Mandela’s work is not yet complete

Nelson Mandela passed away at 95

With global reactions of sorrow to the passing away of former South African President Nelson Mandela, the true tragedy may be that the social and political purpose he chose to live for is not yet whole.
Most resistance figures in history who braved the kind of challenges faced by the late Nelson Mandela enjoy commemoration as martyrs. Such individuals include Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Even if Nelson Mandela has not been martyred as other resistance heroes were, his work on earth remains similarly incomplete. 
 
The incompleteness of Mandela’s work leaves an incumbent duty on the people who claim to understand what this man represented. It is important that people take concrete steps, in South Africa and globally, to preserve what Mandela represented, and refer to it as a foundation for their own ideas and actions. 
 
In the more prevalent depiction of Nelson Mandela, he is hailed as a peace hero who helped create the “rainbow nation” of South Africa. As the “father of the nation”, he is an integral part of the narrative of the South African “nation”. 
 
Mandela’s values also led him to combative stances against injustice in more recent years, such as outrage at Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. 
 
This is expressed in his own words, “our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”, and his view that armed resistance is legitimate if nonviolent means are repeatedly ineffective (also shared by Mahatma Gandhi). 
 
In addition, Mandela was a vocal critic of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, stating, “If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings”. 
 
Whether Mandela is looked on here as a commentator on modern events or an icon of the end of apartheid, there can be little doubt that his life and work is a pillar of South Africa that birthed and maintained the tenets of that state’s position in world events. 
 
He undoubtedly offered credibility to a specific historical narrative for the social foundations of the present South African state. 
 
With Mandela’s role as a national symbol in mind, some alarmists have already been quick to speculate that the end of Mandela’s life could literally undermine the South African state’s social foundation. 
 
Predictions of “racial tensions” are already announced in the media. With Mandela no longer watching, it is conceivable that South Africa’s national narrative could be undermined and the social stability of the country could be threatened. 
 
There may be some basis to the negative view that Mandela’s passing will undermine South Africa’s stability, if we take to the view that a form of personality cult has been created around Mandela. 
 
This, which a responsible and smart leader like Mandela would certainly not have intended, could indeed render his passing a serious threat to the integrity of South Africa. 
 
Is the living Mandela really necessary for South Africa to preserve its national narrative? It is likely that only South African citizens can answer this question for themselves. 
 
It is worthy of note that Mahatma Gandhi was similarly significant to the present Indian state, and that his death at the hands of radicals did not really undermine the social foundations of India as a nation. 
 
However, Gandhi was martyred. Martyrdom creates a special form of immortality not necessarily available to many leaders who have stayed around to counsel and symbolize his country, a living person who became a key pillar of the country. 
 
Sociologists know that states highly homogenous in terms of their cultural, religious or ethnic identity lack the kind of rifts evident in a country as rich in diversity as South Africa or India, for example. 
 
This makes them less contingent on the kind of national historical narratives legitimizing South African and Indian nationhood. 
 
States that have amalgamated very disparate communities are highly dependent on a strong national narrative to stay cohesive, and this is why a threat to South Africa’s national narrative could translate to a threat to South Africa’s social foundations as a state. 
 
If South Africa’s social foundations are threatened by Mandela’s loss, it could translate literally into serious economic losses for the country as it struggles to attract more foreign direct investment amidst strikes and social problems. 
 
The foreign policy of South Africa could also be at stake. The values of post-apartheid South Africa, reflected in the country’s domestic and foreign policy, have been influenced by Nelson Mandela. He is and ought to remain the key ideological author in that state’s place in the world. 
 
This means South Africa should continue to function as a key player in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and seek to be a pole of power in resistance to hegemony in the world. 
South Africa’s NAM involvement remains especially important, because the modern South African state ceased to be a Western regime and became a true African country when the apartheid regime was defeated. 
 
Because of the post-colonial world’s profound interest in overcoming the settler state, the country is a focal point for the non-Western world and arguably for humanity as a whole. 
As the only major Western economic and military power to change into a major non-Western economic and military power, South Africa potentially has a unique vantage point in world affairs. 
 
This is also what leaves South Africa with its economic and military prowess, with it being the only non-Western state that directly inherited the status of a major (nuclear) power when the colonizers left power. 
 
In a way, history makes South Africa a crossroads of the ex-colonizer and the ex-colonized, and perhaps a microcosm of the world itself. With such a unique vantage point, South Africa may be destined to exert its opinions in world affairs and strive to be a more central actor among the Non-Aligned Movement countries, but only if it stays true to its purposes envisaged by Mandela. 
 
South Africa’s vantage point has led the government to make brave comments against the apartheid regime of Israel in recent times, in line with Mandela’s ideas. For example, South Africa joined other countries condemning Israel’s illegal creation of settlements and other forms of aggression. 
 
However, the country’s boldness in terms of foreign policy is inherently limited by its economic needs that often prevent it from fulfilling its ideal role in world affairs. 
Unfortunately, Mandela has departed and the South Africa is plagued by staggering levels of inequality, deep social divisions, and the salient problem of unemployment. 
Unemployment in turn leads to social problems like violent crime and reduced wages, causing strikes and again less foreign direct investment. 
 
This arguably is a vicious cycle repelling economic growth, and a combative foreign policy would just look too unhelpful in view of this, even if South Africa’s leaders would like that foreign policy. 
 
South Africa is already seeing a decline in the foreign direct investment desperately needed to turn back its dismal levels of unemployment. 
 
To keep itself maximally open to FDI, the country currently needs the best possible relations with major economic powers, especially Western states. 
 
Such a situation curtails the country’s ability to express its outrage at the crimes of Zionism on a similar scale to the statements made by the Islamic Republic of Iran, another major NAM power with a similar anti-colonial position. 
 
South Africa may be torn between its desire to defend Mandela’s ideals in the world as a major power, and its need to combat its own painful internal social and economic problems. 
The BRICS may seem to offer one route, but membership in this group does not yet appear sufficient to really answer the country’s need for combating its unemployment and social tensions. 
 
In many ways, South Africa could still have strong potential to empower the rest of the non-Western world, but its economic problems curtail its ability to fulfill this destiny. 
In spite of its memorable role in dismantling a major vestige of Western colonialism, South Africa is still reliant on its relationship with Western countries, and already great economic and social difficulties may be exacerbated by Mandela’s passing.

Editorial

THIS YEAR AND THE NEXT

In a few days the year 2013 will be over and all of us will push into a new year  with new expectations.

By this time last year, President John Dramani Mahama had been duly elected as the Chief Executive of Ghana and many Ghanaians believed that their lives would improve substantially.

Unfortunately, the result of the elections was challenged and Ghana virtually came to a stand still for the eight months during pink sheets and all were tossed about in the Supreme Court.

After 12 months in office, the general Ghanaian condition has not improved and from all indications things can get worse if serious efforts are not made.

Inflation has moved from single digit and is fast approaching the 12 per cent mark, the cedi is in a free full against the dollar, utility tariffs have jumped through the sky and unemployment still stares in the vacant faces of Ghanaians.

Against this back drop, 2014 has to be a pretty good year or the suffering of Ghanaians will be pushed to another level.

President John Mahama must be fully aware of these difficulties and the Insight urges him to roll up his sleeves.

There is a lot of work to be done in 2014.

GHANA SUPPORTS WESTERN SAHARA

 

Hannah Tetteh Minister of Foreign Affairs

By Ekow Mensah

The Government of Ghana has strongly re-affirmed its support for the people of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara) in their struggle for national independence.

 In a letter dated December 9, 2013, the Government of Ghana said it has always “asserted the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination”.

 

The letter signed for the Minister of Foreign Affairs by Ambassador Leslie K. Christian, Chief Director was addressed to the Socialist Forum of Ghana (SFG).

It was a response to a protest note signed by more than 200 prominent Ghanaians and addressed to the King of Morocco with a copy to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Those who signed the protest include, Parliamentarians, leaders of Political parties, trade union activists, journalists, academics and various professionals.

 Amongst them were, Professor Akilagpa Sawyerr, former member of the Council of State, comrade Kyeretwie Opoku, Convener of the SFG, Owusu Gyimah, a retired army officer, Kwesi Pratt, Jnr. a journalist, Dr David Pessy, an academic and Dr Gamal Nasser Adam, a Lecturer at the University of Ghana.

 The signatories called on the Kingdom of Morocco to abandoned its colonialist objectives in Western Sahara and respect the human and democratic rights of the Saharawi people.

 Part of the letter read “In this regard, the Ministry shares the views and concerns expressed in your petition. It is therefore our expectation that the international community will pursue the issue of the independence of Western Sahara to its logical conclusion.

 “The Ministry, on its part, will continue to champion the cause of the Saharawis  at every international fora.”

Let’s begin ending war again

Rosa Parks

David Swanson

Recently I noticed a post on a social media site honoring Rosa Parks for her refusal to move out of her seat on a segregated bus.

Someone commented underneath, that in fact another individual deserved credit for having done the same thing first. What happened next was entirely predictable. Post after post by various people brought out the names of all kinds of forerunners of Parks, pushing the date of the first brave resister to segregated buses back further and further - many decades - into the past. 

What we understand as the civil rights movement was successfully started after a great many failed attempts - by organizations as well as individuals. The same goes for the suffragette movement or the labor movement or the abolition of slavery. Even the Occupy movement was the umpteenth time a lot of activists had attempted such a thing, and chances are that eventually the Occupy movement will be seen as one in a long line of failed predecessors to something more successful. 

I’ve been discussing with people whom I consider key organizers of such a project the possibility of a newly energized movement to abolish war. One thing we’re looking at, of course, is failed past attempts to do the same. Some of those attempts have been quite recent. Some are ongoing. How, we must ask ourselves, can we strengthen what’s already underway, learn from what’s been tried before, and create the spark that this time, at long last, after over a century’s preliminaries, catches fire? 

Momentum for the abolition of war began to grow in the late 19th century, and then again, much more strongly, after World War I, in a different manner after World War II, again after the Cold War, and - just maybe - again right now. Arguably the 1920s and 1930s have seen the strongest popular sentiment for war abolition in the United States. We’re not at that level now. But we do have the advantage of being able to study the past 80 years of struggle. Of course, anti-war efforts have had great successes as well as failures, but war remains. And it doesn’t remain on the margins, like slavery. It remains, front and center, as the United States’ principal public program. Standing armies are so well accepted that most people aren’t sure what the phrase means. Wars are so common that most Americans cannot name all the nations their own is at war with. 

A proposal on “Abolishing the War System” that I’ve just been reading (from Marcus Raskin at the Institute for Policy Studies) takes us back to 1992 and provides much useful material to draw on. Raskin’s preface and Brian D’Agostino’s introduction suggest that the moment in which they were writing was a particularly opportune moment for a campaign to abolish war. I’m sure they honestly believed it was. And I’m sure that it, in fact, was - even if there’s a tendency to find such a remark comical in retrospect. Strategic-minded people want to know why 2013 is such a moment, and they can be pointed toward many indicators: opinion polls, the rejection of the proposed missile attack on Syria, increased awareness of war propaganda, the diminishment of drone attacks, the ever-so-slight reduction in military spending, the possibility of peace in Colombia, the growing success of nonviolent conflict resolution, the growing and improving use of nonviolent movements for change, the existentially urgent need for a shifting of resources from destroying the planet to protecting it, the economic need to stop wasting trillions of dollars, the arrival of technologies that allow for instant international collaboration among war resisters, etc. 

But just as many indicators were available in 1992, albeit different ones, and nobody has developed the means for quantifying such things. However, here’s the key question, I think: If all of those predecessors to Rosa Parks hadn’t acted, would Rosa Parks have ever been Rosa Parks? If not, then isn’t the strategic time for a moral and necessary campaign always right now? 

Raskin’s “Abolishing the War System” is not an argument to persuade anyone against war, not a plan for organizing a mass movement, not a system for reaching out to new constituencies or creating economic or political pressure against war. Raskin’s book is primarily a draft treaty that should be, but never has been, enacted. The treaty aims to take the United States and the world to an important part-way step, most of the way perhaps, toward war abolition. In compliance with this treaty, nations would maintain only “nonoffensive defense,” which is to say: air defense and border and coast guard forces, but not offensive weapons aimed at attacking other nations far from one’s own. Foreign bases would be gone. Aircraft carriers would be gone. Nuclear and chemical and biological weapons would be gone. Drones over distant lands would have been gone before they appeared. Cluster bombs would be done away with. 

The argument for nonoffensive defense is, I think, fairly straightforward. Many wealthy nations spend under $100 billion each year on military defense - some of which nations fit major offensive weapons systems into that budget. The United States spends $1 trillion each year on military defense and (mostly) offense. The result is a broken budget, missed opportunities, and lots of catastrophic foreign wars. So, the case for cutting $900 billion from war spending each year in the U.S. is the case for fully funding schools, parks, green energy, and actual humanitarian aid. It is not the case for completely abolishing the military. If the United States were to be attacked it could defend itself in any manner it chose, including militarily. 

But, someone might protest, why is it sufficient to shoot down planes when they reach our border? Isn’t it better to blow them up in their own country just before they head our way?
The direct answer to that question is that we’ve been trying that approach for three-quarters of a century and it hasn’t been working. It’s been generating enemies, not removing them. It’s been killing innocents, not imminent threats. We’ve become so open about this that the White House has redefined “imminent” to mean eventual and theoretical. 

The indirect answer is that, I believe, Raskin’s treaty could benefit from a better vision of success, assuming such a vision can be added without losing the practical part-way step created by the treaty. The treaty is excellent on the establishment of a structure for disarmament, inspections, verification. It bans exports and imports of weapons. The treaty and accompanying text are also excellent on the need to abolish the CIA, NSA, and all secret agencies of war. “Intelligence” agencies should be internationalized and opened to the public, Raskin wrote, as if the internet already existed but with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden hired by the government to do as ordinary labor what they in reality ended up doing as heroic acts of defiance. The National Security Act of 1947 must go, Raskin writes. The UN Charter must be upheld. 

Here’s where it starts to get dicey. Raskin wants to reform the membership, structure, and veto powers of members in the UN Security Council. But his treaty is written as if that reform has been accomplished. Power all flows to the United Nations, reformed or otherwise. A “nonlethal” (but not nonviolent) UN Peace Force is strengthened by the treaty. Raskin also supports the creation of an international criminal court; of course it has since been created, but under the shadow of an unreformed United Nations. 

Raskin explicitly traces the lineage of war abolition movements back to Salmon Oliver Levinson who led the organizing that created the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Raskin faults the Pact for lacking a “collective security arrangement.” Levinson, and his allies, in Congress and without, would have objected that this lack was an advantage, not a flaw. A “collective security arrangement” along the lines of the United Nations is a sanction to use war-making as a tool with which to eliminate war-making. This approach, as Raskin acknowledges, has been a failure. But Raskin begins his draft treaty by recommitting nations to the UN Charter, not the Kellogg-Briand Pact, that is to say: to an agreement that sanctions certain wars, and not to an agreement that bans all war. 

Now the Kellogg-Briand Pact is widely ignored and violated. But then, as Raskin notes, so is the UN Charter. Why ask nations to recommit to it, except because they are violating it? Through the course of this book, Raskin happens to note various other laws that are routinely ignored: the Humphrey Hawkins Act, the Nuremberg Principles, the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty in which the U.S. committed to general and complete disarmament, etc. Yet, Raskin wants to create a new law, hoping it will be complied with as well as being formally established.

There’s no reason the Kellogg-Briand Pact and/or the vision of its creators shouldn’t be a part of our work, and there are many reasons why it should be. When those dreaded mythical bombers approach our shores, defended purely by every possible defensive weapon known to humankind, what if bombing the land from which those planes departed was not what came to mind? What if other actions were the focus of our thoughts in contemplating such scenarios? The imaginary government that sent the planes (or drones or boats or whatever) could be prosecuted in a court. Arbitration could be taken to a court. Sanctions could be imposed on the government responsible. International legal, trade, political, and moral pressure could be organized. Nonviolent protesters could be sent to the nation responsible. Nonviolent flotillas of boats and hot air balloons could interfere. Video of any suffering created could be immediately made visible in public spaces in the nation responsible and around the world. And, of course, if the attack planes came from no nation at all, then all the nations of the world could be pressured to cooperate in criminal apprehension and prosecution of those responsible - an idea we might have done well to think of some 12 years ago, some 9 years after Raskin’s drafting of his treaty. But, but, but, what if all of that failed? Well then, we could add to it in our handicapped imaginations the use of every defensive weapon available to any department of what we actually call, but don’t think of as, Defense. 

I find it hard to imagine that if the United States took a chunk of that $900 billion and gave the world schools and medicine there would be a lot of attacks planned against it. Others find it hard to imagine anything could stop such attacks from inexplicably materializing. How do we shift such a perspective? I think it has to be by pointing to a first step in combination with outlining an image of the final goal. That means thinking beyond the idea of using war to prevent war. That idea leads straight to the question “Which nation(s) will dominate the United Nations?” Waiting to transform the United Nations into a fair, democratic, and yet universally respected, institution before dramatically reducing the military and beginning a virtuous cycle of further disarmament, may be a roadblock. The United Nations is in the process of legalizing drone wars. The UN just might be a bigger hurdle than the U.S. Senate in the cause of peace - although, admittedly, these are all chicken-and-egg dilemmas. 

If we can get people understanding what a world without militaries will look like and show them a partial step in that direction - one that makes sense to them because they see where we’re headed - it just might be that this time beginning the ending of war will have been an idea whose time had come. 

The criminal policy of the blockade against Cuba

Cuban School Children

Most Cubans were born under the punishments and conditions of the blockade exercised for more than half a century by the United States against the residents of the neighbouring little island. The result is the longest economic, commercial and financial siege of history, guaranteed by laws and regulations.

By Orlando Oramas Leon
Cuba suffers from the longest economic, commercial and financial siege in history.
The authorities of the USA pursue and punish not only the people of Cuba, but also citizens, businesses and interests of third countries. It is extra-territorial, but in addition, it is criminal, since its main purpose is to submit, sow hunger and disease and work against the needs of the entire human population.

Nobody can escape from this ridiculous and inhuman policy, not even boys with heart disease, nor patients with HIV-AIDS, nor academics and artists, nor athletes, or rather, the whole of this Caribbean country's society.

The blockade is to make it impossible for the lives of Cubans and to prevent the country from making purchases, be these drugs, instruments and other materials for the public health system.

For instance, between May 2012 and April 2013 a country of limited resources such as Cuba had to designate 39 million USD for the acquisition of these vital products for the life of its residents in distant markets or through intermediaries .

But there's more. Cuban health experts face difficulties in their training in techniques of medical care.

The same thing happens with the equipment controlled or supported under Windows XP operating system's 64-bit medical images. Its activation in Cuba is not possible, due to blockage.

Experts from the National Institute of Oncology and Radio biology were banned from participating in the LabWare - LIMS System, celebrated in Colombia, under the pretext that the U.S. company LabWare, sponsor of the event, could not deal with matters related with Cuba.

Also the National Centre for Medical Genetics is the focus of attention of the Office of Foreign Assets (OFAC) of Congress, a leading executive hand in the policy of isolation against the neighboring country.

The Centre carries on working without purchasing a Genetic Analyzer, produced only by U.S. companies like Applied Biosystems, of Life Technologies.

The National Institute of Gastroenterology, in the central district of Vedado, Havana, needs a team of radiofrequency. This is equipment that on our continent is marketed by the company Olympus Latin America Inc. But it is U.S. technology and therefore Cuban patients cannot use it.

Another limitation of the blockade affecting pediatric cardiology in Cuba is the inability to access Sevoflurane, the best anesthetic for pediatric cardiovascular surgery and this is reduced only to use in the United States.

Likewise, the Institute of Nephrology confronts difficulties with the availability of kits for HLA tissue disorders. A Company of U.S. origin One Lambda, bans their sale to Cuba. This prohibition is despite the fact that this product is critical to prevent the phenomenon of rejection in transplants or grafts, according to criteria of compatibility. Patients with HIV are discriminated against and treated as enemies, because they are prevented from receiving combinations of antiretroviral drugs that include Gilead's Tenofovir.

Long is the list of affectations of the U.S. blockade against Cuba, in the report already circulating at the UN General Assembly. It is a glossary of losses and punishments causing suffering in a small country in the developing world, but above all it is the demonstration of a criminal policy which endangers the life of a whole nation.

* The author is Chief Editor of Prensa Latina

 

Qatar World Cup: Over how many dead bodies?

FIFA President Sepp Blatter

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Qatar, one of the richest countries in the world, just because it sits on massive resources of hydro-carbons, and the pariah of the international community with its alleged funding and aiding of terrorist groups in Chechnya, Libya and Syria, has been accused in a recent report of abusing migrant workers and having a deplorable safety record. Is this what FIFA stands for?

The ruling al-Thani family has no formal links with terrorist groups, neither does the State of Qatar, obviously. However, the aid from the Islamic Charities Jamiat Qatar al-Khair, Sheikh Eid al-Khairiah, the Qatari Red Crescent Society and RAF are controlled by prominent officials, some from the al-Thani family and this is the alleged mechanism through which funds are directed to radical and racist Islamist groups.

The west in general, and the United States of America in particular, look the other way because Washington has its largest naval base in the region on Qatari soil, the base it used to launch the illegal and murderous attack against Iraq. The latest accusations against this pariah state come from Amnesty International, which has released the findings of a study, The Dark Side of Migration: Spotlight on Qatar's construction sector ahead of the World Cup. Its revelations are as sickening as they are shocking.

90 per cent of migrant workers have their passports held by the employers, so they cannot escape from Qatar; 56 per cent do not have a health card, so they cannot access the healthcare system easily; 21 per cent do not receive their salaries on time, if at all; 20 per cent receive less than they were promised; 15 per cent work in jobs different from those they were contracted for.

"Employers in Qatar have displayed an appalling disregard for basic human rights of migrant workers," states Salil Shetty, Secretary-General of Amnesty International. Apart from the abuses listed above are "shocking standards of accommodation" and "harsh and dangerous working conditions".

This, along with the endemic racism among certain sectors of Qatari society, who refer to the migrant workers, mostly from Bangladesh, Philippines and Nepal, as "animals".

Conditions include working 12-hour shifts seven days a week, being "treated like cattle".

It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that in 2012, more than one thousand people were admitted to the trauma unit in Doha's main hospital with injuries sustained by falling from heights. Ten per cent were disabled for life, the mortality rate was "significant".

Conclusion: do not go to Qatar to work, do not buy goods made in Qatar and boycott the World Cup in 2022, whose stadiums are to be built with the blood of the slaves working on them. Is this what FIFA stands for?