The BDS movement is overpowering the pro-Israel lobby in South Africa, Howard Sackstein said in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz yesterday. Sackstein has worked for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest pro-Israel lobby organization in the US.

South African BDS activists are “professionals”
In the interview, Sackstein warned the pro-Israel groups in South Africa that they’re up against “professionals.” He also claimed the the BDS campaign is “spearheaded”  by Muhammed Desai of BDS South Africa and Zackie Achmat of Open Shuhada Street:

According to Howard Sackstein, whether pro-Israel groups can get back up on their feet depends on how rapidly they realize that they’re up against “professionals”…

“One point I would make finally is that the BDS campaign, spearheaded by Muhammed Desai and Zachie Achmat, is very well run and seems to be well-funded.”

The above comments have since been removed by Haaretz from the online version of the article, with no editorial note or correction issued.

In an email to me, Desai responded to Sackstein’s observation: “It is ridiculous (or deliberately deceptive) to claim that the boycott of Israel movement in South Africa is spearheaded by two individuals. The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) with over two million workers, the South African Communist Party with more than 150,000 members, the South African Students Congress – South Africa’s largest student formation, the South African Council of Churches and others are actually at the forefront.”

He continued: “In fact, this very week COSATU, an official alliance partner of the ANC, reaffirmed its commitment to the BDS campaign at its national congress and has undertaken to ensure that this is advanced at the upcoming ANC National Conference in Mangaung. The ANC National Conference is the supreme ruling and controlling body of the ANC that determines ANC policy and ultimately the government policy for the next five years.”

Ministers have backing of the ruling ANC
In comments also removed from the online version, Sackstein criticized the actions of two South African government ministers in relation to correct labeling of Israeli settlement products and advice against travelling to Israel:

Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies announced that he was to issue an official notice “to require traders in South Africa not to incorrectly label products that originate from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as products of Israel”.

Third, Deputy International Relations Minister Ebrahim “Ibie” Ebrahim said that Pretoria discouraged all South Africans from visiting Israel. He said: “Because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people, we strongly discourage South Africans from going there.”

Sackstein is convinced that the most influential body in the ANC, the national executive council:

“…discussed Israel, Palestine etc. and decided that they would have a common front on the issue and that certain steps needed to be taken.”

In other words, said Sackstein, Davies and Ebrahim were not acting of their own accord, but effectively carrying out ANC policy.

These comments too were censored by Haaretz.

Sackstein claims that “much of the ANC’s latest emphasis on anti-Israel action is the result of trying to win Muslim votes in the Western Cape.” However, Desai refutes this claim in his email: “Its not the ANC pandering to the Western Cape. But the Western Cape together with other stakeholders such as the churches, unions, students and others that are insisting that our ruling party (and indeed our government) take the side of the oppressed, of the Palestinians by supporting the BDS campaign. Its merely the ANC listening and adhering to a position that the vast majority of its constituencies hold.”

Indeed, Palestine solidarity activists in South Africa have mobilized substantial support for the oppressed Palestinian people.
BDS South Africa books impressive results
At the end of Augst, the student council of the prestigious University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg unanimously adopted a full acadmic and cultural boycott of Israel. Tebogo Thotela, president of the Wits Student Representative Council, explains the reasons for the decision in a video published by BDS South Africa (seen at the top of this post).

In 2011, the University of Johannesburg severed its ties with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, following a campaign backed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and over 400 South African academics. In a recent BDS news roundup, EI’s Nora Barrows-Friedman summed up the recent BDS victories in South Africa:

The Student Representative Council at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in South Africa unanimously adopted a full academic and cultural boycott of Israel on 29 August.

This comes on the heels of increasing support of the Palestinian-led BDS movement in South Africa, including the recent moves by government officials to have Israeli settlement products correctly labeled to let consumers know they originate from settlement colonies in the occupied West Bank; and a proclamation by a government minister to discourage South Africans from traveling to Israel because of its human rights record.

Posted on the website for BDS South Africa, the Wits’ student council’s resolution says that it will “not participate in any form of cultural or academic collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions and will not provide support to Israeli cultural or academic institutions.”

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

At The Atlantic Howard French makes a really good point: if the United States is really committed to democracy in its (to be fair, increasingly engaged) Africa policy, why does it so often partner with autocratic leaders?

It is going to be one crazy second half of the year in South African politics. This theme will be at the heart of my writing for the next three weeks, but let’s just say that President Jacob Zuma’s chances of emerging from the ANC’s Mangaung conference unscathed seem to be declining by the day. I’m not ready to say that the country will see a repeat of the 2007 Polokwane conference that saw Thabo Mbeki ousted from the ANC presidency, an act that led to Mbeki’s resignation as head of state, but the circumstances seem to be conspiring to create another rather interesting moment in the history of the ANC and South Africa.

The competition for continental supremacy between Nigeria and South Africa is a bit of a reductionist fiction — Africa is hardly beset by a bi-polar Cold War competition — but it is true that the two countries’ conceptions of themselves tend to clash. Nigeria has a massive advantage in population. Resources are a bit of a wash– Nigeria produces oil, which would seem to give it an advantage, except that South Africa has a diverse array of  minerals and agriculture — and South Africa is dominant economically, culturally, politically, and militarily. And whatever critiques one might levy against South Africa, it is a bastion of stability and practically represents the platonic ideal of democracy when compared with Nigeria. Still, as Africa’s prominence grows, so too will the sense of competition between these two regional giants.

Important constituencies in South Africa are lining up against nationalization of the mining and other sectors. The Northern Cape ANC wants to emphasize land reform and a report from the national leadership of the ANC calls for higher taxes on the mines. Both reject nationalization, which is a frontal attack on the calls from Julius Malema and some factions in the ANC Youth League for nationalization.

Foreign Policy has produced its 2012 Failed States issue, and Africa continues to be overrepresented on the wrong side of the ledger. Of the bottom twenty states on the 2012 Index, fifteen are from Africa, including the bottom five.

On the positive side, a special report from Global Post indicates that we might be reaching a turning point on combating HIV/AIDS globally and especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Global Post also has a report on the ways in which Africa’s entrepreneurs are fueling the continent’s growth.

Just a friendly reminder: Mugabe’s got to go. But the devil is in the details — how?

COSATU wants to cut down on the presence of “foreign whites” at the country’s universities. This strikes me as a demogogic solution in search of a problem inasmuch as there is little evidence that qualified students are not getting into universities because those slots are going to foreigners. There are more than a few universities in South Africa that would welcome more bodies on campus, foreign or domestic.

Kenya’s proximity to the failed state that is Somalia and especially with the encroachments of al Shabaab’s militants means that the country runs the risk of becoming embroiled in a “forever war.” This is especially worrisome in light of the country’s own internal divisions that have at best been papered over.

It is hard not to be pleased to see Charles Taylor, Liberia’s former warlord and Big Man, convicted and sentenced for his crimes in Sierra Leone. But as John Campbell has rightly pointed out, the trial and its outcome was not without its problems and its potentially problematic ramifications going forward.

A few weeks back the New York Times had a story on Laamb, traditional (but increasingly lucrative) traditional wrestling in Senegal.

In case you missed it, F. W. De Klerk gave a non-apology apology interview with CNN. There were times when I wanted to bang my head repeatedly against my desk. de Klerk was a pivotal figure in South Africa’s transition because he saw the inevitable changes that his predecessor P. W. Botha refused to recognize. But de Klerk was no hero. The idea that Nelson Mandela had to share the Nobel Peace Prize with de Klerk even while de Klerk’s government was engaging in myriad Third Force and Dirty Tricks campaigns is simply galling.

In the New York Times Ian Bremmer argues that Africa stands at a vital pivot point that should allow its leaders finally to have real options in operating in a global economy.

Finally, if you haven’t bookmarked Awesome Tapes From Africa just do it now.

AUTHOR: Derek Charles Catsam
URL: http://africa.foreignpolicyblogs.com
E-MAIL: derekcatsam [at] hotmail.com

Los Aneles, California, 5 May 2010

For many years I supported the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa as a member of the Holland Committee on Southern Africa (HCSA). I apply what I learned in supporting the Palestinian people to achieve freedom, justice and equality including the right of return for refugees. Dutch and South African anti-apartheid activists provided input to broaden the basis of the article.

Powerful vision of the South African Freedom Charter

The people of South Africa developed a clear vision for the future that gave guidance to anti-apartheid activists and organizations. Thousands of volunteers collected countrywide the ‘freedom demands’ of the people.

The demands were summarized in the Freedom Charter. Three thousand delegates from an alliance of South African political movements adopted the Freedom Charter at the 1955 Congress of the People.¹ The first paragraph states,

“We, the People of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know:

• That South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people
• That our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality
• That our country will never be prosperous or free until all our people live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities
• That only a democratic state, based on the will of all the people, can secure to all their birthright without distinction of color, race, sex or belief
• And therefore, we, the people of South Africa, black and white together equals, countrymen and brothers adopt this Freedom Charter
• And we pledge ourselves to strive together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until the democratic changes here set out have been won.”

“Let all people who love their people and their country now say, as we say here: These freedoms we will fight for, side by side, throughout our lives. Until we have won our liberty,” it ends.

The demands of the Freedom Charter on equality of race and language are addressed in the post-apartheid constitution of South Africa.

Palestinian call for BDS to pressurize Israel

The 2005 Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) to pressurize the Israeli government to change provides guidance for international solidarity.^₂ The BDS call adopts a rights-based approach that is anchored in universal human rights and has reached a near consensus in Palestinian civil society. It defines three basic Palestinian rights that constitute the minimal requirements of a just peace. Israel should:

• End the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
• Recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality
• Respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

The inclusive character of the BDS call is shown by the appeal to conscientious Israelis to support the initiative.

The Freedom Charter and the BDS call are tools to mobilize support internally as well as externally. Compared to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, there seems less clarity on the vision for the future and less unity among Palestinian political parties. However, this does not dismiss NGOs and solidarity groups from the responsibility to hold governments and companies accountable for their complicity in Israel’s violations of international law.

A clear, broadly supported Palestinian vision is important to shape the future. It would also provide the answer to the question that solidarity activists often hear: What do Palestinians want, one or two states?

International solidarity to support liberation

The early campaigns in South Africa against unjust apartheid laws of the 1950s were based on the analysis that the masses of the oppressed need to determine themselves the course of their liberation. The 1952 Defiance Campaign sparked off a mass movement of resistance to apartheid. During the campaign, “Non-Europeans” walked through “Europeans Only” entrances and demanded service at “White’s Only” counters of post offices. Black people broke the pass laws and Indian, Coloured and White “volunteers” entered Black townships without permission. The success of the campaign encouraged further campaigns against apartheid laws.

The formation of the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM) in the 80s also reflected the vision on the role of the masses in the fight for liberation. The MDM was formed to fill a void that was left by the banning of political activity and political formations. It brought together all formations that were opposed to apartheid such as the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), students’ organizations, women’s organizations, NGOs, civic structures, academic formations, and sympathetic business structures. These were all brought together under the banner of the United Democratic Front (UDF). In 1984, the UDF organized the Million Signature Campaign denouncing apartheid.³Two years later, the largest stay away in South Africa’s history took place. Other actions included a rent boycott in Soweto and a two day strike to protest the exclusion of black people from parliamentary elections. The MDM maintained an internal boycott campaign which inspired international BDS activism.

In the West, anti-apartheid groups organized campaigns on BDS and the release of political prisoners. The groups were able to influence the public opinion by speaking freely about the unjust treatment of black people under apartheid. The groups were not formally linked but met occasionally at international conferences or consultations on specific topics such as sanctions against South Africa. The groups differed in aims and methods but most of all in the context in which they operated.

Most groups tried to build coalitions with trade unions, churches, political parties and youth organizations in order to influence different sectors of society. In the campaigns of the Holland Committee on Southern Africa (HCSA), BDS action went hand in hand with dissemination of  information about ugly apartheid practices and the mobilization of political and material support for the ANC.

Intimidation and propaganda

Pro-South Africa lobby groups and the apartheid regime itself tried to undermine the campaigns for BDS and the release of political prisoners. The HCSA and some of its members received threats on a regular basis just like other anti-apartheid groups. Violent attacks were carried out. Dulcie September, ANC representative in Paris, was shot in front of her office in 1988. She researched the arms trade between France and South Africa. The office of Dutch anti-apartheid group Kairos was bombed in 1989, but fortunately, the damage was limited.

In addition, the South African apartheid regime began a propaganda war using diverted funds of the Ministry of Defense. In the period 1973-1978 about 85 million rand (then 100 million US$) was spent on “buying magazines, newspapers, publishing houses, and film studios in an effort to counter widespread anti-apartheid press coverage with a rosy image of the country.”⁴ Finance journalists were covertly enticed to write positive articles about South Africa. The Department of Information launched daily newspaper The Citizen and other publications and front organizations such as The Study of Plural Societies and the SA Freedom Foundation. To counteract South Africa’s exclusion from international sport the Bureau of State Security created the Committee for Fairness in Sport.⁵

BDS campaigns against Israel are also met with resistance, attacks on the integrity of persons and propaganda. Activists should resist attempts to lead them away from their activities in support of the Palestinian people in achieving freedom, equality, the right of return for refugees, and the right to self determination. Ilan Pappe wrote about the intimidation by Zionist lobby groups, “What you learn is that once you cower, you become prey to continued and relentless bashing until you sing the Israeli national anthem. If once you do not cave in, you discover that as time goes by, the ability of Zionist lobbies of intimidation around the world to affect you gradually diminishes.”⁶

Years of campaigning by anti-apartheid movements revealed the racist character of South Africa to a wide audience. Massive propaganda efforts of the apartheid regime could not rub off this image. The same is true for Israel. Facts about the occupation of Palestine, the practices of apartheid and the treatment of Palestinian political prisoners cannot be hidden. Informing the public about these facts will influence public opinion. It will create a climate where politicians and businesses can be successfully challenged to end their tolerance of Israel’s violations of international law.

International coordination

Coordination with the African National Congress (ANC) and groups fighting apartheid was essential to increase the pressure on the apartheid regime. In many countries, ANC representatives  engaged with solidarity groups to stimulate BDS activism. South Africans who spoke about the deplorable conditions of apartheid made a huge impact on audiences in Europe.

The ANC consistently supported campaigns with public statements, information about companies or requests to companies to withdraw from South Africa. If companies continued business as usual they were confronted with demonstrations in front of their offices or at public locations in South Africa. Support for the international campaign for an oil embargo was shown in a striking manner: the military wing of the ANC set the South Afrcian oil refineries in Sasolburg and Secunda on fire in 1980.  One year later, ANC President Oliver Tambo made the position of the ANC very clear at the International Conference on Sanctions Against South Africa, “Apartheid`s collaborators must be made to realize that they cannot defend racists and claim to be non-racist. They cannot support apartheid and preach freedom.”⁷

Compared to the  ANC, the PLO has failed to support international BDS activistm. However, many Palestinians and a small group of Israeli’s gave substantial support to BDS campaigns by providing information, documentation, testimonies and by organizing demonstrations. Increasing mobilization  in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel on Palestinian rights issues and the complicity of states and companies will give a boost to international solidarity, just like it did in the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.

Ending formal apartheid in South Africa

After decades of resistance, the South African apartheid regime arrived at the conclusion that there was no future for apartheid. Decisive factors were the notion that it would be an almost impossible task to continue to control the black South African majority (80% of the population). The deplorable state of the economy was a threat; the international isolation of “white South Africa” and the rising tide of anti-apartheid protest both inside and outside South Africa’s borders made it clear that it was not only morally but also financially and politically impossible to continue the oppression of black South Africans.⁸ Following years of secret negotiations between the apartheid regime and the ANC, President de Klerk took some bold unilateral moves in 1990 to show that his government was serious about change. Mandela and other political prisoners were released, the ban of the ANC and the Communist Party was lifted, and some apartheid restrictions were lightened. 

In 1985, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) was launched in South Africa uniting all unions opposed to apartheid based on the Freedom Charter. I invited Jay Naidoo, founding president of COSATU, to share lessons from the anti-apartheid era with the Palestinians. He replied,

“Real leaders speak the truth to their people. Both the harsh messages of when to compromise, retreat or advance. Mandela once said to angry supporters who were dying from violence orchestrated by covert forces in the apartheid state. ‘One does not negotiate with friends but enemies.’

The only hope is for the next generation to reach out, build bridges and put the past behind without forgetting the brutal lessons it teaches us. In SA, I sat next to Buthelezi who lead a political organization that fought a war with us and even had me on death lists. But we worked together and learnt to respect each others views. I did the same with the then deputy President de Klerk and many former members of the apartheid state. We must learn to build the future and heal the wounds of division sown over the decades and accept that we are all part of one human race. As Gandhi said ‘Become the change you want to see in the world.’ ”

I asked Ghadija Vallie the same question. She acted as coordinator of the Western Cape Relief Fund (WCRF) and was heavily involved in the resistance. The WCRF was founded in 1985 to support the increasing number of political prisoners following the declaration of the State of Emergency to oppress the intensifying resistance. She wrote,

“Someone asked me, ‘yesterday we fought for democracy. Look today, where is democracy?  What did we fight for? The poor are getting poorer, crime is out of control, the freedom fighters are asking for a place in the sun. Every day is like a public holiday in the township. The politicians are only aware of the masses when elections are due.’ My answer, dear comrade, is that we were romantic. We allowed negotiations to happen without our contributions. Now we have to face the demons that haunt us. We should not fret because we are the government! We must take responsibility. Let us make the freedom charter alive. Each one teach one. There shall be jobs for all, comrade. Don’t fret. All is well, we are the government and each person must take responsibility to make the changes within and work with passion and commitment to realize our vision. Stop being a victim, take charge of your life. I know there are a lot of similarities with apartheid in South Africa. Palestinians have a lot to deal with but they have to take charge of their future.”

Responsibility of the West

Fellow activists of the Holland Committee on Southern Africa, Trineke Weijdema and Sietse Bosgra, are now involved in Palestine solidarity work although most people of their age would have retired. Their solidarity activism dates back to Vietnam and the former Portuguese colonies in Africa. They want to share the following,

“Reflecting on our past we see the destructive role of the West – the United States and Europe – serving its self-interest.  Apartheid would have been destroyed much earlier if Western governments had put South Africa under heavy pressure and companies had ended their profitable business with the apartheid regime . It would have saved many lives. Western governments and companies have not learned one thing. Look at what is happening in Palestine. It is our responsibility – the people in the West – to hold governments and companies to account that are complicit in Israel’s violations of international law.”

It is clear that BDS campaigns were effective in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Israel’s reaction of throwing money into propaganda activities is a clear sign that BDS activism is already effective. 

• 1      http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=72 retrieved 8 January 2012
• 2   http://www.bdsmovement.net/callRetrieved 8 January 2012)
• 3    http://www.nelsonmandela.org/udf/index.php/poster/udf_million_signatures_campaign/ retrieved 8 January 2012
• 4    Sasha Polakow-Suransky, The Unspoken Alliance, Israel’s secret relationship with apartheid South Africa. (New York: Pantheon Books 2010)
• 5    Bio of Eschel Rhoodie, http://www.sahistory.org.za/people/dr-eschel-mostert-rhoodie retrieved 5 January 2012
• 6    Ilan Pappe, “Confronting intimidation, working for justice in Palestine”, The Electronic Intifada, 27 December 2011. Retrieved 6 Janyary 2012 http://electronicintifada.net/content/confronting-intimidation-working-justice-palestine/10746
• 7    http://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/impose-comprehensive-and-mandatory-sanctions-against-south-africa-speech-oliver-tambo-intern Retrieved 8 January 2012
• 8 See also: Adri Nieuwhof, Bangani Ngeleza and Jeff Handmaker, “Lessons from South Africa for the peace process” (1/2),The Electronic Intifada, Feb 1, 2005 Retrieved 8 January 2012

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

1. Summary of 2011

There were three issues that defined 2011 in South Africa.

1) By far the most significant of these was the controversy over the Protection of State Information Bill. For many years the ANC’s critics — white, usually, though not always — have accused the party of having dictatorial tendencies. These accusations have by and large been nonsense. Until now. The Information Bill, which putatively protects state secrets from being released via the media — a canard if ever there was one — represents an Apartheid-style bill in post-apartheid clothing. If government has the ability to control, menace, and punish an independent media, that media ceases to be independent. Let’s say that you trust the current iteration of the ANC. And let’s say, fairly, that even as the party has had the necessary 2/3 of the vote, or close to it, to allow them unilaterally to amend the constitution, it has not done so. But whenever an act of government such as this passes a useful question to ask is not what this dispensation might do with it, but rather what a future, more draconian dispensation might do. The question is not whether one should trust this government. The question is whether to trust any potential future government.

What has been reassuring has been the extent to which the passage of the bill met with vibrant public dissent. Arguably civil society became more engaged with this issue than any other political question in the post-apartheid era. “Black Tuesday” protests both real and symbolic (in the form of wearing black and in many cases tape over one’s mouth) took place across the country and dominated the news cycle and brought out the best among journalists and public intellectuals. So far all of this protest was to little avail, but it is telling that South Africans did not passively take this news or gnash teeth and ball their fists impotently.

2) During the World War II era in the United States (and in other parts of the world) labor unions had tremendous potential leverage but chose not to exercise it, deciding instead to act for what they believe was the greater good. But once the war ended, so too did the gentleman’s agreement about mass strikes and as a result labor actions proliferated. The Public Sector Strikes that hammered South Africa throughout the country’s winter of labour discontent revealed both the extent of working class dissatisfaction with the ANC and served to reveal the hangover from the 2010 World Cup. By and large the unions chose not to strike during the World Cup the previous winter, but those chickens roosted this year and then some. COSATU may be in alliance with the ANC from an official governance standpoint. But the unions flexed their muscles throughout 2011, once again revealing that the tripartite Alliance might not be on all that sound footing.

3) The ANC’s very public rebuke of Julius Malema, the ANC Youth League’s enfant terrible, represents the latest act but not the last act in an ongoing drama. Malema stands, I’m going to assume, as the country’s Phoenix in waiting. Like Richard Nixon in the early 1960s Malema has vowed that he has exited politics. Trust me — whatever he says, Malema is not done with public life in South Africa. He is destined to rise from the ashes, and when he does, he will carry significant numbers of supporters with him. Maybe not enough to change the country’s political calculus, but enough to make the party hierarchy uncomfortable.

2. Most Unexpected Event

1) In a country where the unexpected is expected it is hard to identify one shocking event or incident. But for observers of South African sport 2011 was not a great year. The Springboks exited the World Cup in rather desultory fashion (though they did outplay Australia in every aspect of the game but the scoreboard, the scoreboard is the only measure that matters). Bafana Bafana was left on the outside looking in when the national team’s leadership did not realize that more than a tie was necessary to progress to the continent’s championship. And the Proteas? Well, they continue to be the best international cricket team never to assert its dominance and they don’t seem any closer to doing so now than they have since their return to international cricket.

But seriously — not knowing the rules of advancement for a major international tournament? Unforgivable.

2) I do know that many of you may not be as sports mad as I am. So the other big surprise, at least for me, was the anticlimactic way that Julius Malema stepped down from his perch at the ANC Youth League. Despite Malema’s Nixonian pronouncements that he’s done with public life, such disavowals are in the nature of the political phoenix. I’m willing to place wagers that we will, in fact, have Julius Malema to kick around in years to come.

3. Person/Group of the Year

There are three possibilities.

1) In a country where everything is political, especially that which isn’t, and that is so dominated by the ANC not only politically but culturally as well, is it any surprise that President Jacob Zuma stands at the top of this list? Love him, hate him, or tolerate him, Zuma is the essential figure in South African political life. It is quite possible that Zuma will face a political storm at the end of the year, but, assuming that he still holds on to power in the party he is likely to continue to maintain this spot for some time to come.

2) For sheer significance in a year in which a mass of public sector workers flexed some muscles and reminded people of the potentially outsized role of COSATU it is hard to overstate the importance of COSATU General Seceratary Zwelinzima Vavi. Vavi emerges every so often to speak, and when he does so, people listen. Vavi could prove to be a kingmaker. Keep an eye on him.

3) For all of the reasons stated above (and for more stated below) Julius Malema continues to be a vital figure in the country’s politics, no less so because of his avowal that he is exiting public life.

4. Forecast for 2012

1) Is the country looking at another Polokwane Moment? In December the ANC will meet in Magaung and in so doing will elect the party president and thus the almost certain winner of the country’s next national elections (and lots of other elected positions of importance). You will recall that in December 2007 the ANC ousted Thabo Mbeki from the party presidency, which began the process of his ultimate humiliation in stepping down from the presidency of the country months later. Jacob Zuma was the chief beneficiary of the events in Polokwane. But many in the party have not been especially comfortable with Zuma either personally or politically. And understandably so.

Will this dissatisfaction give way to a push similar to the one that pushed Mbeki from party leadership? The odds are against it, but Zuma has more detractors within the party than an ANC president should find comfortable. A further irony is that the ANC Youth League might be looking for Zuma’s scalp. There are rumors that Thabo Mbeki might be their man. How unfathomable would that be?

2) More on Malema: Indeed, I would not be surprised if he is visible by the time of the ANC’s party conference in Mangaung in December. Malema may for the time being be persona non grata in the ANC. But will that endure if there is enough of a public clamoring for Malema’s redemption? And if that does not happen, might Malema look toward another political party and another political party toward him?

3) And expect the ANC centenary to dominate the year. And for current party leaders to cloak themselves in that history. Whatever other predictions I make, this one, I’m pretty certain, will be right.

(By the way, in last year’s Year in Review post, which was about the continent as a whole, I think I did respectably in my forecast. The key? Much like with astrology or fortune telling, don’t get too specific!)

5. Best Book of 2011

In a year of good books about Africa, if I have to choose one to recommend, I would go with Stephen Chan’s fine Southern Africa: Old Treacheries and New Deceits, in which a respected academic expert on the region provides an accessible overview of the state of affairs in Southern Africa with particular emphasis on South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.

Have a great 2012, and thanks for reading.

AUTHOR: Derek Charles Catsam
URL: http://africa.foreignpolicyblogs.com
E-MAIL: derekcatsam [at] hotmail.com

The sessions were hosted by the District Six Museum which is located in the District Six area in Cape Town. Under apartheid, 60,000 black South Africans were forcibly removed from District Six to barren areas outside the city. Bulldozers of the apartheid regime demolished their homes.  

I attended the Russell Tribunal at the invitation of the South African organizers. For many years, I supported the African National Congress of South Africa in its fight for freedom and equality. The similarity in policies and practices of the South African apartheid regime and the State of Israel have been observed by international experts.

In 2005, The Electronic Intifada published a commentary titled “Unrecognized villages in the Negev expose Israel’s apartheid policies,” which I wrote with Bangani Ngeleza following our visit to the Nakab with Palestinian political prisoner Ameer Makhoul. A few years later, Bangani and I compared how Israel and the South African apartheid regime use persecution of citizens in efforts to silence advocacy for freedom and equal rights.

Israel’s domination of Palestinian amounts to apartheid

After two days of hearings, the jury of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine published its final statement, concluding that “Israel subjects the Palestinian people to an institutionalized regime of domination amounting to apartheid as defined under international law.” The jury said:

This discriminatory regime manifests in varying intensity and forms against different categories of Palestinians depending on their location. The Palestinians living under colonial military rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subject to a particularly aggravated form of apartheid. Palestinian citizens of Israel, while entitled to vote, are not part of the Jewish nation as defined by Israeli law and are therefore excluded from the benefits of Jewish nationality and subject to systematic discrimination across the broad spectrum of recognized human rights. Irrespective of such differences, the Tribunal concludes that Israel’s rule over the Palestinian people, wherever they reside, collectively amounts to a single integrated regime of apartheid.

Racial groups

The legal definition of apartheid applies to any situation anywhere in the world where the following three core elements exist: (i) that two distinct racial groups can be identified; (ii) that ‘inhuman acts’ are committed against the subordinate group; and (iii) that such acts are committed systematically in the context of an institutionalized regime of domination by one group over the other. The tribunal concluded:

[I]nternational law gives a broad meaning to the term ‘racial’ as including elements of ethnic and national origin, and therefore that the definition of ‘racial group’ is a sociological rather than biological question. Perceptions (including self-perceptions and external perceptions) of Israeli Jewish identity and Palestinian identity illustrate that Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs can readily be defined as distinct racial groups for the purposes of international law. From the evidence received, it was clear to the jury that two distinct, identifiable groups exist in a very practical sense and that the legal definition of ‘racial group’ applies to all circumstances in which the Israeli authorities have jurisdiction over Palestinians.

Inhuman Acts of Apartheid

Individual inhuman acts committed under a system of apartheid are defined by international law as crimes of apartheid. The jury wrote it had heard “abundant evidence of practices that constitute ‘inhuman acts’ perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities.” These include:

• widespread deprivation of Palestinian life through military operations and incursions, a formal policy of ‘targeted killings’, and the use of lethal force against demonstrations;
• torture and ill-treatment of Palestinians in the context of widespread deprivation of liberty through policies of arbitrary arrest and administrative detention without charge. The jury finds that such measures frequently go beyond what is reasonably justified by security concerns and amount to a form of domination over the Palestinians as a group;
• systematic human rights violations that preclude Palestinian development and prevent the Palestinians as a group from participating in political, economic, social and cultural life. Palestinian refugees who remain displaced are also victims of apartheid by virtue of the ongoing denial of their right to return to their homes, as well as by laws that remove their property and citizenship rights. Policies of forced population transfer remain widespread, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territory;
• civil and political rights of Palestinians including rights to movement, residence, free opinion and association are severely curtailed. Palestinian socio-economic rights are also adversely affected by discriminatory Israeli policies in the spheres of education, health and housing.

Since 1948 the Israeli authorities have pursued concerted policies of colonisation and appropriation of Palestinian land. Israel has through its laws and practices divided the Israeli Jewish and Palestinian populations and allocated them different physical spaces, with varying levels and quality of infrastructure, services and access to resources. The end result is wholesale territorial fragmentation and a series of separate reserves and enclaves, with the two groups largely segregated. The Tribunal heard evidence to the effect that such a policy is formally described in Israel as hafrada, Hebrew for ‘separation’.

According to the jury, the crimes of apartheid are sufficiently widespread, integrated and complementary to be described as systematic. In addition, they are also sufficiently rooted in law, public policy and formal institutions to be described as institutionalized. The Tribunal studied 25 Israeli Acts and 8 Bills to arrive at this conclusion. They are listed in the final statement that came out of the meeting.

Persecution as a Crime against Humanity

The tribunal found that much of the evidence is also relevant to the separate crime against humanity of persecution. Persecution involves the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights of the members of an identifiable group in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. The tribunal based its finding of Israel’s persecution of the Palestinian people on the following evidence:

• the siege and blockade of the Gaza Strip as a form of collective punishment of the civilian population;
• the targeting of civilians during large-scale military operations;
• the destruction of civilian homes not justified by military necessity;
• the adverse impact on the civilian population effected by the Wall and its associated regime in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem;
• the concerted campaign of forcible evacuation and demolition of unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev region of southern Israel.

The tribunal concluded its statement with recommendations for further action, including that “all states cooperate to bring to an end the illegal situation arising from Israel’s practices of apartheid and persecution.” Adding that “all states must consider appropriate measures to exert sufficient pressure on Israel, including the imposition of sanctions, the severing of diplomatic relations collectively through international organizations, or in the absence of consensus, individually by breaking bilateral relations with Israel.” 

The tribunal called on global civil society, including all groups and individuals inside Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory, “to replicate the spirit of solidarity that contributed to the end of apartheid in South Africa.” It suggested that “national parliaments are made aware of the findings of this Tribunal and call for support to the campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

Inspiration from South Africa

All South African witnesses who presented evidence at the Russell Tribunal expressed their view that the system of apartheid as applied by Israel was far worse then the system of apartheid they had experienced in South Africa.

Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary of the Congress of South Africa Trade Unions (COSATU), representing over two million workers, said in his testimony that “the South African working class will not be free until the Palestinian working class has been liberated as well.” Vavi reminded the tribunal that “the people of South Africa in cooperation with the freedom loving people internationally, destroyed the apartheid system.” If COSATU adds its power to the BDS movement, it can pack quite a punch to Israel’s collaboration with South Africa.

The jury of the Russell Tribunal consisted of Stéphane Hessel, Ronald Kasrils, José Antonio Martin Pallin, Cynthia McKinney, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Michael Mansfield, Yasmin Sooka, Aminata Traoré, Alice Walker.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

Thabo Mbeki, UN Photo/Marco Castro

So, I suppose it is about time for a few words on the state of South African politics. Two related caveats. First, forgive an inordinate amount of typos. And second, forgive a lack of links. The reason for both is that on this trip I have had only an iPad and while it is a fun toy and useful for a good many things, it is a bit tough for blogging.

I have written time and time again about what I see as the potential break in South African politics. By “break” I mean what I see as the dissolution of the ANC coalition whereby the lectures of COSATU and the SACP break away from the Tripartite Alliance to forge their own way. Well, the current state of the ANC seems to have the unions and the communists more at odds with the ruling party than ever. Add in the volatility of Julius Malema, the leader of the ANC Youth League, and we have a condition for upheaval.

Of course as always the reality is that even if COSATU and SACP break from the ANC the party of liberation will continue to prevail. So to leave the ruling party, at least in the short term, would be to leave the cozy womb of power. It is understandable, then, why such a step is not an easy one to take.

But there is the possibility that Jacob Zuma, who so benefitted from the ANC’s decision to remove Thabo Mbeki from the ANC presidency in 2007, which helped set in motion the events leading to Zuma’s presidency of the ANC and eventually South Africa, might face his own Polokwane moment as dissent about him is becoming increasingly vocal. Of course the ANC needs to be wary of going to the internal coup well too often. But there is a certain irony incumbent in Zuma, who benefitted so much from internal dissent within the party, now vocally trying to quell public division as a distraction and in his desire not to talk about succession.

Even as COSATU flexes it’s muscles (and there is a major strike by NUMSA, the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa going on right now) there a signs that it still is not going to try to undercut Zuma. Yet. And that “yet” might be the most significant conditional in South African politics.

AUTHOR: Derek Charles Catsam
URL: http://africa.foreignpolicyblogs.com
E-MAIL: derekcatsam [at] hotmail.com