Archive for the ‘Apartheid’ Category

When Baltimore Battled the Feds Over Apartheid – CityLab

In 1986, the city of Baltimore battled the Reagan administration over its local anti-apartheid ordinancesand won. How they prevailed may have important lessons for cities trying to resist Trump today.

A statue of Nelson Mandela stands behind a fence at the South African Embassy in Washington.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reiterated his threat to withhold federal funding from cities deemed as providing sanctuary for immigrants, this time bending language in the law to make it easier for him to penalize recalcitrant jurisdictions. In his May 22 memo to All Department Grant-Making Components, Sessions wrote:

Consistent with the Executive Order [13768], statutory authority, and past practice, the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain Department grants to certify their compliance with federal law, as a condition for receiving an award. Any jurisdiction that fails to certify compliance with section 1373 will be ineligible to receive such awards.

And just to show that hes not playing around, Sessions emphasized in the memo that this threat applies to any existing grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Servicesa possible ploy to wedge police departments against their own city governments by conditioning law enforcement grants on city compliance with Trumps immigration demands.

Such warning shots sound alarming, but its important to note that weve been here before. Its not the first time that the federal government has threatened to smack cities with both carrot and stick for not complying with its orders.

In the 1980s, as international pressure against South Africa ramped up, several U.S. cities passed sanctions on companies that did business with that countrys apartheid regime. And, just as Donald Trump and Sessions are doing today to sanctuary cities, the Reagan administration attempted to punish them.

Theres a lot for cities to learn about what happened in the 1980s and how it relates to now, says Madeline Janis, executive director of Jobs to Move America. The Los Angeles-based nonprofit has been researching the topic for a report on how Reagan tried to clamp down on cities that chose not to support South Africas apartheid government. Pretty much every aspect of the Reagan administration came down as hard as possible on cities, but the cities stood up, and really contributed, as Nelson Mandela once said, to the demise of apartheid. Thats a really big lesson for today.

Jobs to Move America researchers combed through thousands of pages of documentslegal memos, policy guidances, court briefings, and correspondence between companies and the Reagan administrationto piece together the story of how cities rose up against the federal government in joining the worldwide fight against apartheid in South Africa. According to their research, which they shared exclusively with CityLab, nearly 100 cities and states passed ordinances or laws limiting contact with companies that did business with South Africa. They pulled government accounts from banks that operated in the country, or divested from portfolios that included companies doing business there. More than half of U.S. states participated in this movement, but cities made up the largest cluster of jurisdictions involved. Their sanctions punctuated a groundswell of college students and grassroots activists across the country who turned the divestment movement into a worldwide campaign.

The Reagan administration was livid about this, given its cozy financial and political relationship with South Africa. (In certain ways, Reagans policy of constructive engagement with that countrys apartheid government isnt so dissimilar to Trumps controversial relationship with Russia.) Teaming with Justice Department leaders, the Reagan administration sought out ways to thwart city action in the divestment movement. They claimed that the local anti-apartheid ordinances violated federal laws, and hence began threatening to yank these cities federal funding. When the threats didnt work, the feds took the cities to court.

What followed was a saga with echoes of the conflicts that cities are currently having with the Trump administration on issues like immigration and climate change. The common themes: local self-determination vs. federal preemption, fairness vs. privilege, inclusivity vs. xenophobia, justice vs. inequity. But the results of this Reagan-era clash between city and federal powers were mixed.

The battle escalated in 1986, when the Reagan administration got involved with a lawsuit against Baltimore filed by city trustees over the anti-apartheid ordinance. The trustees, along with DOJ lawyers, argued that the ordinance violated commerce clause laws.

Indeed, this ordinance was no trivial pursuit. It dealt specifically with the citys pension funds, which were to be divested from any portfolio that included companies with South African business ties. Anyone who understands the role of pensions in city financing knows that these are expenditures that can effectively break budgets and bankrupt cities. This is the money cities use to pay for the retirements of police, firefighters, teachers, and government administration officialsnothing to play with. But Baltimores leadersspecifically, then-City Councilman Kweisi Mfume, who pushed the citys divestment effortwere courageous enough to place the pension funds squarely in a political battle with the White House over ending apartheid.

If you read through all the briefs, it is clear at all levels of this case that the mayor and the city council of Baltimore articulated their moral outrage at South Africa as an extension of their ongoing feelings about the history of racism in the South and in the U.S. in general, says Janis.

Baltimore ultimately won its case to preserve its South Africa divestment ordinance when the U.S. Supreme Court deferred to the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling, which read:

The Trustees and Intervenors argue that by requiring the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of investment portfolios, with the intended effect of forcing corporations to withdraw from business operations in and with South Africa, the Ordinances substantially burden interstate commerce. While we do not dispute that the Ordinances impose some burden on interstate commerce, in our opinion that burden is not excessive in relation to the benefits. The Ordinances embody the City’s moral condemnation of racial discrimination. The use of pension funds arguably to support racial discrimination in South Africa is an issue of deep concern, not only to the pension systems’ members and beneficiaries but also to all citizens of Baltimore who are sensitive to slavery’s persistent legacy. In our judgment, the Ordinances’ burden on the interstate sale of securities does not outweigh these unique and profound local concerns.

This was a landmark victory that sent the message to cities across the U.S. that the federal government couldnt just bully them into complying with policies that clash with their values.

This win was not a sweep, though. The Reagan administration also waged war against New York City for a 1984 ordinance that allowed the city to withhold contracts from companies that did business with South Africa. The Justice Department demanded that New York City change or withdraw this ordinance or else forfeit its Department of Transportation funding. Unlike Baltimore, New York City, then under Mayor Ed Koch, wasnt willing to go to court to preserve its anti-apartheid sanctions. The city caved and changed its law.

To block New Yorks ordinance, the Justice Department leaned on a bidding competition rule under the Federal Aid Highways Act that says all government contracts must abide by full and open competition and must not create an undue burden on the companies bidding for them. The Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted that statute as saying that cities cant limit the number of companies bidding for a piece of a federally funded project. Further, if the Department of Transportation gives a city a grantto fix roads, for examplethe city would have to farm out work under that grant to the lowest bidder, regardless of a bidding companys stances on apartheid or any other human rights or labor issues. If that rule is violated, the DOT can pull the grant.

Its disputable whether OLCs interpretation of this statute is what Congress intended, though, when it passed the federal highways legislation in 1956. Language in that act also made clear that jurisdictions should avoid corruption in administering federal funds, according to Jobs to Move Americas researchers. Also, there were amendments added in 1968a year when Congress was aggressively working to strengthen civil rights protectionsstating:

Contracts for the construction of each project shall be awarded only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting established criteria of responsibility. No requirement or obligation shall be imposed as a condition precedent to the award of a contract to such bidder for a project, or to the Secretarys concurrence in the award of a contract to such bidder, unless such requirement or obligation is otherwise lawful and is specifically set forth in the advertised specifications.

The Jobs to Move America researchers interpreted that as meaning that cities can include other criteria, so long as they are transparently advertised.

Still, Reagans more free-market-friendly interpretation of the competition rule has prevailed ever since, effectively preventing cities from adding innovative criteria to procurement policies to fight injustice. Thats why its so difficult for cities to add local-hire provisions, consider certain climate change ramifications, or ensure LGBTQ protections when contracting out federally funded projects.

For example, when Cleveland tried to enforce an ordinance prioritizing jobs to local residents for a U.S. DOT-funded project in 2003, the Federal Highway Administration pulled the funds, saying this hindered competition.A federal court upheld the agencys discretion to do so when the city sued to get the funds back. Cleveland is still fighting in court today to have that local-hire ordinance enforced.

In 2005, when New Jersey added language to bidding criteria that would stamp out corrupt pay-to-play practices, the FHWA again pulled the hindering competition card and blocked funding. That same year, when Los Angeles simply wanted bidding companies to disclose any information that it had historical ties to slavery, the federal government, again, thwarted enforcement by threatening to withhold funding.

Such past federal actions could complicate matters for cities today that want to open their municipal borders to immigrants regardless of orders from the Trump/Sessions regime. Its not an entirely apples-to-apples comparison to the anti-apartheid ordinance conflict of the 1980sthe sanctuary city issue is not about procurement or divestment. But the way the Reagan administration was willing to bend interpretations of law to force cities to do its bidding serves as a nasty precedent for what Sessions is trying to get away with today.

While city actions and grassroots activism were powerful in obtaining short-term victories, the Reagan administration was able to impact how federal funding worked over the long term, says Abhilasha Bhola, lead researcher for Jobs to Move America. We cant forget that even if were fighting back, they are still laying the groundwork for longer-term impacts.

However, Baltimores successful fight against the Reagan administration serves as a reminder that cities can find legal pathways to push backand winwhen federal policy conflicts with community values. Sanctuary cities that are weighing their legal options now might be able to learn from that experience. So might cities that are poised to clash with the Trump administration over other issues.

Its about more than sanctuary cities, says Janis. Its also cities considering laws to potentially require disclosure from companies that are bidding on [Trumps proposed] border wall, and other problems that are likely to come up. Regardless of what the technical legal issues are, the lesson learned here is to get in the weeds and dont assume that just because there is a threat that there is an actual strong law backing them up.

Jobs to Move America plans to release its full research on the fight for local anti-apartheid ordinances to the public in June.

The rest is here:

When Baltimore Battled the Feds Over Apartheid – CityLab

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Book Extract: Buying the US presidency the apartheid connection – Daily Maverick

The political agenda of President Donald Trump leans towards anti-science, and favours greater reliance on American police at home and on its military abroad. Above all, it is a throwback to a type of nationalism that never ends well. South Africa under Afrikaner nationalist rule is a prescient reminder that misplaced patriotism is the oxygen of prejudice.

A powerful link to US-South African relations of the 1980s is provided by Trumps adviser for the past 30 years, Roger Stone, and Trumps campaign manager during his 2016 presidential campaign, Paul Manafort. Just as Trump was sworn in at the White House in January 2017, the media revealed that the FBI, CIA and other law enforcement agencies were investigating both men for their alleged ties to the Russian government during the US election race.

Neither is a stranger to controversy, having been guns for hire by dubious corporations, conservative politicians and foreign governments. Its an agenda that favours powerful corporations, a big military and reduced social spending. Lobbyists such as Manafort and Stone play two roles. They lead non-fact-based attacks on figures such as Hillary Clinton whom they demonise through any media available. At the same time, these trusted old boys work the backroom to raise cash for and from their favourite causes. This has undeniably made these men wealthy and influential in shaping the new right-wing populist politics in the United States.

Roger Stones reputation precedes him. Journalist Jacob Weisberg described Stone in 1985 as the state-of-the-art Washington sleazeball. Sporting what the New Yorker describes as prohibition-era mobster outfits, Stone identifies as a libertarian. Between his shoulder blades nestles a tattoo of scandal-ridden Richard Nixons face, complete with a broad smile.

During the 1980s Stone and Manafort were partners in the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly. They kept a client base that included two of the most infamous kleptocrats of the 20th century, Ferdinand Marcos, the president of the Philippines, and Mobutu Sese Seko, the president of Zaire. Both regimes also enjoyed the support of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Stone is reported to have remarked about these relationships, If you look at all of our clients, they were all pro-Western, they were all pro-United States. They all had good relationships with Ronald Reagan and his administration.

Another well-paying client of the lobby firm was the Unita rebel group of Jonas Savimbi. Unita paid Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly $600,000 in 1987 to represent the group in Washington DC. However, as Ron Nixon contends, It is likely that the money actually came from Pretoria. This was money well spent and in return the firm set up an audience with Reagan for Savimbi in 1988 and again in 1989. According to Nixon, the firm lobbied US Congress members hard, setting up 500 meetings. They reportedly contributed to a decision by Reagan to turn on the taps of covert funding for Savimbi that had been shut by the Clark Amendment of the late 1970s. Jardo Muekalia, a former Unita fighter who now lives in the United States, told The Guardian in 2016 that the rebel fighters profited handsomely from their payment to the firm of lobbyists:

We ended up getting up $40-million over a period over four years, so it was a pretty good return on that investment.

An indirect and little understood link between Stone and the apartheid regime lies in one of the last big plays by Pretoria to influence US politics. In 1988 PW Bothas government had hoped to buy itself a US president in Jack Kemp, the former professional gridiron footballer and congressman. Kemp would eventually lose the nomination, which went in favour of George Bush. Bush nevertheless appointed Kemp to his cabinet a year later as the secretary of housing and urban development. Kemp was later on Bob Doles ticket as vice-president as part of Doles unsuccessful bid for the White House in 1996.

Stone was Kemps senior adviser during his 1987-8 campaign and, since at least 1985, had been his principal political adviser, according to Kemps press secretary at the time. At one point in the 1980s, Kemp was Stones biggest client and his fortunes were said to be closely linked to those of Kemp. At that time, Kemp received covert funding from the apartheid regime. In 1996 the Mail & Guardian reported that the apartheid front organisation the International Freedom Foundation (IFF) had planned to buy Kemp a jet worth $450,000 using Military Intelligence funds in 1987. One of the backers of this scheme was the IFF South African operative Russel Crystal. Former apartheid spy Craig Williamson confirmed that in 1986 the South African intelligence agents who ran the IFF from Johannesburg had expected automatic membership in Kemps kitchen cabinet and hoped to name an assistant secretary of state for Africa in a future Kemp administration as a reward for providing the Republican senators campaign committee with a jet.

After a WhatsApp inquiry to Williamson in January 2017, he told me that there was talk of whether purchasing or leasing an aircraft was most effective. My objection to a purchase or lease was due to my doubt that the costs could be effectively hidden. This much has been known for some time. At the time Kemp, who is now deceased, denied having received any advantage from the IFF. When asked for comment by the journalist Dele Olojede from Newsday he said, Ive made a lot of mistakes in my life, but thats not one of them, tying myself to South African intelligence.

Williamson now says that Kemps campaign was indeed assisted by South African Military Intelligence through the IFF: Chartering on a when-required basis seemed a better way to go. I believe that some costs were covered. This is an extraordinary admission and suggests that Kemps campaign did receive undeclared illicit funding from South Africa. When I asked Williamson if he knew of Stone or Manafort, he indicated that he knew of neither nor had any links with them. However, this raises the question: is it possible that Roger Stone, President Trumps trusted adviser, knew about support from apartheid South Africa for Jack Kemp? Given his closeness to both Kemp and to Pretoria through the work he was being paid to do for its ally Unita, it would be surprising if he didnt.

Stone and Manafort arguably represent continuity between the deep state networks that seek to subvert the US democratic process. They also represent the continuity of the political culture from Reagan to Trump. These are men who favour the interests of the rich and the type of clandestine conservative politics that threatens to engulf a democratic system in a swamp of insider dealing. It is often men who are most eager to swear allegiance to a flag who are easy picking as potential guns for hire by foreign, anti-democratic powers. DM

Photo: (Left) Conservative lobbyist and consultant Roger Stone speaks with the press in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, NY, USA, 06 December 2016. EPA/ALBIN LOHR-JONES. (Centre) A file picture dated 29 January 2008 of former US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Jack Kemp on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, USA. EPA/MATTHEW CAVANAUGH (Right) A file photo dated 03 May 2016 showing Paul Manafort (C), campaign advisor for US presidential candidate Donald Trump in New York, during 2016 campaign. EPA/JUSTIN LANE

Go here to read the rest:

Book Extract: Buying the US presidency the apartheid connection – Daily Maverick

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Archives: How Cuba Helped Free Mandela and Defeat Apartheid – Black Star News

[Reflections: Pan-Latino Solidarity]

At the Non Aligned Movement Summit in Havana, 1979, Castro greets Guinea’s President Ahmed Sekou Toure, Angola’s Neto and Guinea-Bissau’s Luis Cabral. Photo NAM Database. Flickr

This is the second-part of my commentary on Cuba And Africa: Brothers in arms, and Solidarity; part one was published on April 29.

The word Apartheid leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many Africans. Fascism is another word that will spoil our appetite.

During our fight for independence these where the challenges we confronted. These thorns which took much toil, and pain to pick out of our sides came from; the racist Portuguese, and the White South African minority that imposed the segregated regime. As one may logically think a country that champions itself on rights, liberty, and freedom would be the most logical ally in our skirmishes. It is an unfortunate fact that the United States, which fashioned itself the champion of democracy, actually helped the oppressive forces to keep these systems in place.

Cuba However had different plans, and executed them. What must be said about this is that the Cuban intervention was done freely. It wasnt a Soviet idea. The Cubans did this out of their own convictions; to exercise true humanism, and internationalism. Were it not for Cuba Apartheid could have lasted for another decade if not even longer; Nelson Mandela may never have set foot out of prison.

Many people don’t know the tremendous sacrifice Cuba made for Africa.

The Cuban African experience of course like any other project was one of trial and error. The experience of the Congo had mediocre success when Cuba tried to help supporters of the murdered Patrice Lumumba as they challenged the CIA- and Belgian-installed Mobutu. The results were disastrous. Che Guevera who fought with the Congolese was surprised by their lack of experience. Later, when African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral requested assistance from Cuba in order to rid Guinea and Cape Verde of Portuguese fascist rule, the tides changed. Che Guevara and other Cuban guerrillas were seasoned from the Congolese experience. The Cubans could now share valuable knowledge with Amilcar Cabral’s PAIGC fighters.

Cabral being was an agricultural engineer and embrace lessons in production from the Cubans who also brought their expertise in guerilla warfare, reconnaissance, and in the medical field; victory was inevitable.

Mind you, the Portuguese were armed to the teeth, and better equipped thanks to the CIA and NATO. But the joint resolve of Cabral and the PAIGC fighters, combined with loyalist Cubans, proved too much for Portuguese colonialism. More territory was taken and preparations made for the post-colonial rule. Unfortunately, Cabral, the tireless fighter and visionary intellectual never got to see the fruits of his work; he was assassinated before official independence took place.

Cuba’s next involvement in Africa changed the course of history in four countries.

Mighty South Africa was at its military and economic peak and anchored by Apartheid, which milked the labor of Black workers, when Cuban internationalism was in effect. South Africa was sitting solidly atop Namibia and occupying parts of Angola through its proxy UNITA.

Cuba helped Mozambican revolutionary Samora Machels FRELIMO movement punch Portugal to the ground. Angolas fight for independence was in the hands of the MPLA liberation movement. The first hurdle of independence was over in 1975 when the Portuguese withdrew from the country after many defeats on the battlefield and a coup d’etat in Lisbon. In order to prevent a socialist national regime from coming to power in Angola, the United States financed two pro-Western opposition guerrilla groups FNLA under Holden Roberto and UNITA under Jonas Savimbi. Imperialism knows no limits. Henry Kissinger, architect of U.S.-Africa policy collaborated openly with the South African Apartheid regime. With U.S.-support, South Africa invaded Angola with its own regular troops to escalate its regional destabilization campaign.

Facing serious reversals and possible defeat, MPLA leader, the poet and intellectual, Agostinho Neto, made a direct appeal to Cuba for assistance. Operation Carolota was underway. Even though her resources were stretched while supporting other global causes, Cuba responded quickly to Angolas plea for help and soon 36,000 Cuban companeros were deployed.

At the famous Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, in March 1988, the Cubans, fighting alongside Angolan troops and liberation armies SWAPO of then occupied Namibia, and the ANC’s Umkhoto We Sizwe, dealt South African forces and its stooges including UNITA, a decisive victory, forcing them to withdraw in disarray while abandoning tanks and artillery on the field. Cuba may have lost as many as 10,000 troops in Angola; South Africa and its proxies perhaps 15,000 or more.

When the South Africans withdrew, the Cuban/Angolan coalition followed them to Namibia. The fearless approach of the Cubans was a key to ending the South African occupation of Namibia. In an equal way it hastened the end of Apartheid rule in South Africa.

The Apartheid regime realized it could be militarily defeated even with the help from the U.S. with sophisticated weapons. So, by 1990 South Africa had ended its occupation of Namibia which became independent and Mandela was released after 27 years in jail; by 1994 he was the first democratically elected president of South Africa when the country had full universal franchise.

Marveling at the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, Mandela later said “South Africans, are indebted to the Cubans and that Cubans hold a special place in the heart of Africans.

There are many lessons for Africans on the continent and in Diaspora to take from Cuba. The first lesson that comes to mind is resilience and fortitude. That no matter what sanctions, or threats that an outside country makes, we should always stay the course of bettering our nations on our own terms. Even with a tyrannical blockade Cuba still kept its course. It didnt succumb or beg for mercy.

The second lesson is of self-sufficiency. Most of Cubas efforts drew from its own limited resources, wisely and efficiently deployed. In warfare, it used its own weapons; its own battle-tested strategies; and, its own maps. Outside of the liberation front the blockade has hindered the majority of nations from dealing with Cuba. Yet remarkably they are one of the healthiest, most literate, and best-educated societies in the world.

On the athletic side from a grassroots level Cuba has produced more Olympic medalist than any other Latin American country, including many of the larger ones. If African countries had the right infrastructure in place and dedicated resolve we would have world-beaters in every discipline of sport.

The final lesson from Cuba is fearlessness. Cuba, a small island took on some of the biggest superpowers. They were well aware of the risk but still dealt heavy blows to these powers. Africans, especially the peasants, need to realize that these leaders who are manipulated by former colonial powers are people too. The only difference is more quantity of resources at their disposal. Cuba showed however quality is way more important than quantity. I truly believe in order to make the continent a place where we want to live prosper, and progress on we must adapt these methods.

It makes no sense that we risk our lives at sea to go to the very countries that put our continent in the predicament that it is in now. Many Americans and the African petite bourgeoisie class ridicule me for my support and admiration of Cuba and its accomplishments.

Having personally been effected by the Cuban experience in Africa by having a father who was in the trenches with Cubans during our Independence struggle, and having a sister who currently studies medicine in Cuba, I have nothing but admiration for them.

Can you imagine how far ahead Africa would be if all the continent’s abundant natural and mineral resources could be combined with the kind of discipline and organization of Cuba?

Cuba has shown that it can be done. Africans must remember that there were Africans in the past who wanted to use the continent’s resources for its people, including Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lamumba, and Thomas Sankara.

Africans must use the examples that were set before in order to have a chance to realize our continent’s superpower potential. The way has been paved by our brothers in arms and solidarity– Cuba.

Continued here:

Archives: How Cuba Helped Free Mandela and Defeat Apartheid – Black Star News

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Home Africa Proposal to Increase Black Ownership of Mines to Combat Effects of Apartheid Raises Investment… – Atlanta Black Star

South African President Jacob Zuma appeared at the 2009 World Economic Forum. (Wikimedia Commons)

South Africas mines minister may be seeking to increase the share of the countrys required Black ownership in mining assets to 30 percent, up from 26 percent, raising investment fears, according to Bloomberg News.

The news organization, citing two people familiar with the matter, reported May 25 that Mosebenzi Zwane, an ally of President Jacob Zuma, put forth the plan as part of a long-delayed draft mining charter to the economic policy committee of the countrys ruling party, the African National Congress, on May 13. The charter, it reported, was approved May 24 by the presidents cabinet but has not yet been released to the public.

The 30-percent Black ownership could potentially be composed of shares held by Black investors, employees and community groups, sources told Bloomberg.

Officials did not provide comment to news outlets about the matter, it said.

The mandatory Black ownership standard was initially implemented as one way to address the countrys legacy of apartheid, which prevented Black people from participating in key business sectors.

But talk of the move has some worried that such an increase could scare off potential investors. Minerals and metals account for a large part of South Africas exports.

TheChamber of Mines of South Africa reported earlier this year that mining production declined by 5 percent in 2016 compared to 2015, confirming fears. The country has been plagued by falling commodity prices and high unemployment. Zuma is expected to step down as party leader in December and as president in 2019.

The possible new ownership proposal would be a turnabout by the government, which in April 2016 said that it planned to keep Black mine ownership at 26 percent, Bloomberg reported.

Read more from the original source:

Home Africa Proposal to Increase Black Ownership of Mines to Combat Effects of Apartheid Raises Investment… – Atlanta Black Star

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Hamas: Trump ‘encouraging apartheid’ – Arutz Sheva

Hamas on Tuesday accused U.S. President Donald Trump of encouraging apartheid following his remarks at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

“The speech was racist and establishes a new Israeli apartheid regime and encourages hatred towards the Palestinian people,” said the group, according to Yediot Aharonot.

This American policy, which is fully biased in favor of the Zionist entity, will encourage the occupation to commit more crimes and violations against our people and its holy places, added Hamas.

In his speech, Trump called for peace between Israelis and Arabs, saying, We know, for instance, that both Israelis and Palestinians seek lives of hope for their children. And we know that peace is possible if we put aside the pain and disagreements of the past and commit together to finally resolving this crisis which has dragged on for nearly half century.

He also denounced terrorism and said that Israelis are murdered by terrorists wielding knives and bombs. Hamas and Hezbollah launch rockets into Israeli communities where schoolchildren have to be trained to hear the sirens and run to bomb shelters.

The President also pointed out the Jewish ties to Jerusalem, which Hamas denies.

The terrorist group earlier this week expressed anger at Trump, after his speech in Saudi Arabia, in which he said that Hamas and Hezbollah terror organizations were on par with ISIS.

Hamas Vice President Mousa Abu Marzouk said in response the organization is a movement for national freedom from the Israeli “occupation.”

“The U.S. is partnering with the Zionist occupation, and providing them with money and weapons so they will be able to carry out terror attacks against our oppressed nation,” Marzouk tweeted.

“The political blindness is painting as innocent those who destroyed Gaza and placed it under siege, killed and injured thousands of innocent victims, called Hamas a terrorist organization when it protects its nation, and refuses to compromise or to negotiate about the rights of the Palestinian people,” he added.

Continue reading here:

Hamas: Trump ‘encouraging apartheid’ – Arutz Sheva

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

‘Violence against women, children linked to apartheid’ – Independent Online

Cape Town The current wave of abuse, including murder, against women and children has a direct link to the apartheid system which was fundamentally violent, Arts and Culture Minister Nathi Mthethwa said on Tuesday.

“In recent weeks and days, the scourge of women and child abuse has come to the fore. These are some of the social ills that continuously affect our society,” Mthethwa addressed Parliament while presenting his departmental budget vote speech.

“This violence has a long history. Our country was taken by force and it was ruled by force for more than 350 years. Violence is part of the South African DNA and this need to be combated.”

Minister of Arts and Culture Nathi Mthethwa. Picture: Thobile Mathonsi

Earlier, Mthethwa said the South African government is deeply concerned over the incidents of racism which are often witnessed in different parts of the nation. In recent times, racism has continued to come to the fore at times and rear its ugly head.

Legislation is being tightened and progress made so far in terms of the mooted Prevention and the Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, he said. Once accented into law, this Act will criminalise all forms of bigoted crimes and speech.

He said government is currently leading community conversations on the emotive subject, and the country seeks solutions to the scourge of intolerance.

We have had 33 community conversations across all nine provinces in a big to address the scourge of racism and other social ills facing society. Work is continuing apace to conclude these sectoral conversations with the view of crafting and adopting a common compact to unify our people, and strengthen the mental frameworks for complete emancipation, said Mthethwa.

Through our community conversations, we also continue to address racism, language, heritage, patriotism, inequality, unemployment and poverty. The department has presented a report from the 2016 community conversations to various government departments so that they can action some of the recommendations proposed.

He said several community conversations were held to respond to the violent protests in Limpopo that swept through Vhuwani and the surrounding villages in Makhadho and Thulamela municipalities.

These protests saw the burning and vandalism of over 20 million schools. The social cohesion advocates have carried out comprehensive social cohesion community dialogues so far to foster peace, unity and social cohesion in this area, said Mthethwa.

See the original post here:

‘Violence against women, children linked to apartheid’ – Independent Online

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Montclair’s Bnai Keshet To Host Talk About ‘Jewishness’ And Apartheid – Patch.com


Patch.com
Montclair's Bnai Keshet To Host Talk About 'Jewishness' And Apartheid
Patch.com
From Bnai Keshet Reconstructionist Synagogue: Steve Ellmann will speak about South Africa's late Chief Justice, Arthur Chaskalson, and what role his Jewishness may have played in his opposition to apartheid at Bnai Keshet's Kaplan Minyan on Saturday …

Here is the original post:

Montclair’s Bnai Keshet To Host Talk About ‘Jewishness’ And Apartheid – Patch.com

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Educational Apartheid in Pennsylvania must end, activists say – ABC27


ABC27
Educational Apartheid in Pennsylvania must end, activists say
ABC27
Or more accurately, according to study after study, the way schools are funded in the commonwealth in inequitable. We are experiencing here in Pennsylvania educational apartheid, said Reverend Gregory Holston, Executive Director of POWER, …

Follow this link:

Educational Apartheid in Pennsylvania must end, activists say – ABC27

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Has Brian Molefe just told the biggest lie in post-apartheid South Africa? – Rand Daily Mail (registration)

Molefe who was made an ANC MP after he resigned from the power utility in November last year returned to his old job at Megawatt Park in Johannesburg last week amid a dispute in which he believed he was entitled to a payment of more than R30-million after his resignation.

He had initially resigned from Eskom “in the interest of good corporate governance” but now he and Brown say he was actually on unpaid leave.

While Brown and the Eskom board is expected to brief Parliament’s portfolio committee on the reappointment of Molefe on Tuesday the two submitted affidavits in response to the DA’s application on Monday.

The Mail and Guardian reported that Molefe in his affidavit said: “It was explained to me that Eskom wanted me to return because of a concern about stabilising leadership and to address operational issues that it was facing.”

Brown said she was unhappy about Molefe’s pension pay-out reported to be R30-million by the Sunday Times and she had in fact asked the board to make another plan.

The plan was to reinstate him in his former position.

“The correct position is that my original contract of employment did not come to an end” Molefe said in his affidavit.

Originally posted here:

Has Brian Molefe just told the biggest lie in post-apartheid South Africa? – Rand Daily Mail (registration)

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

When Baltimore Battled the Feds Over Apartheid – CityLab

In 1986, the city of Baltimore battled the Reagan administration over its local anti-apartheid ordinancesand won. How they prevailed may have important lessons for cities trying to resist Trump today. A statue of Nelson Mandela stands behind a fence at the South African Embassy in Washington. Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reiterated his threat to withhold federal funding from cities deemed as providing sanctuary for immigrants, this time bending language in the law to make it easier for him to penalize recalcitrant jurisdictions. In his May 22 memo to All Department Grant-Making Components, Sessions wrote: Consistent with the Executive Order [13768], statutory authority, and past practice, the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain Department grants to certify their compliance with federal law, as a condition for receiving an award. Any jurisdiction that fails to certify compliance with section 1373 will be ineligible to receive such awards. And just to show that hes not playing around, Sessions emphasized in the memo that this threat applies to any existing grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Servicesa possible ploy to wedge police departments against their own city governments by conditioning law enforcement grants on city compliance with Trumps immigration demands. Such warning shots sound alarming, but its important to note that weve been here before. Its not the first time that the federal government has threatened to smack cities with both carrot and stick for not complying with its orders. In the 1980s, as international pressure against South Africa ramped up, several U.S. cities passed sanctions on companies that did business with that countrys apartheid regime. And, just as Donald Trump and Sessions are doing today to sanctuary cities, the Reagan administration attempted to punish them. Theres a lot for cities to learn about what happened in the 1980s and how it relates to now, says Madeline Janis, executive director of Jobs to Move America. The Los Angeles-based nonprofit has been researching the topic for a report on how Reagan tried to clamp down on cities that chose not to support South Africas apartheid government. Pretty much every aspect of the Reagan administration came down as hard as possible on cities, but the cities stood up, and really contributed, as Nelson Mandela once said, to the demise of apartheid. Thats a really big lesson for today. Jobs to Move America researchers combed through thousands of pages of documentslegal memos, policy guidances, court briefings, and correspondence between companies and the Reagan administrationto piece together the story of how cities rose up against the federal government in joining the worldwide fight against apartheid in South Africa. According to their research, which they shared exclusively with CityLab, nearly 100 cities and states passed ordinances or laws limiting contact with companies that did business with South Africa. They pulled government accounts from banks that operated in the country, or divested from portfolios that included companies doing business there. More than half of U.S. states participated in this movement, but cities made up the largest cluster of jurisdictions involved. Their sanctions punctuated a groundswell of college students and grassroots activists across the country who turned the divestment movement into a worldwide campaign. The Reagan administration was livid about this, given its cozy financial and political relationship with South Africa. (In certain ways, Reagans policy of constructive engagement with that countrys apartheid government isnt so dissimilar to Trumps controversial relationship with Russia.) Teaming with Justice Department leaders, the Reagan administration sought out ways to thwart city action in the divestment movement. They claimed that the local anti-apartheid ordinances violated federal laws, and hence began threatening to yank these cities federal funding. When the threats didnt work, the feds took the cities to court. What followed was a saga with echoes of the conflicts that cities are currently having with the Trump administration on issues like immigration and climate change. The common themes: local self-determination vs. federal preemption, fairness vs. privilege, inclusivity vs. xenophobia, justice vs. inequity. But the results of this Reagan-era clash between city and federal powers were mixed. The battle escalated in 1986, when the Reagan administration got involved with a lawsuit against Baltimore filed by city trustees over the anti-apartheid ordinance. The trustees, along with DOJ lawyers, argued that the ordinance violated commerce clause laws. Indeed, this ordinance was no trivial pursuit. It dealt specifically with the citys pension funds, which were to be divested from any portfolio that included companies with South African business ties. Anyone who understands the role of pensions in city financing knows that these are expenditures that can effectively break budgets and bankrupt cities. This is the money cities use to pay for the retirements of police, firefighters, teachers, and government administration officialsnothing to play with. But Baltimores leadersspecifically, then-City Councilman Kweisi Mfume, who pushed the citys divestment effortwere courageous enough to place the pension funds squarely in a political battle with the White House over ending apartheid. If you read through all the briefs, it is clear at all levels of this case that the mayor and the city council of Baltimore articulated their moral outrage at South Africa as an extension of their ongoing feelings about the history of racism in the South and in the U.S. in general, says Janis. Baltimore ultimately won its case to preserve its South Africa divestment ordinance when the U.S. Supreme Court deferred to the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling, which read: The Trustees and Intervenors argue that by requiring the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of investment portfolios, with the intended effect of forcing corporations to withdraw from business operations in and with South Africa, the Ordinances substantially burden interstate commerce. While we do not dispute that the Ordinances impose some burden on interstate commerce, in our opinion that burden is not excessive in relation to the benefits. The Ordinances embody the City’s moral condemnation of racial discrimination. The use of pension funds arguably to support racial discrimination in South Africa is an issue of deep concern, not only to the pension systems’ members and beneficiaries but also to all citizens of Baltimore who are sensitive to slavery’s persistent legacy. In our judgment, the Ordinances’ burden on the interstate sale of securities does not outweigh these unique and profound local concerns. This was a landmark victory that sent the message to cities across the U.S. that the federal government couldnt just bully them into complying with policies that clash with their values. This win was not a sweep, though. The Reagan administration also waged war against New York City for a 1984 ordinance that allowed the city to withhold contracts from companies that did business with South Africa. The Justice Department demanded that New York City change or withdraw this ordinance or else forfeit its Department of Transportation funding. Unlike Baltimore, New York City, then under Mayor Ed Koch, wasnt willing to go to court to preserve its anti-apartheid sanctions. The city caved and changed its law. To block New Yorks ordinance, the Justice Department leaned on a bidding competition rule under the Federal Aid Highways Act that says all government contracts must abide by full and open competition and must not create an undue burden on the companies bidding for them. The Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted that statute as saying that cities cant limit the number of companies bidding for a piece of a federally funded project. Further, if the Department of Transportation gives a city a grantto fix roads, for examplethe city would have to farm out work under that grant to the lowest bidder, regardless of a bidding companys stances on apartheid or any other human rights or labor issues. If that rule is violated, the DOT can pull the grant. Its disputable whether OLCs interpretation of this statute is what Congress intended, though, when it passed the federal highways legislation in 1956. Language in that act also made clear that jurisdictions should avoid corruption in administering federal funds, according to Jobs to Move Americas researchers. Also, there were amendments added in 1968a year when Congress was aggressively working to strengthen civil rights protectionsstating: Contracts for the construction of each project shall be awarded only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting established criteria of responsibility. No requirement or obligation shall be imposed as a condition precedent to the award of a contract to such bidder for a project, or to the Secretarys concurrence in the award of a contract to such bidder, unless such requirement or obligation is otherwise lawful and is specifically set forth in the advertised specifications. The Jobs to Move America researchers interpreted that as meaning that cities can include other criteria, so long as they are transparently advertised. Still, Reagans more free-market-friendly interpretation of the competition rule has prevailed ever since, effectively preventing cities from adding innovative criteria to procurement policies to fight injustice. Thats why its so difficult for cities to add local-hire provisions, consider certain climate change ramifications, or ensure LGBTQ protections when contracting out federally funded projects. For example, when Cleveland tried to enforce an ordinance prioritizing jobs to local residents for a U.S. DOT-funded project in 2003, the Federal Highway Administration pulled the funds, saying this hindered competition.A federal court upheld the agencys discretion to do so when the city sued to get the funds back. Cleveland is still fighting in court today to have that local-hire ordinance enforced. In 2005, when New Jersey added language to bidding criteria that would stamp out corrupt pay-to-play practices, the FHWA again pulled the hindering competition card and blocked funding. That same year, when Los Angeles simply wanted bidding companies to disclose any information that it had historical ties to slavery, the federal government, again, thwarted enforcement by threatening to withhold funding. Such past federal actions could complicate matters for cities today that want to open their municipal borders to immigrants regardless of orders from the Trump/Sessions regime. Its not an entirely apples-to-apples comparison to the anti-apartheid ordinance conflict of the 1980sthe sanctuary city issue is not about procurement or divestment. But the way the Reagan administration was willing to bend interpretations of law to force cities to do its bidding serves as a nasty precedent for what Sessions is trying to get away with today. While city actions and grassroots activism were powerful in obtaining short-term victories, the Reagan administration was able to impact how federal funding worked over the long term, says Abhilasha Bhola, lead researcher for Jobs to Move America. We cant forget that even if were fighting back, they are still laying the groundwork for longer-term impacts. However, Baltimores successful fight against the Reagan administration serves as a reminder that cities can find legal pathways to push backand winwhen federal policy conflicts with community values. Sanctuary cities that are weighing their legal options now might be able to learn from that experience. So might cities that are poised to clash with the Trump administration over other issues. Its about more than sanctuary cities, says Janis. Its also cities considering laws to potentially require disclosure from companies that are bidding on [Trumps proposed] border wall, and other problems that are likely to come up. Regardless of what the technical legal issues are, the lesson learned here is to get in the weeds and dont assume that just because there is a threat that there is an actual strong law backing them up. Jobs to Move America plans to release its full research on the fight for local anti-apartheid ordinances to the public in June.

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Book Extract: Buying the US presidency the apartheid connection – Daily Maverick

The political agenda of President Donald Trump leans towards anti-science, and favours greater reliance on American police at home and on its military abroad. Above all, it is a throwback to a type of nationalism that never ends well. South Africa under Afrikaner nationalist rule is a prescient reminder that misplaced patriotism is the oxygen of prejudice. A powerful link to US-South African relations of the 1980s is provided by Trumps adviser for the past 30 years, Roger Stone, and Trumps campaign manager during his 2016 presidential campaign, Paul Manafort. Just as Trump was sworn in at the White House in January 2017, the media revealed that the FBI, CIA and other law enforcement agencies were investigating both men for their alleged ties to the Russian government during the US election race. Neither is a stranger to controversy, having been guns for hire by dubious corporations, conservative politicians and foreign governments. Its an agenda that favours powerful corporations, a big military and reduced social spending. Lobbyists such as Manafort and Stone play two roles. They lead non-fact-based attacks on figures such as Hillary Clinton whom they demonise through any media available. At the same time, these trusted old boys work the backroom to raise cash for and from their favourite causes. This has undeniably made these men wealthy and influential in shaping the new right-wing populist politics in the United States. Roger Stones reputation precedes him. Journalist Jacob Weisberg described Stone in 1985 as the state-of-the-art Washington sleazeball. Sporting what the New Yorker describes as prohibition-era mobster outfits, Stone identifies as a libertarian. Between his shoulder blades nestles a tattoo of scandal-ridden Richard Nixons face, complete with a broad smile. During the 1980s Stone and Manafort were partners in the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly. They kept a client base that included two of the most infamous kleptocrats of the 20th century, Ferdinand Marcos, the president of the Philippines, and Mobutu Sese Seko, the president of Zaire. Both regimes also enjoyed the support of the Reagan and Bush administrations. Stone is reported to have remarked about these relationships, If you look at all of our clients, they were all pro-Western, they were all pro-United States. They all had good relationships with Ronald Reagan and his administration. Another well-paying client of the lobby firm was the Unita rebel group of Jonas Savimbi. Unita paid Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly $600,000 in 1987 to represent the group in Washington DC. However, as Ron Nixon contends, It is likely that the money actually came from Pretoria. This was money well spent and in return the firm set up an audience with Reagan for Savimbi in 1988 and again in 1989. According to Nixon, the firm lobbied US Congress members hard, setting up 500 meetings. They reportedly contributed to a decision by Reagan to turn on the taps of covert funding for Savimbi that had been shut by the Clark Amendment of the late 1970s. Jardo Muekalia, a former Unita fighter who now lives in the United States, told The Guardian in 2016 that the rebel fighters profited handsomely from their payment to the firm of lobbyists: We ended up getting up $40-million over a period over four years, so it was a pretty good return on that investment. An indirect and little understood link between Stone and the apartheid regime lies in one of the last big plays by Pretoria to influence US politics. In 1988 PW Bothas government had hoped to buy itself a US president in Jack Kemp, the former professional gridiron footballer and congressman. Kemp would eventually lose the nomination, which went in favour of George Bush. Bush nevertheless appointed Kemp to his cabinet a year later as the secretary of housing and urban development. Kemp was later on Bob Doles ticket as vice-president as part of Doles unsuccessful bid for the White House in 1996. Stone was Kemps senior adviser during his 1987-8 campaign and, since at least 1985, had been his principal political adviser, according to Kemps press secretary at the time. At one point in the 1980s, Kemp was Stones biggest client and his fortunes were said to be closely linked to those of Kemp. At that time, Kemp received covert funding from the apartheid regime. In 1996 the Mail & Guardian reported that the apartheid front organisation the International Freedom Foundation (IFF) had planned to buy Kemp a jet worth $450,000 using Military Intelligence funds in 1987. One of the backers of this scheme was the IFF South African operative Russel Crystal. Former apartheid spy Craig Williamson confirmed that in 1986 the South African intelligence agents who ran the IFF from Johannesburg had expected automatic membership in Kemps kitchen cabinet and hoped to name an assistant secretary of state for Africa in a future Kemp administration as a reward for providing the Republican senators campaign committee with a jet. After a WhatsApp inquiry to Williamson in January 2017, he told me that there was talk of whether purchasing or leasing an aircraft was most effective. My objection to a purchase or lease was due to my doubt that the costs could be effectively hidden. This much has been known for some time. At the time Kemp, who is now deceased, denied having received any advantage from the IFF. When asked for comment by the journalist Dele Olojede from Newsday he said, Ive made a lot of mistakes in my life, but thats not one of them, tying myself to South African intelligence. Williamson now says that Kemps campaign was indeed assisted by South African Military Intelligence through the IFF: Chartering on a when-required basis seemed a better way to go. I believe that some costs were covered. This is an extraordinary admission and suggests that Kemps campaign did receive undeclared illicit funding from South Africa. When I asked Williamson if he knew of Stone or Manafort, he indicated that he knew of neither nor had any links with them. However, this raises the question: is it possible that Roger Stone, President Trumps trusted adviser, knew about support from apartheid South Africa for Jack Kemp? Given his closeness to both Kemp and to Pretoria through the work he was being paid to do for its ally Unita, it would be surprising if he didnt. Stone and Manafort arguably represent continuity between the deep state networks that seek to subvert the US democratic process. They also represent the continuity of the political culture from Reagan to Trump. These are men who favour the interests of the rich and the type of clandestine conservative politics that threatens to engulf a democratic system in a swamp of insider dealing. It is often men who are most eager to swear allegiance to a flag who are easy picking as potential guns for hire by foreign, anti-democratic powers. DM Photo: (Left) Conservative lobbyist and consultant Roger Stone speaks with the press in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, NY, USA, 06 December 2016. EPA/ALBIN LOHR-JONES. (Centre) A file picture dated 29 January 2008 of former US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Jack Kemp on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, USA. EPA/MATTHEW CAVANAUGH (Right) A file photo dated 03 May 2016 showing Paul Manafort (C), campaign advisor for US presidential candidate Donald Trump in New York, during 2016 campaign. EPA/JUSTIN LANE

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Archives: How Cuba Helped Free Mandela and Defeat Apartheid – Black Star News

[Reflections: Pan-Latino Solidarity] At the Non Aligned Movement Summit in Havana, 1979, Castro greets Guinea’s President Ahmed Sekou Toure, Angola’s Neto and Guinea-Bissau’s Luis Cabral. Photo NAM Database. Flickr This is the second-part of my commentary on Cuba And Africa: Brothers in arms, and Solidarity; part one was published on April 29. The word Apartheid leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many Africans. Fascism is another word that will spoil our appetite. During our fight for independence these where the challenges we confronted. These thorns which took much toil, and pain to pick out of our sides came from; the racist Portuguese, and the White South African minority that imposed the segregated regime. As one may logically think a country that champions itself on rights, liberty, and freedom would be the most logical ally in our skirmishes. It is an unfortunate fact that the United States, which fashioned itself the champion of democracy, actually helped the oppressive forces to keep these systems in place. Cuba However had different plans, and executed them. What must be said about this is that the Cuban intervention was done freely. It wasnt a Soviet idea. The Cubans did this out of their own convictions; to exercise true humanism, and internationalism. Were it not for Cuba Apartheid could have lasted for another decade if not even longer; Nelson Mandela may never have set foot out of prison. Many people don’t know the tremendous sacrifice Cuba made for Africa. The Cuban African experience of course like any other project was one of trial and error. The experience of the Congo had mediocre success when Cuba tried to help supporters of the murdered Patrice Lumumba as they challenged the CIA- and Belgian-installed Mobutu. The results were disastrous. Che Guevera who fought with the Congolese was surprised by their lack of experience. Later, when African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral requested assistance from Cuba in order to rid Guinea and Cape Verde of Portuguese fascist rule, the tides changed. Che Guevara and other Cuban guerrillas were seasoned from the Congolese experience. The Cubans could now share valuable knowledge with Amilcar Cabral’s PAIGC fighters. Cabral being was an agricultural engineer and embrace lessons in production from the Cubans who also brought their expertise in guerilla warfare, reconnaissance, and in the medical field; victory was inevitable. Mind you, the Portuguese were armed to the teeth, and better equipped thanks to the CIA and NATO. But the joint resolve of Cabral and the PAIGC fighters, combined with loyalist Cubans, proved too much for Portuguese colonialism. More territory was taken and preparations made for the post-colonial rule. Unfortunately, Cabral, the tireless fighter and visionary intellectual never got to see the fruits of his work; he was assassinated before official independence took place. Cuba’s next involvement in Africa changed the course of history in four countries. Mighty South Africa was at its military and economic peak and anchored by Apartheid, which milked the labor of Black workers, when Cuban internationalism was in effect. South Africa was sitting solidly atop Namibia and occupying parts of Angola through its proxy UNITA. Cuba helped Mozambican revolutionary Samora Machels FRELIMO movement punch Portugal to the ground. Angolas fight for independence was in the hands of the MPLA liberation movement. The first hurdle of independence was over in 1975 when the Portuguese withdrew from the country after many defeats on the battlefield and a coup d’etat in Lisbon. In order to prevent a socialist national regime from coming to power in Angola, the United States financed two pro-Western opposition guerrilla groups FNLA under Holden Roberto and UNITA under Jonas Savimbi. Imperialism knows no limits. Henry Kissinger, architect of U.S.-Africa policy collaborated openly with the South African Apartheid regime. With U.S.-support, South Africa invaded Angola with its own regular troops to escalate its regional destabilization campaign. Facing serious reversals and possible defeat, MPLA leader, the poet and intellectual, Agostinho Neto, made a direct appeal to Cuba for assistance. Operation Carolota was underway. Even though her resources were stretched while supporting other global causes, Cuba responded quickly to Angolas plea for help and soon 36,000 Cuban companeros were deployed. At the famous Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, in March 1988, the Cubans, fighting alongside Angolan troops and liberation armies SWAPO of then occupied Namibia, and the ANC’s Umkhoto We Sizwe, dealt South African forces and its stooges including UNITA, a decisive victory, forcing them to withdraw in disarray while abandoning tanks and artillery on the field. Cuba may have lost as many as 10,000 troops in Angola; South Africa and its proxies perhaps 15,000 or more. When the South Africans withdrew, the Cuban/Angolan coalition followed them to Namibia. The fearless approach of the Cubans was a key to ending the South African occupation of Namibia. In an equal way it hastened the end of Apartheid rule in South Africa. The Apartheid regime realized it could be militarily defeated even with the help from the U.S. with sophisticated weapons. So, by 1990 South Africa had ended its occupation of Namibia which became independent and Mandela was released after 27 years in jail; by 1994 he was the first democratically elected president of South Africa when the country had full universal franchise. Marveling at the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, Mandela later said “South Africans, are indebted to the Cubans and that Cubans hold a special place in the heart of Africans. There are many lessons for Africans on the continent and in Diaspora to take from Cuba. The first lesson that comes to mind is resilience and fortitude. That no matter what sanctions, or threats that an outside country makes, we should always stay the course of bettering our nations on our own terms. Even with a tyrannical blockade Cuba still kept its course. It didnt succumb or beg for mercy. The second lesson is of self-sufficiency. Most of Cubas efforts drew from its own limited resources, wisely and efficiently deployed. In warfare, it used its own weapons; its own battle-tested strategies; and, its own maps. Outside of the liberation front the blockade has hindered the majority of nations from dealing with Cuba. Yet remarkably they are one of the healthiest, most literate, and best-educated societies in the world. On the athletic side from a grassroots level Cuba has produced more Olympic medalist than any other Latin American country, including many of the larger ones. If African countries had the right infrastructure in place and dedicated resolve we would have world-beaters in every discipline of sport. The final lesson from Cuba is fearlessness. Cuba, a small island took on some of the biggest superpowers. They were well aware of the risk but still dealt heavy blows to these powers. Africans, especially the peasants, need to realize that these leaders who are manipulated by former colonial powers are people too. The only difference is more quantity of resources at their disposal. Cuba showed however quality is way more important than quantity. I truly believe in order to make the continent a place where we want to live prosper, and progress on we must adapt these methods. It makes no sense that we risk our lives at sea to go to the very countries that put our continent in the predicament that it is in now. Many Americans and the African petite bourgeoisie class ridicule me for my support and admiration of Cuba and its accomplishments. Having personally been effected by the Cuban experience in Africa by having a father who was in the trenches with Cubans during our Independence struggle, and having a sister who currently studies medicine in Cuba, I have nothing but admiration for them. Can you imagine how far ahead Africa would be if all the continent’s abundant natural and mineral resources could be combined with the kind of discipline and organization of Cuba? Cuba has shown that it can be done. Africans must remember that there were Africans in the past who wanted to use the continent’s resources for its people, including Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lamumba, and Thomas Sankara. Africans must use the examples that were set before in order to have a chance to realize our continent’s superpower potential. The way has been paved by our brothers in arms and solidarity– Cuba.

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Home Africa Proposal to Increase Black Ownership of Mines to Combat Effects of Apartheid Raises Investment… – Atlanta Black Star

South African President Jacob Zuma appeared at the 2009 World Economic Forum. (Wikimedia Commons) South Africas mines minister may be seeking to increase the share of the countrys required Black ownership in mining assets to 30 percent, up from 26 percent, raising investment fears, according to Bloomberg News. The news organization, citing two people familiar with the matter, reported May 25 that Mosebenzi Zwane, an ally of President Jacob Zuma, put forth the plan as part of a long-delayed draft mining charter to the economic policy committee of the countrys ruling party, the African National Congress, on May 13. The charter, it reported, was approved May 24 by the presidents cabinet but has not yet been released to the public. The 30-percent Black ownership could potentially be composed of shares held by Black investors, employees and community groups, sources told Bloomberg. Officials did not provide comment to news outlets about the matter, it said. The mandatory Black ownership standard was initially implemented as one way to address the countrys legacy of apartheid, which prevented Black people from participating in key business sectors. But talk of the move has some worried that such an increase could scare off potential investors. Minerals and metals account for a large part of South Africas exports. TheChamber of Mines of South Africa reported earlier this year that mining production declined by 5 percent in 2016 compared to 2015, confirming fears. The country has been plagued by falling commodity prices and high unemployment. Zuma is expected to step down as party leader in December and as president in 2019. The possible new ownership proposal would be a turnabout by the government, which in April 2016 said that it planned to keep Black mine ownership at 26 percent, Bloomberg reported.

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Hamas: Trump ‘encouraging apartheid’ – Arutz Sheva

Hamas on Tuesday accused U.S. President Donald Trump of encouraging apartheid following his remarks at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. “The speech was racist and establishes a new Israeli apartheid regime and encourages hatred towards the Palestinian people,” said the group, according to Yediot Aharonot. This American policy, which is fully biased in favor of the Zionist entity, will encourage the occupation to commit more crimes and violations against our people and its holy places, added Hamas. In his speech, Trump called for peace between Israelis and Arabs, saying, We know, for instance, that both Israelis and Palestinians seek lives of hope for their children. And we know that peace is possible if we put aside the pain and disagreements of the past and commit together to finally resolving this crisis which has dragged on for nearly half century. He also denounced terrorism and said that Israelis are murdered by terrorists wielding knives and bombs. Hamas and Hezbollah launch rockets into Israeli communities where schoolchildren have to be trained to hear the sirens and run to bomb shelters. The President also pointed out the Jewish ties to Jerusalem, which Hamas denies. The terrorist group earlier this week expressed anger at Trump, after his speech in Saudi Arabia, in which he said that Hamas and Hezbollah terror organizations were on par with ISIS. Hamas Vice President Mousa Abu Marzouk said in response the organization is a movement for national freedom from the Israeli “occupation.” “The U.S. is partnering with the Zionist occupation, and providing them with money and weapons so they will be able to carry out terror attacks against our oppressed nation,” Marzouk tweeted. “The political blindness is painting as innocent those who destroyed Gaza and placed it under siege, killed and injured thousands of innocent victims, called Hamas a terrorist organization when it protects its nation, and refuses to compromise or to negotiate about the rights of the Palestinian people,” he added.

Fair Usage Law

May 25, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

‘Violence against women, children linked to apartheid’ – Independent Online

Cape Town The current wave of abuse, including murder, against women and children has a direct link to the apartheid system which was fundamentally violent, Arts and Culture Minister Nathi Mthethwa said on Tuesday. “In recent weeks and days, the scourge of women and child abuse has come to the fore. These are some of the social ills that continuously affect our society,” Mthethwa addressed Parliament while presenting his departmental budget vote speech. “This violence has a long history. Our country was taken by force and it was ruled by force for more than 350 years. Violence is part of the South African DNA and this need to be combated.” Minister of Arts and Culture Nathi Mthethwa. Picture: Thobile Mathonsi Earlier, Mthethwa said the South African government is deeply concerned over the incidents of racism which are often witnessed in different parts of the nation. In recent times, racism has continued to come to the fore at times and rear its ugly head. Legislation is being tightened and progress made so far in terms of the mooted Prevention and the Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill, he said. Once accented into law, this Act will criminalise all forms of bigoted crimes and speech. He said government is currently leading community conversations on the emotive subject, and the country seeks solutions to the scourge of intolerance. We have had 33 community conversations across all nine provinces in a big to address the scourge of racism and other social ills facing society. Work is continuing apace to conclude these sectoral conversations with the view of crafting and adopting a common compact to unify our people, and strengthen the mental frameworks for complete emancipation, said Mthethwa. Through our community conversations, we also continue to address racism, language, heritage, patriotism, inequality, unemployment and poverty. The department has presented a report from the 2016 community conversations to various government departments so that they can action some of the recommendations proposed. He said several community conversations were held to respond to the violent protests in Limpopo that swept through Vhuwani and the surrounding villages in Makhadho and Thulamela municipalities. These protests saw the burning and vandalism of over 20 million schools. The social cohesion advocates have carried out comprehensive social cohesion community dialogues so far to foster peace, unity and social cohesion in this area, said Mthethwa.

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Montclair’s Bnai Keshet To Host Talk About ‘Jewishness’ And Apartheid – Patch.com

Patch.com Montclair's Bnai Keshet To Host Talk About 'Jewishness' And Apartheid Patch.com From Bnai Keshet Reconstructionist Synagogue: Steve Ellmann will speak about South Africa's late Chief Justice, Arthur Chaskalson, and what role his Jewishness may have played in his opposition to apartheid at Bnai Keshet's Kaplan Minyan on Saturday …

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Educational Apartheid in Pennsylvania must end, activists say – ABC27

ABC27 Educational Apartheid in Pennsylvania must end, activists say ABC27 Or more accurately, according to study after study, the way schools are funded in the commonwealth in inequitable. We are experiencing here in Pennsylvania educational apartheid , said Reverend Gregory Holston, Executive Director of POWER, …

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Has Brian Molefe just told the biggest lie in post-apartheid South Africa? – Rand Daily Mail (registration)

Molefe who was made an ANC MP after he resigned from the power utility in November last year returned to his old job at Megawatt Park in Johannesburg last week amid a dispute in which he believed he was entitled to a payment of more than R30-million after his resignation. He had initially resigned from Eskom “in the interest of good corporate governance” but now he and Brown say he was actually on unpaid leave. While Brown and the Eskom board is expected to brief Parliament’s portfolio committee on the reappointment of Molefe on Tuesday the two submitted affidavits in response to the DA’s application on Monday. The Mail and Guardian reported that Molefe in his affidavit said: “It was explained to me that Eskom wanted me to return because of a concern about stabilising leadership and to address operational issues that it was facing.” Brown said she was unhappy about Molefe’s pension pay-out reported to be R30-million by the Sunday Times and she had in fact asked the board to make another plan. The plan was to reinstate him in his former position. “The correct position is that my original contract of employment did not come to an end” Molefe said in his affidavit.

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."