Category: Imperialism
Party of Communists, USA: Statement of the PCUSA Peace and Solidarity Commission on Global War

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Party of Communists, USA: Statement of the PCUSA Peace and Solidarity Commission on Global War

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/04/party-of-communists-usa-statement-of.html
Statement of the PCUSA Peace and Solidarity Commission on Global War.
US imperialist aggression and military preparations throughout the world are solely menacing an imminent outbreak of WWIII. All its desperate confrontational maneuvers in every embroiled theatre, whether through a growing number of European states to threaten the Russian Federation, or in Syria, Iraq or Yemen, on the Korean Peninsula or in the South China Sea threatening China, are toward that unified (rationally unthinkable) strategic objective.
US provocative actions globally are one in purpose; they are not at all comprehensible as interventions in separate conflicts. US disturbance in other countries is posed conjunction with its major front, NATO, through US inspired neo-Nazi movements in several European countries (notably the Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Romania); with its highly reactionary regional vassal states in Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Persian Gulf principalities), with its subordinates in Asia (Japan, South Korea, and Australia); by its promotion of civil unrest in Latin America (prominently in Venezuela at the moment); and by its rapidly increasing militarization of the Artic in conjunction with its servant Canada.
US military and political involvement raising protracted regional tensions has instigated violent crises in several countries in both hemispheres, whether by wars of indirect or direct aggression or subterfuge. Intervention is simply an empty pretext: it is not predicated on independent or pre-existing civil conflicts in other countries or propagandistically imagined threats to the peace of the world by other states. Neo-Nazi movements in Europe would not exist without US organization and funding for previously suppressed and dispersed criminal elements in those societies. There is no civil war in Syria, inherently a stable, secular society and republic, not divided ethnically or religiously. The war there is one of indirect aggression on the part of the US since 2011 through brutally barbaric foreign mercenary terrorists, not Syrian rebels, from over 80 countries, ostensibly seeking to impose a theocratic autocracy but serving as a purely invented rationale for intended US-Saudi-Turkish partition of Syria. Indirect aggression and the pursuit of pretext for intervention leads of false flag operations, such as the sarin gas attack in Syria in 2013 and the currently alleged sarin gas attack in that country, when the known supplies for sarin gas to US-backed terrorist elements in Syria is coming from NATO through Turkey. The struggle in Yemen is not one of an Iran allied Houthi minority posing a threat against a US ally, the Absolute Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, but the opposite: a national resistance struggle of all popular democratic forces in Yemen against US-Saudi imperialist aggression. Oppositional elements in Venezuela are being directly organized and funded by the US, which would otherwise have no power to disturb the political order of that popular Bolivarian state. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, seeking only to defend itself from constant US threats for its destruction throughout its existence after an artificially US imposed partition empowering Japanese collaborationists among Korean capitalists and landlords against the unified Korean anti-imperialist resistance, is being demonized absurdly as if a representing a threat of global aggression. All conflicts threatening the peace of the world today have been instigated or contrived by US imperialism, which are being resisted at national levels by popular and progressive forces in the different forms confronted.
The political style of US aggression, whether conducted at the sole initiative of the presidency or with the consent of the Congress (by either declarations of war or authorizations for the use of force), is not the issue: US imperialist designs now threatening WWIII are. The constitutional question is a serious misdirection of the US peace movement. From 1812, the Congress of the United States has overwhelming supported all US wars, whether apparently defensive or aggressive. The US Congress today is fully behind all current US wars of indirect aggression and of military strike build-up throughout the world. Formal declarations of war or stronger resolutions of authorization will only give the appearance of popular support for continued and intensified aggression that does not exist and provide a pretext for treating opposition as treasonous, as is already occurring within the government under the anti-Russia hysteria generated during and since the 2016 US presidential elections.
What needs urgently to be done as a first step to stop US imperialist aggression in the world is the illegalization by the General Assembly of the United Nations of all wars of indirect aggression, as the Soviet representative to the League of Nations, Maxim Litvinov, appealed for prior to WWII but failed to achieve, and of any moves outside the UN framework to disarm other states. The Peace and Solidarity Commission of the Party of Communists, USA, calls on all domestic peace and anti-imperialist organizations to support the illegalization in international law of wars of indirect aggression and to support universal disarmament by negotiations under multilateral treaties (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in particular), and the illegalization of any show of force by one state to compel other states to disarm.
The split in the US oligarchy about Russia and its significance
| April 10, 2017 | 8:39 pm | Analysis, class struggle, Donald Trump, Imperialism, political struggle, Russia, Syria | Comments closed

by Darrell Rankin

The split in the US oligarchy about Russia and its
significance
Lenin commented that nothing is firm or fixed about
imperialists’ views on war or the right level of
aggression.
He also wrote that imperialism would continue to slide
increasingly towards reaction and militarism, an inevitable outcome of
capitalism’s ever-deepening general crisis.
If we consider that war is merely a continuation of foreign
policy by other (violent) means, this helps to explain the hesitation and lack
of conviction often felt by bourgeois politicians when they believe war could
backfire.
For example, Hitler and his entourage were not of one mind when
to invade Russia. They all thought it was a great idea, but they differed on the
timing to a degree, their disputes kept out of the public eye by means of
threats and backstabbing.
Today, the ferocity of anti-Russian views in the US oligarchy
is such that Trump’s hand is being forced, but not to the degree Clinton wants.
Trump may have thought that an extra $50 billion for the military
industry was enough for his back to be safe from pointy objects for a while.
But it appears not.
The casualties on the Trump side continue to mount from ongoing
investigations into Russia’s role in defeating Clinton and general control of
the Trump administration.
Clinton, who timed her emergence from seclusion perfectly,
demanded completely to obliterate the Syrian air
force.
Trump carried out a so-called “proportionate” strike that
damaged (not destroyed) six Syrian aircraft.
The Trump entourage’s conflict with the faction that wants war
now with Russia (the Clinton Dems and McCain Reps) is sure to Continue.
This a significant split. There are two important reasons why
it is important.
First, we have to recognize that Clinton’s intention to impose
a no-fly zone over Syria would have brought Russian forces into direct,
unannounced conflict with US forces.
There are reports that Trump gave Russia (and thereby Syria) a
heads-up phone call before launching yesterday’s cruise missile strikes.
One understandable casualty of Trump’s missile attack is the
US-Russian exchange of information about US flights over Syrian airspace.
Now, all US flights will be deemed hostile, intrusive and
Unapproved, just like Israeli overflights.
Will US overflights be subject to the same ‘shoot on sight’
rule as Israeli jets? I would say that depends on the target and level of
aggression by US imperialism, which will probably get worse, especially if Trump
continues to prove he dislikes being called a coward, baby-killer and traitor by
the pro-war faction.
Both Syria and Russia could and should realize that restraint
can still help avoid war in the absence of an overflight
agreement.
Still, the danger of war between Russia and the U.S. is higher
because of the ferocity of the pro-war faction.
That intensifying conflict brings me to my second point, the
Importance of what happens ‘on the streets,’ among the popular forces in the
United States who are regularly ignored over Trifling matters such as a world
war.
Trump’s definite restraint compared to the pro-war faction
gives the popular forces in the US time – a breathing space – to mobilize
against war with Russia, a war that would be directed as much against them as
against Russia and the international working class.
They could offer the idea that it is not cowardly to ask for
evidence and follow diplomacy to resolve disputes.
It is necessary and extremely important that the anti-war
sentiments be galvanized and moved into action on the streets.
A powerful and definitely strong clique of the oligarchy
believes war with Russia is necessary and an exceedingly good idea.
We cannot dismiss the importance of popular movements –
especially unions – working to deepen the split in the oligarchy on that
issue.
The strongest united front effort would be one that does not
hide the role of unions and popular forces, emphasizing their leading role in
staying the hand of the most bellicose elements of US
imperialism.
STOP US AGGRESSION!
| April 6, 2017 | 9:56 pm | A. Shaw, Analysis, Imperialism, political struggle, Syria | Comments closed
By A.Shaw
The  reactionary, liberal, and centrist sectors of the capitalist press, the three most important sectors of the cappi or capitalist press, have turned themselves into one sector in order to better promote or synchronize imperialist anti-Syrian lies proclaimed by their reactionary and aggressive bourgeois regime in Washington, DC.
Donald Trump and his bestial regime  are committing an act of horrendous aggression against the people of Syria.
The USA regime and its Jihadist allies organized the massacre of children which imperialists now use  as a pretext for their savage aggression.
The peace-loving, ethical, and truly democratic forces must fight to stop imperialist aggression against Syria.
These humanist forces must never forget that the slime that runs the foul regime in Washington DC represses not only independent foreigners but also independent USAs, especially those in the working and middle classes.
STOP US AGGRESSION
Immoral Outrage Against The Syrians
By A. Shaw
Aircraft of US imperialists recently attacked the Iraq city of Mosul, slaughtering over 200 people.
So far, the imperialists have not identified the type of bombs and missiles they drop on Mosul.
There is no doubt that US imperialists are responsible for the mass murder in Mosul.
The shameless US imperialists themselves admit they are guilty.
Why is it that there is so little moral outrage against the US atrocity in Mosul.
There is something like a limited coalescence of immoral outrage of the reactionary, centrist, and liberal sectors of the working and middle classes in the USA over the recent chemical attack in Syria in which 100 people were killed, many of the victims were children.
There’s no evidence that either the Russian or Syrian governments are guilty of the chemical attack.
The cappie [capitalist] press in the USA publishes the lies of self-professed terrorists, who enjoy cutting peoples heads off, as if these lies are irreproachable and incontrovertible.
The cappie media and the reactionary bourgeois regime in Washington  have unjustly accused the Russians and Syrians.
The USAs — or the US people — should not become as two-face as the cappie media and bourgeois regime over the USAs.
Periodically, some of the insane, terrorist groups fighting the Syrian Government stage chemical attacks killing children in order to drag US imperialists deeper into the war against the Syrian people.
South Africa: Targeting Immigrants, Again
| March 6, 2017 | 7:42 pm | Africa, Analysis, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 6, 2017 (170306)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“In the post-apartheid South Africa, resurgence of xenophobic
violence is a symptom of the deep leadership deficit. For the fourth
consecutive week now, South Africa is witnessing what many analysts
call a “resurgence” of xenophobic violence in parts of Johannesburg
and Pretoria, the country’s capital city. The reality is that this
type of violence is a daily occurrence in the country, although it
does not always get media attention. It has, in fact, become a long-
standing feature in post-apartheid South Africa.” – Jean Pierre
Misago, African Centre for Migration and Society, Johannesburg

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/migr1703.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs17/migr1703.php

South Africa is not unique in seeing a “resurgence” of anti-
immigrant violence this year. As in many other countries, notably
the United States and many European countries, this trend draws on
widespread prejudice among substantial sectors of citizens against
immigrants seen as criminal and job-takers. But it is also driven by
official state policy which employs its own official bureaucratic
violence, by the “leadership deficit” cited by Misago, and by even
more massive and multifaceted anti-immigrant campaigns such as that
currently being mobilized by the new U.S. administration.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains three short articles with news
and analysis of the most recent events in South Africa, as well as
links to other sources for deeper analysis.

Additional short articles and reports of related interest, including
reactions from other African countries:

Omano Edigheji, “Xenophobia in South Africa and Nigeria,” Sahara
Reporters, February 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/hfqya5d

Simon Allison, “South Africa has become the Bad Guy in Africa,”
Daily Maverick, February 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jm9qlxm

Alexandra Hiropoulos, “Gauteng Xenophobic Attacks February 2017,”
Xenowatch, February 26, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/jm6xnmr

And for contemporary US parallels, see Anand Giridharadas, “A Murder
in Trump’s America,” The Atlantic, February 28, 2017, at
http://tinyurl.com/zv8ucb9
On murders of immigrants, including the most recent shooting in
Kansas.

Laila Lalam, “Donald Trump Is Making America White Again,” The
Nation, March 2, 2017
By Laila Lalami

Donald Trump Is Making America White Again

Holland Carter, “For Migrants Headed North, the Things They Carried
to the End,” New York Times, March 3, 2017
Art exhibit on deadly results of U.S. immigration policy in desert
on Mexican border, from Clinton through Obama

Emily Bazelon, “Department of Justification,” New York Times
Magazine, February 28, 2017
On the anti-immigrant agenda of Jeff Sessions, Stephen Bannon, and
Donald Trump.
http://tinyurl.com/jxsb4af

Additional sources on the anti-immigrant attitudes and the Trump
election campaign can be found at
http://www.noeasyvictories.org/usa/anti-immigrant.php

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on migration and related issues,
visit http://www.africafocus.org/migrexp.php

Of special interest is the 2014 article by Sisonke Msimang,
“Belonging–why South Africans refuse to let Africa in,” –
http://www.africafocus.org/docs14/sa1410.php

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Xenophobic violence in the ‘Rainbow’ nation

by Jean Pierre Misago

Al Jazeera, March 1, 2017

http://tinyurl.com/hggn89u

[Jean Pierre Misago is a researcher with the African Centre for
Migration and Society at the University of the Witwatersrand, South
Africa.]

[Text only. Original at link above contains additional links to many
other sources.]

In the post-apartheid South Africa, resurgence of xenophobic
violence is a symptom of the deep leadership deficit.

For the fourth consecutive week now, South Africa is witnessing what
many analysts call a “resurgence” of xenophobic violence in parts of
Johannesburg and Pretoria, the country’s capital city.

The reality is that this type of violence is a daily occurrence in
the country, although it does not always get media attention. It
has, in fact, become a long-standing feature in post-apartheid South
Africa.

Since 1994, tens of thousands of people have been harassed, attacked
or killed because of their status as outsiders or foreign nationals.

Despite claims to the contrary by the government, violence against
foreign nationals in South Africa did not end in June 2008 when the
massive outbreak that started a month earlier subsided.

As the current incidents illustrate, hostility towards foreign
nationals is still pervasive in the country and continues to result
in more cases of murder, injuries, threats of mob violence, looting
and the destruction of residential property and businesses, as well
as mass displacement.

And yes, the violence is xenophobic (and not “just crime”, as many
in government prefer labelling it) because it is – as the scholar
Belinda Dodson reminds us – “an explicit targeting of foreign
nationals or outsiders for violent attacks despite other material,
political, cultural or social forces that might be at play”.

It is a hate crime whose logic goes beyond the often accompanying
and misleading criminal opportunism. The real motive of the
violence, as unambiguously expressed by the perpetrators themselves,
is to drive foreign populations out of communities.

Xenophobic violence as a symptom of leadership deficit

A quick analytical look reveals that the drivers of ongoing
xenophobic violence in South Africa, as well as the lack of
effective response and preventive interventions, reflect a dreadful
lack of competent, decisive and trusted leadership at all levels of
government.

The drivers of xenophobic violence in South Africa are inevitably
multiple and embedded in a complex interplay of the country’s past
and present structural – political, social and economic – factors.

Chief among underlying causal factors is obviously the prevailing
anti-immigrant sentiment easily fuelled by political scapegoating.
Political leaders and officials of the national, provincial and
local government often blame foreign nationals for their systemic
failures to deliver on the political promises and satisfy the
citizenry’s growing expectations.

Due to political scapegoating, many South African citizens perceive
foreign nationals as a serious threat that needs to be eliminated by
any means necessary. This perception is stronger among the majority
of citizens living in poor townships and informal settlements where
they meet and fiercely compete with equally poor African immigrants
for scarce resources and opportunities.

The result is that local residents in these areas have become
increasingly convinced that foreign nationals are to blame for all
their socioeconomic ills and hardships including poverty,
unemployment, poor service delivery, lack of business space and
opportunities; crime; prostitution; drug and alcohol abuse; and
deadly diseases.

By blaming foreign nationals for its failures to deliver on its core
functions and responsibilities, the South African government is
unfortunately displaying an obvious if sorry sign of weak and
incompetent leadership.

The triggers of the violence paint an even more worrying picture of
the leadership deficit in the “rainbow” nation. Indeed, the strong
anti-immigrant sentiment alone cannot explain the occurrence of
violence in some areas and not in others where such negative
attitudes are equally strong.

Attitudes are not always a good predictor of behaviour. Rather ample
research evidence indicates that the triggers of the violence are
located in the “micropolitics” at play in many of country’s towns
townships and informal settlements.

Instigators and perpetrators of xenophobic violence are well known
in their respective communities, but the de facto impunity they
enjoy only means that they are likely – as they have in many cases –
to strike again.

Violent attacks on foreign nationals are usually triggered by
political mobilisation led by local economic and/or political
players and informal community leadership groups (in the form of
civic organisations, community policing forums, business
associations, concerned residents’ associations, etc) for their
economic and political interests.

This violence is essentially “politics by other means”. It has
proved a useful tool for these local politicians to consolidate
their power and community leadership monopoly needed to expand their
client base and the economic revenues it represents.

These “violence entrepreneurs” capitalise on people’s sentiments and
frustrations and have no difficulty co-opting local residents for
participation in the violence given the pervasive negative
attitudes. Xenophobic violence is triggered by the mobilisation of
the existing collective discontent.

With denialism and impunity, violence continues

It is common knowledge that the official South African government’s
response to xenophobia and related violence has been characterised
by “denialism”.

Such denialism is rooted in a discourse which labels all xenophobic
violence as “just crime and not xenophobia”, a categorisation that
demands few specific and sustained interventions or policy changes.

Both President Jacob Zuma and Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba
repeated the popular if infamous refrain this week.

Perhaps understandably, admitting the existence of a xenophobic
citizenry is both ideologically and politically uncomfortable for
the ruling African National Congress, which is now the custodian of
the multiracial, multi-ethnic “rainbow” nation and sees itself as
the champion of human rights and unity in diversity.

In addition to the lack of effective policy response, the government
unwillingness to recognise xenophobia coupled with a general weak
judicial system has also led to an alarming culture of impunity and
lack of accountability for perpetrators and mandated institutions:
foreign nationals have been repeatedly attacked in South Africa
since 1994 but few perpetrators have been charged, even fewer
convicted. In some instances, state agents have actively protected
those accused of anti-foreigner violence.

Similarly, there have been no efforts to hold mandated institutions
such as the police and the intelligence community accountable for
their failure to prevent and stop violence despite visible warning
signs.

As an example, government promises to set up special courts to
enable quick prosecutions after the 2008 and 2015 violence never
materialised.

Instigators and perpetrators of xenophobic violence are well known
in their respective communities, but the de facto impunity they
enjoy only means that they are likely – as they have in many cases –
to strike again.

Unfortunately, the government’s unwillingness to acknowledge that
this violence is xenophobic and its failure to work on finding
appropriate solutions are a sign of ineffective leadership. Without
appropriate intervention violence will continue.

**********************************************************

Black lives don’t matter in xenophobic South Africa

Redi Tlhabi

Washington Post, March 2, 2017

http://tinyurl.com/hved2oz

Redi Tlhabi is a radio and television journalist from Johannesburg.

Last week was an ugly, humiliating one for South Africa; a country
once considered a jewel of democracy on the African continent has
been gripped by a wave of xenophobic violence. In a matter of days,
more than 30 stores belonging to foreign nationals were shut down
after intense attacks and looting by locals in several townships. We
are breathing a sigh of relief that there has been no loss of life.

This is not the first time that foreigners have faced attacks in
South Africa’s townships and provinces. In 2008, the country’s
streets were ablaze, literally, with violence against foreigners.
Ernesto Alfabeto Nhamuave, a national from Mozambique, was beaten,
stabbed and set on fire in broad daylight. A police officer tried in
vain to douse the flames, but it was too late. Nhamuave died. And
there has been no justice for him. Sixty-two people, including South
Africans, were killed at that time and more than 100,000 were
displaced. Last year, more than 20 shops were looted in one area
alone, and foreign nationals had to flee their homes.

On Friday, with the government’s endorsement, citizens from
Pretoria, the capital, marched against foreign nationals in an anti-
immigrant protest. The government said that the march was an
agitation against crime in South Africa, which has been endemic in
this society for many years. Yet the protesters did not march to
police headquarters; instead they went to the Home Affairs office,
which is in charge of immigration in the country.

The xenophobic violence tends to have a racial element. Nigerians,
Somalis, Malawians, Pakistanis and Zimbabweans are often the targets
of this prejudice. Perhaps it reflects the complex truth about South
Africa’s xenophobia — that it is never just a rejection of a
different identity but also a lament for the economic exclusion
experienced by black South Africans, or all black Africans, for that
matter. The acts of violence are specifically targeted at African
and Asian migrants. White migrants are safe. They own businesses and
property and generally go about their lives peacefully. They are
seen as providers of work and capital, but black ones are seen as
encroachments and threats. They are from the margins of our society,
and even the language used to describe them — illegal immigrants,
illegal aliens, outsiders — creates an “us and them” dynamic. They
are dirty, they are criminals, they are drug peddlers — common
accusations that are articulated boldly on radio and television.

It is surreal as we watch how here and in the United States, black
lives really don’t matter. Even in a majority black country, the
government is not decisive or unequivocal in its condemnation,
choosing instead to obfuscate and sanitize this xenophobia by
calling it something else, such as “criminal acts.” These are hate
crimes, no different from the killing of Indian engineer Srinivas
Kuchibhotla in the United States. The suspect reportedly asked him
and a companion whether they had valid visas and shouted that they
should “get out of my country.” This sounds so familiar. Migrants in
South Africa are constantly told to “go back home.” We have not
experienced random shootings by citizens, but rather a well-
orchestrated, mass uprising by multitudes. And in this way,
individuals escape personal responsibility for hate crimes.

Nelson Mandela, the founding father of our democracy, said: “South
Africans must produce an actual South African reality that will
reinforce humanity’s belief in justice. … Never, never and never
again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the
oppression of one by another.”

We have failed. According to the Migration Policy Institute, South
Africa displays one of the highest levels of xenophobia in the
world. In the past decade, foreigners have been blamed for every
malaise under the sun — “They are stealing our jobs,” “committing
crimes” and, of course, “taking our women.” High levels of
unemployment — especially youth unemployment, which averaged 51
percent between 2013 and 2016 — creates a fertile environment for
foreign workers to be scapegoats, despite the fact that foreign-born
migrants make up only 1.6 million of South Africa’s population of
about 55 million.

South Africans must remember the sagacity and generosity extended to
us in our time of need. African countries took on South Africa’s
liberation movements when they were banned by apartheid. They
provided a home and education for their families. Some of these
governments provided financial help to the party that is in
government in South Africa today. I am hoping that the divisions
that colonialism and racism tried to engineer in our psyche will not
prevail. I am hoping that citizens who endeavor to make their
countries “great again” will not do so at the expense of basic
decency and justice.

********************************************

The awful politics of xenoophobia

by Stephen Grootes

Daily Maverick, February 27, 2017

http://tinyurl.com/jhx7pf4

South Africans have a certain reputation for public robustness. We
fight, scream, and shout at each other, all in the name of deciding
what would make for a better country. At times, though, this
robustness threatens to derail us at a time when many people could
be vulnerable to serious harm. On Friday in Pretoria, violence broke
out during a march planned by people who were “opposed to illegal
immigrants”. The police struggled to maintain order. And instead of
speaking with one voice, everyone in a leadership position was busy
pointing fingers, particularly at Joburg Mayor Herman Mashaba.

There was plenty of notice that xenophobic violence was coming. In
stark contrast to the violence that claimed nearly 60 lives in 2008,
and the awfulness that marked the violence in KwaZulu-Natal two
years ago, last week we knew that a group of people in Mamelodi were
going to march against the presence of foreign nationals in their
community. They said that it was a march against crime, but when
pushed on their motives it became clear that the real issue was
simply that they did not like people who were not like them.

When the marching and the clashes started on Friday, the police
immediately moved to contain the protests. A group of Somali men
grouped together, partly perhaps for protection, partly perhaps to
cause their own violence. This was the kind of thing that only leads
to trouble. One of the oldest insults among human beings can be
boiled down to this: He is a foreigner, and therefore a barbarian.
And it is also universal among societies everywhere; when people
feel their lives are getting worse and hopeless, they will turn on
people they see as different, or somehow not being “like them”.

Situations like these need cool heads, and plenty of disciplined
force from the police. But a problem of this kind also needs
leadership.

On Friday morning, the ANC released a statement about the xenophobic
violence, essentially calling for calm. But by the third paragraph
of the statement, it was already attacking Johannesburg Mayor Herman
Mashaba, saying he should be “singled out for particular mention”,
and attempting to blame him for the violence. They claimed further
that “it was the reckless statements of Mayor Mashaba that lit the
tinderbox of hatred in the first place”.

Where the ANC is absolutely correct is to criticise Mashaba for his
words and actions on this issue in the last few months. His comments
about “illegal immigrants”, and his almost wilful and deliberate
conflation of the words “immigrants” and “criminals”, was wrong,
perhaps bordering on the criminal. As a public representative, he
should be ashamed of himself, and the DA should be ashamed of itself
for not smacking him down in public. His comments in this regard are
surely against everything the DA claims to stand for.

It is hard to know why Mashaba made them in the first place. Maybe
he genuinely believes there is a problem and that it needs to be
addressed. Perhaps he feels that it’s a way to get votes. As the US
and other places have recently demonstrated again, being “anti-
immigrant” can play successfully to prejudice. Or he could just be
prejudiced himself, like so many other South Africans, and people
all over the world.

But to say that he is responsible is to utterly miss the greater
context of what is happening in South Africa these days. And, worse,
it is to forget the role the ANC government played over the last few
years.

Last week, before the march, Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba
held a press conference specifically about the xenophobic tensions.
He said he had met with the organisers of the march, and had pleaded
with them to act responsibly. It was the kind of act that you would
expect someone in his position to do; it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, his department could also be accused of playing a
role in demonising foreign nationals in the first place. It is his
officials who deport people, and decide which foreign nationals get
to stay and which get to be kicked out. And, depending on where you
stand on these things, it is also his department that has largely
failed to deal with the problem. The perception has grown that
people who are foreign are here illegally, because government has
failed to stop them from being here.

But it is not only Gigaba’s fault. It is impossible to police this
properly, the dynamics of economics, geography and the human nature
to desire a better life for yourself and your children are all
against him. With the best will in the world, Gigaba is going to be
unable to change those perceptions, or even make much of a
difference on the ground. Stopping human migration requires the kind
of a control over a population that North Korea has. Anything less
will just not work.

Gigaba himself has a fairly decent track record in this regard. He
at least is not afraid to call xenophobia what it is, and to label a
xenophobic march a xenophobic march. His political boss, President
Jacob Zuma, appears unable to do even that, claiming on Friday that
there were even foreign nationals in these marches, because they
were actually “anti-crime”. Proof, once again, that it’s not only
the facts that are alternative, sometimes it’s the entire universe.

Gigaba once did something that very few other ministers have done on
this issue. He raised the ire of Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini. In
2015 Zwelithini had been accused of making comments that were seen
as an incitement to commit violence against foreign nationals. A few
days later, violence did in fact erupt in KwaZulu-Natal. Gigaba made
a comment that leaders should behave responsibly, which appeared to
have angered the king.

In the end, the SA Human Rights Commission decided, controversially,
to exonerate Zwelithini. And the ANC, certainly in public, has
failed to publicly criticise the king for these comments. Which
surely suggests they do not believe that there is a link between
what he said and the violence that followed.

It is important to follow this logic through to the bitter end. If
the Zulu king makes comments like this and does not incite violence
against foreign nationals, while the mayor of Joburg makes similar
comments and does incite violence, then who has more power? Is the
ANC seriously suggesting that Herman Mashaba, as a DA mayor, has a
greater moral authority and plain old influence over people in
Tshwane than King Goodwill Zwelithini does in KZN? And if that is
the case, it surely follows then that the ANC is actually in much
greater political trouble than we thought.

In politics, it is usually a mistake to build your enemy up, to make
them look powerful. In their haste to be seen to condemn Mashaba,
that is exactly what the ANC is doing. It made him look powerful, as
if he had the ability to shape events, that he has this magical
authority over people. Who, for the record, weren’t even in “his”
city, but in Pretoria.

But what is also being forgotten here is the other actions of
national government. As the CEO of the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation,
Neeshan Balton, pointed out on Friday, it was national government
that decided to roll out “Operation Fiela”, whose aim was action
against foreign nationals. And it is national government alone that
controls the police. And thus the officers who are famous for
rounding up foreign nationals and stealing cash from them. It’s not
about what you say as a leader, it’s also about what you do. Our
government has failed to do much to change attitudes, to present any
kind of example.

Mashaba himself said, in a statement issued on Monday, that he had
tried to set up several meetings with Gigaba to discuss this entire
issue, and invited him to a city lekgotla on the issue. Mashaba says
he declined that invitation. But it would appear Gigaba is happy to
discuss the issue, just not with Joburg’s DA mayor. Rather,
according to Mashaba, he has accepted an invitation to speak at an
event hosted by the Joburg ANC, and its leader, and former Joburg
mayor Parks Tau.

No matter how you look at it, that is playing politics in times when
the national government should know better.

To look at this situation from a neutral standpoint, should such a
place exist, is to realise that everyone is at fault here. Mashaba
should not have said what he said. The ANC national government has
not provided an example of how to treat foreign nationals, despite
often saying the right words. People of influence who say things
that are xenophobic are let off the hook.

Very few of the people who call themselves leaders in our society
can escape blame here. And if any of them think that they can blame
someone else, it’s time they took a look in the mirror. DM

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

Racism! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

By A. Shaw and James Thompson

We are talking about race and the fight against racism.

Race seems to be short hand for all of us –the human race.

Race suggests some kind of totality among people.

Racism, on the other hand, necessarily implies segments of the race that are hostile towards one another.

So, racists are hostile segments of the people. For example, some racists hate all of the human race.

These are called misanthropes. Misanthropes hate and often want to destroy everybody. They often want to destroy the human race merely because members of the human race are human.

Other races hate and often want to destroy only half of the race.

These are called misandrists. They hate and often want to destroy boys and men simply because they are boys and men.

Another type of racist hates and often wants to destroy girls and women who constitute half of the race. These are called misogynists.

How can we fight the racism whether it aims to destroy the totality of the human race or the destruction of only the males or only the females?

Today, perhaps a doctor can give them a pill or an injection or lock them up or lie them on an injection table or hang them. In Texas, it is not feasible to electrocute all the racists because it would drain all the electricity. Texas administers so many lethal injections that it sometimes has to deal with shortages of the poison that it pumps into the veins of its people so it is not a viable option.

By the way, in the USA, a misogynist can become President and reside in the White House, Donald Trump.

At some point, it became obvious to even the racists that a racism based on gender was unsatisfactory. A gender based racism requires racists to destroy some of their parents and some of their siblings. So, the racists modified their racism to be based on color more than on gender in order to protect their kinfolk.

The racists then imagined that there is a multiplicity of racists based on color chiefly of the skin. The racists thereby discovered blacks, whites, yellows and later on during the latter 19th and 20th centuries, browns and reds.

Initially, the division of humanity consisted of blacks and whites. Later on the racists added the yellows. The prevalence of these sexual mixtures (miscegenation)made it difficult to determine whether an individual was this color or that color. Sometimes blacks who look like they were white insisted that they were black. Vice versa, sometimes whites who look like they were white insisted they were black. When the yellows entered the mixture, the problem of determination of racial identity grew more complex and hopeless. Nobody could tell whether somebody else was white or black. Among the whites, people discovered that other whites were the principle foe, for example, yellow haired and blue eyed people who were white hated some other people who did not have yellow hair and blue eyes even though they were white. So clearly color was an inadequate basis for racism.

In order to fight racism progressive people fought a legal struggle-both judicial and legislative-in which laws were passed to prohibit racist acts called discrimination, e.g. in the USA the civil rights act in 1964 and the voting rights act in 1965. The state in the USA mildly enforced these legal measures against racism over the last 50 years but the state in the USA did not enforce these anti-racist laws with the vigor to eradicate racism.

Around the middle of the 19th century the form of racism based on skull shape became popular among the intelligentsia and almost replaced color based racism.

Skull based racism known as phrenology became popular, advocating that there was a relationship between skull shape and psychological characteristics. Almost all phrenologists insisted that non-whites lacked the kind of skull shape that results in the development of strong and smart individuals.

People relied on other scientists to debunk the non-sense of the phrenologists and after the defeat of the Nazi racists who were enthusiastic phrenologists, people widely saw that skull based racism was non-sense. So, to fight skull based racism and the residues of color and gender racism requires war.

This brings us up to the present time where the original basis of racism, the emergence of an economic surplus or deficit, generates race hatred mostly of the misanthropic form. There is a group of highly trained racists who argue that at least 80% of the world population must be exterminated so that the 20% can strive and survive. These are basically misanthropes. These misanthropes claim that they only want to get rid of about 80% of the world’s population.

If these racists were successful in wiping out 80% of the world’s population, they would then attempt to get rid of the remaining 20%. These racists so far believe that pestilence and famine are the best ways to get rid of the 80%, but these modern day racists do not overlook the Nazi contribution to racism. This racism can be described as industrialized genocide.

Contemporary racists primarily rely on the manufacture and distribution of lethal germs to produce the pestilence that can wipe out the 80%.

And this pestilence in turn produces the famine that greatly contributes to wiping out the 80%. Research institutes around the world are developing the viruses that will accelerate the rate of mass murder that is underway.

For decades, these institutes were mostly interested in the research of deadly biological agents but today their focus is mainly on the development of these agents.

There is a consideration that impedes the use of these deadly biological agents to attack the 80%. That consideration is the existence or absence of a highly effective antidote that will cure members of the 20% if they are inadvertently infected by the biological agents distributed by modern day racists.

People who talk about the conspiracy to wipe out 80% of the world population are ridiculed as hopeless and incurable paranoids.

The information concerning wiping out the 80% has been hacked but what do you do with the documentation that demonstrates that imperialists are conspiring to wipe out the 80%? Anyone who has possession of the data that proves the imperialists are wiping out the 80% would get the same kind of treatment as Edward Snowden. You cannot take the data hacked from biological research institutes to the bourgeois media because under bourgeois law they are required to notify the state.

Castro to Go Down in History as ‘Hero Holding Out Against the US Empire’
| November 26, 2016 | 8:24 pm | Analysis, Cuba, Fidel Castro, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed
21:52 26.11.2016(updated 22:07 26.11.2016)
Former Cuban President Fidel Castro has passed away. Speaking to Sputnik, veteran German journalist and Castro biographer Volker Skierka explained the significance of Fidel’s life and work, and the important mark the revolutionary has left on Cuba and the world. Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who survived hundreds of assassination attempts and nearly a dozen US presidents, passed away on Saturday, aged 90. A funeral ceremony has been scheduled for December 4, and will be held at a cemetery in Santiago de Cuba. Cuba has received a flood of condolences from leaders around the world, Russia included. Volker Skierka, veteran German journalist and author of the book “Fidel Castro: A Biography” spoke to Radio Sputnik about the man and his era. “He has been one of the most important political figures of the 20th century, and I think that he is going into history as a hero who was the only one to successfully oppose the influence of the great empire to the north,” Skierka said, speaking of Castro’s international significance. At home, Castro will be remembered for giving the Cuban people back their national independence and dignity, as well as for his “revolutionary social reforms” in healthcare and education. “This is a point that I think the Cuban people will try to keep for the future, because it’s a sort of role model for Third and Second World countries,” the journalist noted. As for Castro as a man, Skierka suggested that the revolutionary’s personality and charisma were “very important” in and of themselves in accounting for many of his successes. “He was very charismatic. I met him after I wrote this biography. We had an informal discussion, and I must say that he was so fascinating that I was really happy that I hadn’t met him before, because it would have caused difficulties to write the book.” Castro was “really outspoken, and had a talent to get you concentrated only on him,” the journalist recalled. “This was really an exceptional political talent. He was very intelligent, and was an excellent speaker. People listened to him for hours, and not because they had to, but because they wanted to.”  Asked whether Castro’s passing could signify any important political or economic changes on for the island nation, Skierka noted that if change does occur, it will be slowly. “[President] Raul Castro has implemented several changes; but it’s going very slowly, and I think the best way is to do it slowly, because if reform [proceeded too quickly], I think this could implode into chaos.” At the same time, the journalist suggested that while continuing to develop relations with the United States may be important, Western countries shouldn’t get their expectations up too high. “Because on the one hand, there is still the embargo, and on the other hand we will have to see what’s going to happen with the new American president  how he will deal with the Cuban situation. Although I could imagine that [Trump] might continue the course of Obama, to the disappointment of many of his followers.” Ultimately, looking back to the limited Cuban-US business ties established in the 1990s, mostly with Republican governors and officials, Skierka noted Trump is actually quite likely to face “high pressure on continuing and developing economic ties with Cuba. And I think they will also do so because they don’t want stand by, seeing as China, Russia, Brazil, Canada, and Europe pass them by and do business with Cuba.”

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/latam/201611261047878745-castro-legacy-sputnik-biographer-interview/