In general, Gerald Caplan's article makes good points. Ever since decolonization, it is the big investors who have stimulated if not created and actively maintained corrupt leaders and systems in Africa. It is also known that Caplan is a knowledgeable author, at least for a part of Africa. However, the author is way behind facts and developments when he comes to Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa, whom he calls nothing less than "deeply corrupt." This is not only slander, it is lightly falling for a sustained campaign against Jacob Zuma without checking, and thus below the dignity of this writer.
I am a journalist following South Africa closely. Although not a South African national, I am also a former political prisoner under apartheid and member of the African National Congress (ANC) in times of exile. As such, I have known Jacob Zuma since the early 1980s and followed his career. First of all, I recommend people read Zuma's biography by the excellent South African journalist Jeremy Gordin. The facts are that the corruption charges against Zuma have been thrown out of court by two highly considered (white) judges--of which one was known already for his stand for human rights under apartheid--because of evidence of political interference by former President Thabo Mbeki and his ministers. Thereupon the highest elected organ of the ANC forced Mbeki to resign for abuse of power only six months before the end of his second mandate. This is not a light decision. Second, the supposedly elite corruption investigating unit (The Scorpions) has been disbanded and replaced, because Zuma's case was far from the only one. (See, e.g., the case of Mac Maharaj--not a friend of Mbeki but, yes, of Mandela--which even never came to an indictment but broke the career and life of one of the brightest South Africans. Biography by Padraig O'Malley).
Abuse of power and corruption are two sides of the same coin; Mbeki carries a heavy responsibility. Personally, I don't know if Zuma did not play with fire when accepting huge sums of money from an old friend and comrade, then a rich businessman, in the years after exile in order to sustain a lifestyle not compatible with his income. However, there is no evidence of him ever rewarding those gifts (or "loans") by using his power, i.e., corruption. But one must remember one thing: exiles and political prisoners came back penniless, without a house, a car, often even a family, irrespective of their rank in the ANC and the position they acquired in the new South Africa. The ANC did not have the means to settle all its people; everyone suddenly had to fend for himself, and many--like Zuma--had never had a proper salary or managed a family budget (the ANC in exile gave the same living allowance to all). In that situation, businesss stepped in to help, and the ANC considered that business had profited enough from apartheid to lend a helping hand. Mandela's first flat was paid for by business. So was housing for all negotiators and their teams. Etc., etc. Was this "corruption"? I don't think so; the alternative would have been heavy loans mortgaging the future. But it did create an atmosphere that was not very healthy and led to generally questionable attitudes towards business interests that I won't go into here.
A second mistake in my view was to get the Mafia of arms dealers in at that point in time, however necessary it may have been for defense purposes. However, Mbeki is the man who thought it necessary to woo investors by all means--this is not the Zuma approach. The ANC under Zuma is trying to correct some of that and direct policies more to the poor and disenfranchised, that is, back to the old ANC's policies and ideals. It doesn't help, then, to repeat over and over again the huge media campaign against Zuma inspired by his political opponents or rivals. (And, it must be said, by South African media of overall low quality and questionable journalistic "investigation" methods.) It is time to take a closer and impartial look at President Zuma, his cabinet, the current ANC leadership and its policies. South Africa is in a complex and difficult transformation process.
In his remarks about Western interference in the food production and market in Africa, I think the author should have mentioned the very destructive role played by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) with its Mafia-like behavior. In its obsession to get rid of US surpluses, the USDA routinely bypassed and even actively destroyed local production of staple crops. All over Africa we have seen those bags of wheat or maize showing clasped hands as a symbol of a gift of "the American People." I'll mention two particularly shameless examples: in the early 1990s I was involved in an international journalistic investigation that had started from the famous Mafia trials in Italy (P2 Lodge) with their worldwide tentacles. At some point the followup led to weapons and drugs dealing and... the USDA in Southern Africa.
That is where I got called in. We found mind-boggling evidence. Mozambique at the time was embroiled in a civil war (more than actively sponsored by the apartheid regime), an ideal ground for Mafia-type dealings. The civil war had pushed farmers from the land, the population was starving. Yet, under the so-called aid program the USDA refused to buy white maize, the staple crop in the whole region, from surpluses in Zimbabwe, which was then the "granary" of Southern Africa. Instead, it dumped US surpluses and literally forced US yellow corn down Mozambicans' throat, although they don't like it.
The idea? To get people used to US corn (in the long run that wasn't succesful) in order to sell US surpluses. At the same time the USDA had a tremendous secret program to convince Zimbabwan commercial farmers, the main producers of white maize, to switch to tobacco, an export crop that they made sure was ''more profitable." There the USDA was hugely succesful. White maize became a crop entirely produced by peasant farmers, and Zimbabwe was no longer the granary of the region. To the point that Zimbabwe is now starving. Getting more land for maize production by small farmers was the main objective of Mugabe's approved "land grabs" of white commercial farmers. I haven't followed USDA tactics recently, but it might be worth looking into.
Helene Passtoors
Ohey, Belgium
07/22/2009 @ 06:02am
A full understanding of Africa's history is certainly necessary for developing paths forward, and it is unfortunate that Obama and his speech-writers left out the West's role in the current state of affairs. However, I think his self-help message is very appropriate.
I have been living and working in Tanzania for the past eight years. I have seen some big changes. Structural adjustment in Tanzania was harsh, but the country is now experiencing rapid growth (though this has mostly been concentrated in the urban areas). Corruption, poor infrastructure, bureaucracy and poor education continue to hinder Tanzania's development.
While structural adjustment was often harmful and executed on terms that would not be accepted in the West, some of the reforms have helped tremendously. Government industries were sold off a fire-sale prices in corrupt bidding processes. That was bad. Making people pay to go to primary school was a dumb idea and something that most countries have now abandoned. However, reducing the bureaucratic nightmare that was standard operating procedure in most African countries has helped tremendously.
Most important, these reforms allowed for private enterprise (foreign and domestic) to start to develop. The government now has private enterprise and private income to tax. My theory of development is that good governance comes with taxes. When a government is mostly dependent on foreign aid or royalties from natural resources for its day-to-day operations, it has limited interested in making the economy functional for private business. In that situation, people are generally grateful for any of the windfall shared with them, even if it is only a fraction to which they are entitled (since this information is posted in newspapers, nobody knows about it anyway). Since there is no room for the private sector, the best and the brightest either leave the country or join the government, where they put their talents to work devising ways to game the system.
When a government is dependent on taxes, the story changes. People start to expect services and signs of progress in exchange for their hard-earned dollars. This process is just getting started in Tanzania. Multi-party elections and freedom of the press (only started in 1996), are also an important part of this process. While some Western aid money is needed and appropriate, for most African countries, the main focus should be reform reform reform.
Theron Morgan-Brown
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
07/16/2009 @ 06:44am
RSS