Wednesday, December 18, 2013

NELSON MANDELA AND THE N.A.C. LEGACY!


Nelson’s Mandela is gone, and now it is time to collect the pieces of his legacy and bind them together.  Certainly, there would be various views and opinions about Mandela’s legacy,  and many of them would be apocryphal,  while others would be frothy fanfare in the media of  the former colonial powers. We have already seen that all their eulogies of Mandela start after his release from prison in 1990.  All his struggles, his suffering and his efforts on his 72 years before 1990 have been deliberately swept under the rug!   The reason?  The colonial powers have been responsible for Mandela’s 72 years of sufferance,  and they don’t want to start with any repentance or apologies to him.  They want to conceal their guilt,  and praise him as a man of peace,  equality and justice - even though they denied him equality  for 72 years, and justice for 27 years!   Mandela is the prime example of the parable “Justice delayed, is justice denied!”  But justice denied for so long is for him the core of his legacy, as there are no other achievements -other than the right of the blacks to vote- for him to show for! 
His friend, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, admitted that Mandela's sudden fame was the result of the "heavy price he had paid" against apartheid (27 years of hard labor in prison). 

Mandela has been eulogized in postmortem adulatory speeches as “a  man of peace,”  but he wasn’t Mohandas Gandhi.  He was a liberation fighter against colonial rule,  and was deemed  “South Africa’s Most Wanted”  outlaw for 2 years - until he was captured!  In the post-WWII era,  Africa was brimming with revolutions against colonial regimes and foreign multinational corporations,  which were mining and stripping Africa of its resources using indigenous blacks as slaves,  or as laborers for pennies a day.  Mandela was one of the leaders of South Africa’s rebel underground movement, the African National  Congress (ANC).  Other such movements had sprung  across Africa, like Samora Machel’s in Mozambique,  Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo and Abel Muzoreva  in  Rhodesia  (now Zimbabwe),  Jose Eduardo dos Santos in  Angola,  Jomo Kenyatta’s in Kenya,  Patris Lumumba of Belgian Congo (now Zaire),  Habib Burguiba in Tunisia,  and Ahmed Ben Bella in Algeria.  All of them fought for liberation from  British, Portuguese,  Dutch,  French, and Belgium colonial  rule.  But when the aforesaid colonial powers decided give up and leave,  the U.S. moved in to install its own puppet colonial administrators.  If nationalist leaders had already taken over,  the CIA orchestrated their overthrow or assassination, as it did to   Congo’s prime minister Patris Lumumba.  Other CIA efforts and funding of mercenary armies to overthrow president dos Santos of Angola (under Jonas Savimbi)  and  another group by Portuguese mercenaries to overthrow Mozambique’s  Samora Machel failed. When Great Britain  abandoned South Africa and Rhodesia,  white settlers took over the administration of these countries,  and formed regimes that excluded indigenous blacks from any position of power or from the privilege of voting.  The era of the so-called “apartheid” had begun,  and Mandela and the ANC started subversive activities against that regime in South Africa , while  in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)  Robert Mugabe started a guerilla war in the African bush, while Joshua Nkomo and Abel Muzoreva  tried to work out within Ian Smith’s apartheid regime.

Mandela was the pioneer of South Africa’s massive anti-apartheid protests and demonstrations that lasted decades and took the lives of tens of thousands of blacks.    Eventually the apartheid regime was forced to negotiate with Mandela, and  he was freed from prison obtaining instant fame as his release was flashed on TV screens across the globe.  The ANC nominated him as president, and it won handily the elections.   Mandela became South Africa’s first “black president!"  But once in power he realized that  government cannot perform miracles, or satisfy all the
demands of his disadvantaged black electorate.  As a result, Mandela couldn’t bring  the “gravy train”  (the wealth),  to the disadvantaged blacks as most blacks expected him to do.   Instead he scolded blacks one time by telling them “the government didn’t have tons of money to giver them, and they should stop clamoring for!” Today, almost 20 years since Mandela’s first government,  black Africans are not better than they were under the apartheid regime.  For most of them,  their vote - in terms of their standards of living-  has been  meaningless!  American president Franklin Roosevelt described social progress as “as providing enough to those who had too little!”   On this promise,  Mandela and his  ANC party have failed miserably!  That was why current ANC president Jacob Zuma was jeered and booed when he took the podium to deliver Mandela's postmortem speech. 

Mandela and the ANC  remained friendly with the West,  as most investments in South Africa were Western,  and they feared a flight of capital and a collapse of the South African economy.  But behind the facade of  the good relations with their former colonial rulers,  Mandela and the ANC leadership  were African nationalists and fond of other anti-colonial revolutionaries and leaders across the globe.  Mandela particularly didn’t like any white gun-ho elite establishment  anywhere in the world.  That is why when  he stepped off the plane at his first trip to the  U.S. he said “I am a Negro,” and refused to make any other statement to the crowds of reporters extending their microphones to him. Then he slipped away with waiting black activists.  And to show his scorn for  the U.S.  establishment, he flew to Cuba and Libya to visit Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi  immediately afterward. 
Mandela loved Gaddafi for providing financial support to revolutionary groups, and he loved Fidel Castro for supporting revolutionary groups in Latin America, and for sending Cuban troops in Angola to protect president Santos from CIA’s mercenaries.  For Mandela, those leaders were his “brothers in arms!”

Mandela  retired after one term in office,  and he made it clear  publicly upon his retirement  that he did not want to associate with Western politicians seeking publicity with him.  His statement:  “Don’t call me, I will call you,”   he said!  It was like a replay of  a live TV appearance in the U.S. where a former Ronald Reagan aid in the audience asked him:  "Why did you choose Muammar Gaddafi and Fidel Castro as your friends?"  Mandela answered it angrily:  "I don't tell you whom to chose as your friend, and you don't tell me whom to chose as my friend!"  The audience gave Mandela a standing ovation.  But that answer opened Mandela's psyche and revealed who Mandela wanted to associate with.  Only those with revolutionary credentials,  who had a record of fighting colonialism and imperialism!  In plain English, his message was:  "If I feel we share the same values, I will call you. If I don't,  get off my back!” 

Mandela lost about 1/3  of his life in prison,  but his struggle was eventually vindicated,  and he lived long to age 95.  But thousands of other blacks died in that struggle to propel him to that immortality status,  14.000  blacks in the Zulu region only since the mid 1980‘s.  Yet,  there were other ANC leaders who spend decades in prison like him,  notably Walter Sisulu and others cadre of the ANC whose struggle was as critical as Mandela’s, but who remained in the shades of the struggle as the lights of publicity remained fixed on Mandela’s person.  But one person has never won a revolution by himself.  Mandela, as well as the Prophets,  and all national heroes and revolutionary leaders,  own  their place in history to the soldiers and followers who suffered, fought, struggled or died for.  For example, millions of Chinese guerrillas died in battle or froze to death during the Long March to accord their leader, Mao Tse-tung  immortality.  Mandela, therefore,  deserves the merit of guidance and perseverance,  but not credit for dismantling apartheid. 

The apartheid is still there,  under Mandela and his  ANC party. Foreign TV crews gathering in South Africa for Mandela’s  funeral learned from people in the ghettos that nothing has changed since his rise to power and fame.  Even the apartheid signs “BEWARE OF NATIVES”  were shown by TV crews to stand in the lines between white neighborhoods and  black townships to warn whites of the danger no to enter,  similar to signs  “BEWARE OF BEARS”  warning visitors for danger in the American National Parks.  Black residents  told foreign reporters that their lives are still the same as when Mandela was in prison.  Mandela gave them hope but little else.  That is why the Western powers eulogies have been so effusive about “his spirit of peace and reconciliation.”   That “spirit of peace and reconciliation”  allowed Western financial interests in South Africa to continue thriving as they did under the apartheid, while the African blacks continue to live on the leftovers of the state as they did under the apartheid - 20 years later!  That is the legacy of Nelson Mandela.
Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

UKRAINE: ANOTHER DISASTROUS “ORANGE REVOLUTION?”


Ukraine has been a country of Slavic people who experienced successive  occupation and governance by  Mongols, Poles,  Lithuanians,  Turks,  Germans, and Russians. In 1922  Ukraine became a republic within the USSR,  more commonly known then as the Soviet Union.  The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought independence to Ukraine - by default!

But independence was not a “happily ever after” for Ukraine.  History has proven that independence from colonial rulers or from breakup of states - like Yugoslavia- bring internal civil strife and turmoil until new states learn how to govern themselves democratically.   And even then,  more internal conflicts among parties bring further turmoil, as the current anti-government demonstrations in Thailand and Ukraine  show.   Democracy brings freedom,  but  some time that freedom becomes like a cattle stampede that tramples the civilized concepts of democratic governance!

That’s Ukraine today!  And it is history repeating itself, as it did in 2004 with the so-called “Orange Revolution”  (Orange color of the protesting flags).  But that Ukrainian uprisings was about “fraudulent elections,”  won by Viktor  Yanukovych -current president-  not about government policy as are today’s protests.  The Orange Revolution forced the annulment of those elections, and the Orange Revolution  favorite, Viktor Yushchenko, won the re-run elections.  Yushchenko won that election with plenty of support from the Western media  who depicted him as a democrat,  while it portrayed Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the Party of Regions in mostly Russian speaking Eastern Ukraine, as a  Russian stooge.  

Viktor Yushchesnko’s  rule turned out to be too corrupt and outlandish,  and the idol of the Western countries sank in the polls as his campaign promises didn’t materialize,  and unemployment and social discontent became widespread.  The discontent was topped by a report of the International Organization of Migration that estimated  117.000  Ukrainians were trafficked into forced labor or prostitution since 1991!  Yushchenko lost badly in the next elections, and his prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko was convicted for corruption and she is till in prison.  

Viktor Yanukovych  returned to power with a solid parliamentary majority.  The European Union(EU), which has failed to lure Ukraine into the Union under Yushchenko, renewed its efforts to do so under Yanukovych,  and an accord was negotiated.  But after Russia raised some objections over some EU trade clauses with Ukraine that would have harmed commerce with Russia,  Yanukovych  refused to ratify it!   Then came the Western media headlines again that Yanukovych was buckling ro Russian pressure not to sign the EU accord,  and the leftovers of the Yushchenko and Tymoshenko supporters  hit the streets for another “Orange Revolution”  demanding that  Yanukovych’s government resigns and news elections be held.  But with a solid majority in the parliament,  Yanukovych’s party defeated a motion for new elections,  and he just choose to ignore the protesters.   

The new leader of the opposition, Vitali  Klitschko,  relies heavily on former supporters of  Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko.  He is a Ukrainian heavyweight boxer with 43 knockouts on his 45 bouts boxing record, and he aspires to score his 44th  knockout, but  in politics,  by ousting Viktor Yanukovich  from office!   And he has wide support from the Western media propaganda who inflates his relative small rallies as massive anti-Yanukovych  protests.  BBC America reported on December 3, 2013,  5pm (Central Time)  that “thousands of protesters were camping outside the government’s offices,” and showed video with fires lit by protesters to keep warm.  But a U.S. Public Broadcasting Network (PBS)  reporter that spend the night with protesters reported on December 4, 2013,  7.00 am (Central Time) that  “only 200 protesters" camped outside the government’s building!   

This distorted view of massively inflating the Ukrainian protests by the Western media to discredit Viktor Yanukovych - who the West considers as pro-Russian, brings to mind the same inflation of  the anti-government protests in Venezuela, Iran and Brazil  -  all against governments not friendly with the U.S.,  the imperial lord of Europe,  while reducing the size of anti-U.S. protests in Pakistan, Yemen, or muffles altogether the massive anti-U.S. protests against the U.S. military bases in Okinawa, Japan.  NHK  (Japan’s Global TV broadcasts in English)  has reported repeated massive 50.000 people or more Okinawans protests  against the U.S. bases there, but those protests have always been censored by the Western media!    Even Russian president’s Vladimir Putin  statement that “the anti-Yanukovych rallies in Ukraine were instigated by outsiders,”   an indirect reference to the U.S. and Europe,  fell on deaf ears in the Western media, or  were passed as a footnote!

The current pro-European protests in Ukraine remind us similar protests in Georgia who brought the pro-Western leader Mikhael Saakashvili  into office in 2004.  It was a disaster that not only drove into bankruptcy the Georgian wine industry and other business after Russia banned imports of Georgian wine and other products,  but also Georgia lost two provinces,  Abkhazia and South Ossetia,   who declared their independence from Georgia with Russian  military back up!  Ukraine is heavily depended on Russian exports and imports,  as well as on most of its military industry and supplies.   The West would like to bring Ukraine in and isolate Russia,  but most Ukrainians see it as suicidal.  And looking at the near bankruptcy of the EU states of Greece, Italy,  Spain, Portugal, and Ireland,  they would rather forget the EU integration and remain as free agents to get the best deals with both Europe, Russia, and even China,  where Yanukovych is currently visiting  to open up new trade opportunities in Asia.   

The Epilogue:   There won’t be another “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine as the Western media portray the current protests there - because the first “Orange Revolution” idolized by the West as  the  embodiment of democracy was a political disaster!   I believe most Ukrainians have learned a lesson from the Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko  rotten "oranges revolution" to  risk another encore! 
Nikos Retsos, retired professor