ford knew that the normal market for these vehicles was the security forces. The vehicles were deliberately pre-equipped with armor and military fixtures and designed for easy modification by the security forces to add additional defensive and offensive features” (…)”By making profits which they knew could only come from their encouragement of the security forces’ illicit operations through the sale of vehicles, parts, designs, and services, Ford acquired a stake in the criminal enterprise that was the apartheid regime” (New York Southern Case, P: 71-77, 2014).
Leyland under Apartheid:
“The British government now virtually owns British Leyland and therefore controls the company’s operations in South Africa. Yet it has done little in practice to press for the rights of black workers to organize through trade unions, or for the recognition of the unions for collective bargaining purposes” (…)”The South African “branch” is Leyland’s biggest operation in the world outside of the U.K. At present it is the 8th largest car manufacturer (holding approximately 5% of the market) and the 7th largest commercial vehicle manufacturer (holding approximately 5,5% of the market) in South Africa. Despite the depressed condition of the South African Market it sold 1959 vehicles in January-February of 1977 alone” (…)”B.L.S.A. has massive contracts with the South African state. It is one of the chief suppliers of the South African Defense Force, providing not only trucks and landrovers (which form the backbone of anti-guerrilla operations) but also armored personnel carriers. Of course, the figures for these contracts are never made public” (…)”For example, in June 1976 it was announced that B.L.S.A. had won a £1.9millon order for 250 trucks from the Cape Provincial Authority” (…)”As Leyland itself have argued , It “must conform, it not entirely” to South African government and established wishes” (Coventry Anti-Apartheid, 1977).
This here is not easy to finish up as the implications of this deals and arrangement used to support a government that oppressed and detained the majority. This Apartheid government did it all openly and with a clear message that the white minority should rule, while the rest should serve them.
In that context these businesses earned good amount of cash and profits for their stakeholders and their shareholders. While their products and procured services by the state we’re used to oppress majority of people in South Africa. We can surely see the amount of money and how this have affected the society and given way for the government of the time to continue with the process of detaining and harassing the majority of South Africans. This could not have happen if there wasn’t a helping hand from businesses and their subsidiaries. This here is just a brief look into it.
Certainly this should be studied even more and become clear evidence of how heartbreaking it is to know how certain businesses and people owning them will profit on suffering of fellow human beings. That is why I myself shed a light on it, to show the extent of disobedience of the UN Resolution and also what these corporations does in regimes that harassing and oppressing fellow citizens for their background, creed, tribe etc. It’s just ghastly and makes my tummy vomit. But that is just me, hope you got some indication of how they did their business and served the Apartheid government. Peace.
Anti-Apartheid Movement – ‘How Britian Arms Apartheid – A memorandum for presentation to her Majesty’s Government’ (1985)
Coventry Anti-Apartheid Movement – ‘Leyland in Britain and in South Africa’ (1977)
Hopkins, Sheila M. – ‘AN ANALYSIS OF U.S.-SOUTH AFRICAN RELATIONS IN THE 1980s: HAS ENGAGEMENT BEEN CONSTRUCTIVE?’ (1985) – Journal of Comparative Business and Capital Market Law 7 (1985) 89-115, North Holland
United States, New York Southern Court: Case 1:02-md-01499-SAS Document 280-1 Filed 08/08/14
Van Vuren, Hennie – ‘Apartheid grand corruption – Assessing the scale of crimes of profit from 1976 to 1994’ (2006)