The iPINIONS Journal: Commentaries on the Global Events of Our Times—Volume VII

By Anthony Livingston Hall

Commentaries on the Global Events of Our Times
Volume VII

In the year 2011, the world witnessed many historical events. Whether these events were joyful, catastrophic, or simply annoying, seasoned political observer Anthony Hall once again shares insightful commentary designed to spark lively discussions and challenge personal opinions.

In his seventh collection of thought-provoking essays, Hall shares an outsider’s glimpse into global events—from the sublime to the ridiculous—that include the Obama presidency, the marriage and divorce of Kim Kardashian, the Arab Spring, the Penn State child-sex scandal, the royal wedding of William and Kate, and the killing of Osama bin Laden. From the historic earthquake and tsunami in Japan to the career implosion of Charlie Sheen, Hall encourages others to reinforce, refute, or reverse their thoughts as he provides fodder for enlightenment. Quotes from various sources including world leaders and international publications are intertwined with Hall’s entertaining opinions.

The iPINIONS Journal offers an accessible resource for news junkies everywhere who are ready, willing, and able to open their minds to new perspectives about today’s world and our future.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Apr 19, 2012
• ISBN: 9781469782126

Anthony Livingston Hall

Anthony L. Hall is a Washington-based lawyer who is licensed to practice in a number of foreign jurisdictions. He hails from The Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands and was educated at some of America’s best schools, including Williams College. Hall is also a syndicated columnist and the author of The iPINIONS Journal, a weblog of enlightening and entertaining commentaries that provide a refreshing take on current events. He lives in Arlington, Virginia. http://ipjn.com

Book preview

Contents

AFRICA / MIDDLE EAST

South Africa

Afghanistan and Iraq

Israel and Palestine

Saudi Arabia and Iran

The Arab Spring

AMERICAS / CARIBBEAN

Haiti, Haiti, Haiti

ASIA

China, China, China

EUROPE

Britain’s Royal Wedding

Britain’s Phone-Hacking Scandal

UNITED STATES

Obama Nation

Budget Deficit and Debt Ceiling

Trump the Clown

Republican Nomination Circus

Casey Anthony Murder Case

THE GLOBALSPHERE

The Killing of Osama bin Laden

Arrest of IMF Head DSK

NATURAL DISASTERS

SPORTS

Miami Heat & Pursuit of NBA Championship

Child-Sex Scandal at Penn and Syracuse

ENTERTAINMENT

POTPOURRI

DEATHS OF FAMOUS PEOPLE

For Wilfred S. Coakley Jr.

Pupil master, mentor, friend…

Introduction

Making up Quotes?

Are you sure you didn’t create that quote after the fact just to make yourself look good?

It would be an understatement to say that I became indignant when someone posed this question to me during a chat with colleagues yesterday. Like everyone else, we were gabbing about the release of Amanda Knox. And, trust me, it was clear that he asked it more in disdain than in jest. I ignored him, and neither he nor anyone else dared to repeat the question.

But it occurred to me later that he might’ve been giving voice to a suspicion others share. The irony, of course, is that the reason I use quotes from previous commentaries is to distinguish myself from all of the other pundits and commentators who will say anything just to make themselves look good. What is particularly galling is that they have no qualms about saying something today that completely contradicts what they said just days ago. And they get away with it because most people these days have the intellectual memory of scatterbrained gnats.

Anyway, I find it stupefying that anyone would think that I would wait for the Italian court’s decision on Monday, then write something about it, then insert what I had just written into a commentary I wrote two years ago on Amanda’s conviction, and then insert that as the opening quote for Tuesday’s commentary Justice (at last) for Amanda Knox. Got that?!

I’m sure regular readers know this is demonstrable bullshit. But since I had an easy and unassailable way of disabusing my colleague of his suspicion, I decided to do so.

Accordingly, today I brought in a hard copy of Volume V of my commentaries—with its July 2010 publication date—and directed him to the chapter and page where the quote in question is memorialized in black and white. I accepted his apology by autographing that copy and instructing him to take it to show the other parties to our chat why I ignored his question with such righteous indignation.

Ever since I began publishing my commentaries in February 2005, a surprising (and irritating) number of people have either questioned whether I actually write them or accused me of making up quotes to make myself look good.

But I’ve been moved on only a few occasions to respond—as I did in the October 6, 2011, commentary above and with this quote from the 2008 introduction to Volume III of my commentaries:

As with previous volumes, I hope this one serves as a reliable and accessible resource to help you recall and discuss all of the major events of our time.

Of course, my motive is not entirely altruistic. After all, I derive tremendous pleasure whenever I’m obliged to back up my ‘20/20 hindsight’ on issues of the day with commentaries I wrote in real time. This was the case, for example, when a prominent Barack Obama supporter accused me recently of being just another ‘Johnny-come-lately jumping on the Obama bandwagon.’ Because I made him eat his words by referring him to the October 24, 2006 entry in Volume II of commentaries, ‘It’s TIME: Run Obama Run,’ which confirmed that I got on board at least six months before he did.

That said, with few notable exceptions, all of the events I write about in this volume took place in 2011. I hope part of the pleasure you derive from reading this book will be in recalling those events (or reading about them for the first time) and determining whether my commentaries—on everything from the Obama presidency to the Arab Spring, from the royal wedding of William and Kate to the killing of Osama bin Laden, and from the historic earthquake in Japan to the career implosion of Charlie Sheen—reinforce, rebut, or reverse your thoughts.

But reader beware, if you are like far too many people who are only interested in reading what reinforces their own opinions, this book is not for you. However, if you don’t mind having your opinions challenged, you will enjoy it.

I am often told that my commentaries incite jeers as often as they excite cheers. I could never hope for a better or more encouraging review.

ALH

January 16, 2012

AFRICA / MIDDLE EAST

ipjnchlogo.jpg

Where students do more in a few months

(During the Arab Spring)

Than Western governments did in fifty years

To advance the cause of democracy

South Sudan Secedes

The upcoming referendum is a choice between being a second-class citizen in your own country, or a free person in your independent state.

(BBC, January 5, 2011)

This was the rather loaded way Salva Kiir, the presumptive president of Africa’s newest state, framed the choice that the predominantly Christian-animists of South Sudan faced in last month’s referendum on secession from their Muslim compatriots in the North. 

Kiir is a very charismatic former rebel leader who fancies himself more John Wayne than Nelson Mandela—complete with his decidedly un-African penchant for wearing cowboy hats. And, evidently, he had little to worry about. For according to the final results of this referendum, which were published on Monday, 98.83 percent of his fellow Southerners voted to become free persons in their own independent state.  This effectively ratifies the 2005 peace treaty that ended Africa’s longest civil war (of 22 years), during which two million Sudanese were killed and four million displaced.

Indeed, one cannot help but be encouraged by the grace with which their erstwhile oppressors in the North are accepting the South’s decision to secede.  For here is the official reaction Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir offered in an address to the nation on state TV:

Today we received these results and we accept and welcome these results because they represent the will of the southern people.

(Tehran Times, February 9, 2011)

In fact, the results are being welcomed worldwide. President Obama heralded the outcome by announcing that the United States intends to recognize South Sudan as a sovereign nation in July, noting that:

After decades of conflict, the images of millions of Southern Sudanese voters deciding their own future was an inspiration to the world and another step forward in Africa’s long journey toward justice and democracy.

(whitehouse.gov, February 9, 2011)

What looms, however, may turn South Sudan’s Independence Day, which they will mark on July 9, into a pyrrhic celebration. Because, even though both sides are expressing words of mutual recognition and respect, lingering enmity and mistrust are bound to rear their ugly heads over the next five months as they negotiate national borders and terms for sharing Sudan’s all-important oil revenues.

Not to mention that, just as Tunisians inspired Egyptians to launch their own revolution (giving rise to the Arab Spring), these southerners might inspire Darfurians in the west to seek independence too. What’s more, this budding African Spring might lead to sectarian and religious conflicts all over the Continent, which could result in redrawing borders to status quo ante the Berlin Conference of 1884-5 when European powers carved Africa into colonies.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir became the first sitting head of state to have a warrant issued for his arrest.  The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued it pursuant to an indictment against him for war crimes and crimes against humanity, all stemming from the atrocities Arab Muslims perpetrated against Black Africans over the past six years in the Darfur region of Sudan.

(Arresting Bashir? The iPINIONS Journal, March 5, 2009)

But any further reference to Darfur and other looming conflicts might risk raining on South Sudan’s parade.  Therefore, I shall suffice to join the chorus of those heralding this formation of an African state—not by European colonial powers, but by Africans themselves. (In this respect, they are following the path pioneered by Eritreans in 1993 when 99.83 percent of them voted to secede from Ethiopia and founded the independent state of Eritrea.)

I just hope and pray these Southerners—who are comprised of all kinds of Black tribes—can avoid the tribal conflicts that continue to beset so many other countries in Africa.

February 9

UPDATE

Fighting in South Sudan

Well, that didn’t take long. Just days after celebrating their historic secession from their Northern oppressors, 105 Southerners were reportedly killed today when fighting broke out between the regional army of South Sudan and rebel forces.

What can I say: plus ça change, plus c’est pareil.

February 11

Independence Day

Despite ongoing skirmishes, South Sudan celebrated its Independence Day today with no less a person than Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, from whose dictatorial rule these Southerners seceded, attending as guest of honor.

Therefore, I welcome South Sudan into the global family of nations, and I wish it well.

July 9

Noose Tightens on Gbagbo in Ivory Coast

This does not bode well; not least because Gbagbo now has an even firmer grip on the military and police forces than his dubious mentor, Kibaki, had on similar forces in Kenya. Moreover, if it persists, he seems quite prepared to order them to squash this unrest by any means necessary.

(Africa’s Democratic Despots Now Includes Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, The iPINIONS Journal, December 15, 2010)

This was the ominous note I sounded four months ago when it became clear that it would take military force to get rid of Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo. Regrettably, I was right.

Recall that Gbagbo was just the latest African leader who refused to cede power after losing a free and fair presidential election in November to challenger Alassane Ouattara. More to the point, despite ultimatums from the UN, EU, AU, and former colonial power France for him to step down or face military action, Gbagbo did exactly as I predicted: he unleashed still loyal military forces to defend his illegitimate regime. A full-scale civil war is now underway—with UN and French forces aiding those loyal to Ouattara. Reports are that over 500 have been killed and one million displaced.

Meanwhile, Gbagbo is proving every bit as uncanny as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in his ability to survive against overwhelming odds. Moreover, his forces are proving equal to Gaddafi’s in fending off a formidable coalition of opposition and international forces. To be fair, though, Ouattara claims that his forces now control most of the country and are surrounding the presidential palace where Gbagbo and his family are reportedly hunkered down in an underground bunker.

Whatever the case, I think it’s only a matter of time before Gbagbo’s forces tire of defending him and the bombs begin landing too close for comfort. Besides, he must know that French forces are far more willing to assassinate him than U.S. forces are to assassinate Gaddafi.

Reporters saw the helicopters take off from the French military base followed minutes later by explosions coming from the direction of [Gbagbo’s] residence. Successive waves of French helicopters took off from the base in the following hours and additional bombardments could be heard.

(London Guardian, April 11, 2011)

Frankly, Gbagbo only has two options: he can surrender and be hauled directly to The Hague to face charges for crimes against humanity; or he can try to escape to a friendly country like Angola. If he chooses the latter, however, he would do well to remember that fellow despot Charles Taylor of Liberia still ended up in The Hague after escaping to what he thought was the friendly country of Nigeria.

April 11

UPDATE

Gbagbo surrenders

When I surmised that it was only a matter of time before Gbagbo was ousted, I had in mind days. But reports are that, just hours after publishing my commentary above, French Special Forces (with Ouattara forces in tow) stormed his residence and took him into custody.

Of course, to avoid Ouattara looking like a stooge of former colonial masters, the French are downplaying their involvement—insisting that they only played a supporting role, and allowing opposition forces to take Gbagbo and his wife to be held at the hotel in Abidjan where Ouattara set up his headquarters after the election.

Now the question is what to do with him (i.e., whether to try him in local courts or just hand him over to The Hague?). Ouattara would be wise to opt for the latter.

Later same day

To The Hague

A week ago today Gbagbo was flown off to face a battery of crimes against humanity (including mass rape and murder) before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague:

There are reasonable grounds to believe that a plan existed between Mr. Gbagbo and his inner circle [his co-perpetrators]. There is a sufficient basis to conclude that the pro-Gbagbo forces that put the policy into effect did so by almost automatic compliance with the orders they received.

(London Guardian quoting the ICC prosecutor, December 6, 2011)

Sadly, it looks like Gbagbo is going to end up just like former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic: dying in his cell a broken and forgotten man.

December 6

South Africa

‘Betraying Its Values’

I am acutely mindful that my commentaries on the growing pains of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are taking on the specter of beating a dead horse. This is why I am loath to write yet another one on the following regressive phenomenon that is now unfolding there:

African leaders once personified unbridled despotism. Now they’re personifying the metastasizing spectacle of leaders [plunging their countries into political violence by] refusing to give up power after losing free and fair elections; ergo, their oxymoronic designation—democratic despots.

(Africa’s Democratic Despots Now Include Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, The iPINIONS Journal, December 15, 2010)

This has played out recently in Zimbabwe, Kenya, and (as indicated) Ivory Coast. Now it’s playing out in Uganda….

Far more troubling, however, are the equally regressive developments that have beset South Africa, the beacon of hope for the region, ever since Nelson Mandela retired as president. Most notable in this respect was Mandela’s successor, Thabo Mbeki, staking his entire presidency (and the lives of hundreds of thousands of South Africans) on the fatuous notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. But this was soon surpassed in its utter stupefaction by the election of the alleged rapist and fraudster Jacob Zuma to succeed Mbeki. I felt constrained to herald this development by warning that Zuma would do for/to South Africa what Mugabe has done for/to Zimbabwe….

But I’ve become distressingly aware that South Africa has a rather robust cadre of Internet trolls who are every bit as zealous in their defense of Zuma’s flawed character and venal policies as others were in defense of Mbeki’s discredited views on HIV/AIDS. This is why I began citing the unimpeachable views of native South Africans to support my contentions.

Apropos of this, when I lamented two years ago the wayward path the country was veering towards, I cited the following national plea by none other than the Nobel Laureate for Peace, Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

They should please not choose someone of whom most of us would be ashamed. Our country deserves better. We’re very worried that this leader [Jacob Zuma] had relations with a woman who regarded him as a parent and, although he is very likeable, we have to ask ourselves: ‘What is happening in the ANC?’

(Hail Zuma … Big Dada, The iPINIONS Journal, April 27, 2009)

Alas, Tutu’s plea fell resoundingly on deaf ears. Consequently, what has happened to the ANC since then is that Zuma has transformed it from a party that championed democratic freedoms into one that enforces party loyalty—whether right or wrong. Even worse, it is deploying many of the same tactics of political intimidation and repression that the Apartheid regime deployed during its rule. Put another way, instead of emulating Barack Obama of the United States, Zuma is emulating Vladimir Putin of Russia, thereby turning South Africa into a de facto police state where a few oligarchs thrive with his sufferance at the expense of the poor masses.

Of course, I knew it would be thus—as the following attests:

Zuma’s efforts to silence Zapiro [a critically acclaimed political cartoonist who revels in caricaturing Zuma’s political shortcomings]—aided by the rabble-rousing trade unionists (COSATU) and unreformed communists (SACP) who have turned the ruling ANC from a governing coalition into a band of pillagers—should serve as a dire warning of what South Africa will become under his leadership.

(Zuma Issues Fatwa against Cartoonist Zapiro, The iPINIONS Journal, December 22, 2008)

But, as indicated earlier, I don’t want you to take my word for it. Instead, here is what no less a person than the Nobel Laureate for Literature, Nadine Gordimer, is saying about what Zuma and the ANC are doing to South Africa:

The original values of the ANC are being betrayed in many areas of our social life and our political life… I maintain the right to criticize my own party. I feel it’s a duty that we who are in the ANC must say what we think when the ANC does wrong….

(HARDtalk, BBC, May 10, 2011)

Hear, hear comrade!

And, lest Zuma’s defenders attempt to dismiss Gordimer’s lament as well, just bear in mind that only Mandela himself has greater moral authority than she to speak about the state of affairs in South Africa today. After all, it’s arguable that she did more with her writings and political activism to bring about the fall of Apartheid than any other Black South African living today, including Jacob Zuma.

That said, some might argue that the 87-year-old Gordimer is waxing a little too idealistic in her dotage. And to support their contention they might cite her proselytizing interracial marriage as the best way for the country to deal with its lingering racial problems. But I submit that her prescription for racial healing and reconciliation is just as unassailable as her indictment of Zuma and the ANC.

May 13

Zuma Snubs Obama (Michelle that Is)

President Zuma is raising eyebrows here in Washington, DC, after refusing to meet with First Lady Michelle Obama during her current, week-long visit to South Africa and Botswana. Some are speculating that he intended to convey a deliberate slight by arranging only for his female minister of prisons to greet her at the airport on Monday and for one of his three wives to meet briefly with her on Tuesday.

But, when placed in proper context, there’s nothing surprising or inappropriate about Zuma’s behavior. After all, Zuma is not only culturally disposed to male chauvinism; he’s also personally disposed to raping women. (I couldn’t resist.) Therefore, nobody should be surprised that he dissed Michelle in this way. Mind you, she could not have hoped for any greater honor than being granted a private visit with Nelson Mandela. Never mind that, at 92, he’s more of a tourist attraction these days (like the Statue of Liberty) than an elder statesman.

Of course, if not out of respect for Michelle, you’d think Zuma would be wary of doing anything that could even be perceived as a slight against the mighty United States. I am convinced, however, that he has made the strategic calculation that—just as the Soviet Union was the patron of choice for many African countries during the Cold War—China will prove a far more beneficial patron for South Africa than the United States in the years to come. Not to mention that China’s largesse does not come with any of the situational morality that now impinges on America’s bilateral relationship with countries within its sphere of financial influence. And, given the ostentatious way China has been buying up political influence throughout the continent, Zuma’s behavior seems more shrewd than rude (i.e., dissing America pleases, or curries favor with, China).

In a similar vein, there’s probably merit to claims that Zuma snubbed her to register his pan-African opposition to the ongoing, U.S.-led military strikes against Libya: an opposition no doubt informed by the support Gaddafi gave the ANC during its struggle against the Apartheid regime:

We strongly believe that the (UN Security Council) resolution is being abused for regime change, political assassinations, and foreign military occupation.

(Zuma, African Herald Express, June 18, 2011)

Ultimately, though, I think there’s poetic, even ironic, justice in his snub of Michelle; not least because President Obama has made promoting equality among nations in international relations a hallmark of his presidency. Accordingly, just as nobody would expect Obama to meet with any of Zuma’s wives on a solo visit to the United States, nobody should expect Zuma to meet Obama’s wife on a solo visit to South Africa.

That said, I’m acutely mindful of the self-abnegating stereotype which holds that Blacks invariably show more respect towards Whites in positions of authority than towards Blacks in those same positions. But, as alluded to above, I have no doubt that if this were First Lady Laura Bush visiting, Zuma would have dissed her too. It’s just unfortunate that historical happenstance has him treating the first Black first lady of the United States in a way that only perpetuates this stereotype.

June 24

Julius Malema: President Zuma’s Mini Me

Julius Malema (30) is president of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL)—the youth arm of South Africa’s ruling party. Unfortunately, he behaves more like a wannabe gangsta than a future political leader.

It’s arguable though that he’s merely emulating the behavior that catapulted his mentor, Jacob Zuma, to the presidency. Which, of course, explains why the country that Mandela liberated—with great expectations that it would become the Dark Continent’s beacon of democracy, economic development, and Black empowerment—is turning into just another dysfunctional African kleptocracy under Zuma’s rule.

Anyway, to get a sense of Malema’s foreboding popularity, just imagine Malik Zulu Shabazz, the racist and anti-Semitic leader of the New Black Panther Party, having such popular support in America that political analysts began talking seriously about him mounting a challenge to President Barack Obama in Democratic primaries next year…. Clearly this Shabazz-Obama scenario is utterly farfetched. Even so it captures the essence of what is now playing out between Malema and Zuma in South Africa. Indeed, political analysts there are speaking openly about Malema doing to President Zuma what Zuma did to then President Thabo Mbeki, namely: depose him as head of the ANC and then replace him as president.

It is noteworthy that Malema endeared (or ingratiated) himself to Zuma a few years ago by vowing that he and his young comrades would kill for Zuma if that’s what it took for him to replace Mbeki as president. Not to mention the patronly pride Zuma must have felt when Malema defended him back then by claiming that the woman who famously accused Zuma of rape must have had a nice time because the morning after she requested breakfast and taxi money.

Yet all indications are that Zuma is becoming sufficiently wary of Malema’s mushrooming popularity and commensurate political ambition that he’s reportedly looking for ways to keep him in check. Ironically, Zuma may be able to ensnare Malema in the web of corruption that surrounds him just as Mbeki tried, to no avail, to do with that which surrounded Zuma. In this case, Malema is being dogged by allegations that he uses his political connections to steer government contracts (e.g., for the privatization of government assets as well as tenders for public works) to select companies and then launders kickbacks from them through his Ratanang Family Trust. But his secret money-making schemes are so brazenly transparent that they have incited headlines like the following in local papers:

Two faced … Malema was happy to make millions from privatization while calling for nationalization.

(Mail & Guardian, August 7, 2011)

Malema founded the Trust in 2008 purportedly to fund orphanages, build schools, and deliver welfare services to the poor. But this smacks of the typical ruse drug kingpins pull by dabbling in charity to give their criminal enterprise the veneer of legitimacy and respectability. Moreover, Malema makes a mockery of the purported mission of his Trust by living an ostentatious lifestyle that is grossly disproportionate to his legitimate income—complete with chauffeured limousines and armed bodyguards.

One wonders though if Malema has already become too intimidating and popular to keep in check: On the one hand, ANC leaders treat him like the schoolyard bully who even the principal is afraid to discipline. On the other hand, poor Blacks—who comprise the vast majority of the ANC’s base—treat him like a latter-day Robin Hood; never mind that they are too ignorant to appreciate that he’s not stealing from the rich to give to them, but from them to enrich himself.

In fact, White politicians and activists seem to be the only ones daring enough to call a spade a spade where Malema’s corrupt practices are concerned:

Today I will follow up on my previous letters written to the SA Revenue Service and the public protector requesting investigations into the personal finances of Mr. Malema.

The alleged payments of R1.2m that have now come to light add greater urgency to our requests for a full investigation into who is financing his upmarket lifestyle and the building of his R16m Sandown home.

(Dianne Kohler Barnard, spokesperson for the opposition Democratic Alliance, News 24 Cape Town, August 15, 2011)

I suspect, however, that the political dynamics and demographics that enabled Zuma to overcome similar allegations of corruption will conspire twofold to enable Malema to overcome these. Not least because Zuma was being accused by fellow members of the ANC; whereas Malema is being accused by Whites who he can easily dismiss (as he routinely does) by playing the race/colonialists card:

White kids are driving around his neighbourhood in expensive sports cars. But if a Black kid becomes wealthy, people assume it is the result of corruption.

(Malema, BBC, February 27, 2010)

Alas, it hardly matters that, in far too many cases, the wealth Blacks are amassing under ANC rule is in fact the result of political corruption and outright theft.

Yet, as venal a rabble-rouser as Malema clearly is, there’s no denying the pot-calling-the-kettle-black specter of complaints being filed against him by Whites whose families enriched themselves for generations under the racist and genocidal rule of Apartheid. And nothing indicates what little sympathy there is for Whites among ANC leaders in this respect quite like their refusal to publicly rebuke Malema for leading tens of thousands of Blacks in singing the song Shoot the Boer at ANC rallies. This refusal compelled AfriForum, a White civil rights group (with no appreciation of the irony, if not hypocrisy, inherent in its cause), to file a civil suit earlier this year in which it claimed that this song polarizes South Africans along racial lines and has incited Blacks to kill White farmers. The court agreed and banned the song. This was clearly the correct ruling. Because the lyrics are per se hate speech, which has no place in a democratic society.

It is important to note, however, that no link was ever established between the singing of this song and the killing of White farmers. Especially since it is far more likely that the few misguided Blacks who took out their subsistence frustrations on White farmers in South Africa were incited to do so by the many misguided Blacks who did the same in neighboring Zimbabwe … pursuant to official government policy.

To the relief and exultation of restive Blacks, Mugabe announced sweeping land reforms in which his government would seize the ‘farms of White colonialists to give to landless peasants and the veterans of the war of liberation.’

Unfortunately, like his independence blueprint for Black empowerment, Mugabe’s land reforms have been an abject failure: Five years ago, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa; today it is a basket case of starving people. Five years ago, there were 4,000 White-owned farms in Zimbabwe; today there are only 400—mostly unproductive—farms left.

(Zimbabweans Pray for Liberation from Their Liberator, Robert Mugabe, The iPINIONS Journal, May 29, 2005)

But the point is that even Blacks who think Malema is nothing but a national embarrassment can be forgiven their indignation at Whites now complaining about a Black song violating their civil rights. Not least because these Whites expressed no concern at all about a White government that sanctioned institutional racism, economic hegemony, and even murder against Blacks. Of course, such is Malema’s impudent and incorrigibly provocative nature that, after the court’s ruling, he promptly began leading ANC rallies in singing this same song only inserting the word kiss instead of shoot.

This man, despite displaying the disposition of a spoiled brat, seems to be on an inexorable and accelerated path to the South African presidency. The BBC titled a February 27, 2010 feature on him, Julius Malema: Genius, Clown or Fat Cat? In fact, he is all three.

However, apropos of the allusion above, I fear Malema would do for/to South Africa what President Robert Mugabe has done for/to Zimbabwe. That is, of course, unless Zuma remains power hungry enough to neutralize him, which I’m betting is the case.

August 18

UPDATE

Malema suspended

Every one of my South African friends bought into the prevailing view that Malema had acquired so much wealth while retaining so much popular support that the ANC would not dare discipline him for bringing the organization into disrepute. In fact, he had become in South Africa like the bully in high school who instilled fear in students, teachers, and principal alike.

More to the point, all of my friends accepted as fait accompli that Malema would do just as I indicated above: depose Zuma as head of the ANC and then replace him as president of South Africa. This is why they thought it was naïve and uninformed for me to bet so publicly that Zuma would neutralize him.

Well, I won. For here is how the Party’s disciplinary panel reasoned its decision to suspend Malema for five years:

[His] careless, negligent, or reckless pronouncements and utterances were a deviation of established and ongoing ANC policy and had the effect of embarrassing and bringing the organization into disrepute within and beyond the borders of South Africa.

(Reuters, November 10, 2011)

Malema is expected to file a pro forma appeal, but anyone who knows anything about South African politics knows that this suspension will effectively end his political career. Don’t forget that he’s still facing a battery of corruption charges related to the dubious origins of his massive wealth. And now that he no longer wears the Teflon that comes with being one of the most influential members of the ANC, I fear he may end up in prison long before his suspension expires.

Mind you, this is not to say that the country will fare much better under the continued leadership of Jacob Zuma. In fact, having repeatedly warned that he too would end up doing for/to South Africa what Mugabe has done for/to Zimbabwe, all I can say is that he is the lesser of two evils. This after all is why I called Malema Zuma’s mini-me.

November 14

Banning Dalai Lama to Appease China … Again

There was worldwide condemnation two years ago when South Africa denied the Dalai Lama a visa to join fellow Nobel Peace Laureates at an international peace conference in Johannesburg. The organizers ended up canceling the conference in protest. China just smiled….

But I’m on record—dating back to February 2005 in the commentary China Buying Up Political Influence in the Caribbean—not only warning about the petty and vindictive lengths to which China would go to keep the Dalai Lama in check, but also decrying the extent to which far more powerful countries than South Africa seemed prepared to kowtow to it in this respect.

Regarding this latter point:

Western leaders have made a mockery of their condemnation of the brutal crackdown on Tibetan monks by heeding China’s warning against meeting with the Dalai Lama in any official capacity. In fact, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown appeased the Chinese by refusing to meet with him at No. 10, choosing instead to meet only at the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This enabled Brown to claim that he was meeting the Dalai Lama ‘in a spiritual rather than political capacity.’

(Punishing China for Its Brutal Crackdown on Tibet? Hardly! The iPINIONS Journal, July 28, 2008)

Therefore, it was hardly surprising to me when South Africa caved two years ago. Nor is it surprising that it’s about to do the same again:

The South African government is considering blocking the Dalai Lama from attending the 80th birthday of fellow Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu so as not to offend China, according to opposition politicians.

Tutu has invited the Tibetan spiritual leader to give a lecture as part of his birthday celebrations in Cape Town on 8 October. Officials from the former archbishop’s office started the visa application process in June, but have yet to get approval for the Dalai Lama’s visit and fear it may not come.

(London Guardian, September 27, 2011)

No doubt there is just cause to criticize the ways the United States and Soviet Union wielded their power during the Cold War. But China is giving every indication that it intends to wield its power in ways that make the way those superpowers lorded over their respective spheres of influence seem relatively genteel.

Mind you, its obsessive determination to blacklist the Dalai Lama would be understandable if he had the power of the Ayatollah of Iran. But he’s the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet. Moreover, no less a person than the president of the United States has conceded that Tibet is, in fact, a part of China. Not to mention that China has imposed de facto martial law over this region for the past 52 years for Christ’s sake!

They’re only directing that the Dalai Lama should be shunned today. But who knows what extraterritorial directive the Chinese will issue pursuant to their perceived national interest tomorrow…? Just consider for a moment what passive-aggressive hegemony they have in mind if they already presume that they can dictate who the president of the United States can invite to the White House.

(World Beware: China Calling in Loan-Sharking Debts, The iPINIONS Journal, February 3, 2010)

Enough said.

September 30

Afghanistan and Iraq

Defense Sec. Gates: Ground Troops in Middle East Insane

With all of the media focus on democratic uprisings across the Middle East these days, it’s easy to forget that coalition forces are still bogged down in a misadventure to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.  Therefore it’s more than a little ironic that no less a person than U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reminded us of this fact by issuing the following warning during an address to West Point cadets on Friday:

In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.

(New York Times, February 25, 2011)

Recall that President George W. Bush hired Gates in 2006 to help clean up the mess the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had become. Evidently, President Obama thought Gates was doing such a terrific job that he retained him.

For the record, though, I declared from the outset that it was a march of folly to send big American land armies into Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, a few special forces aided by drones and cruise missiles could have exacted all the retribution Americans could have wanted against al-Qaeda for 9/11 in the first instance, and all the revenge President Bush could have wanted against Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in the second.

But Gates’s stunning opinion begs the question: if he now thinks sending a big land army into the Middle East is insane, why did he advise Obama to send more troops into Afghanistan (for the so-called counterinsurgency surge) in 2010?  Especially given that, by then, the vietnamization of this war was painfully clear for all to see.

Obama would be well-advised to cut America’s losses and run ASAP; to let the Afghans govern themselves however they like; and to rely on Special Forces and aerial drones to ‘disrupt and dismantle’ Taliban and al-Qaeda operations there.

(Without (or even with) More Forces, Failure in Afghanistan Is Likely, The iPINIONS Journal, September 23, 2009)

Clearly Gates should have his head examined.

March 1

RELATED

Gates blasts incompetent, free-loading Europeans

Gates probably evoked rueful nods within the American military and political establishments a few months ago when he admonished that it would be insane to send U.S. soldiers to fight another land war in the Middle East. But he probably incited defensive indignation within the European military and political establishments on Friday when he admonished as follows in a speech in Brussels on the future of NATO:

The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense…

[European] nations [are] apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets… The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country [namely Libya]. Yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the United States, once more, to make up the difference.

What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal, future for the trans-Atlantic alliance.

(Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2011)

No doubt most Americans are heartened by this in-your-face rebuke of Europeans whose parasitic ways are surpassed only by their self-righteous criticisms of almost everything American. But it’s a little belated for those of us who have been blasting these free-loaders for years.

Here, for my part, is what I wrote almost two years ago in a commentary decrying Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan:

[I]t seems more than a little disingenuous for him to declare that he will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011. After all, even if he does, it could still take years after that date to reduce the number of troops deployed there to today’s level … or lower.

But this was not nearly as disingenuous as his claims about NATO’s participation in this surge. For, having criticized President Bush for making similar claims, he knows full well that the vast majority of those NATO troops will serve as nothing more than political window dressing. Hell, the Italians have become a laughing stock for their jingoistic refusal to even leave their cloistered and heavily fortified base; similar ‘combat caveats’ limit German participation to ‘gardening;’ and the French, well, plus ca change.

(Obama Escalates War in Afghanistan…, The iPINIONS Journal, December 2, 2009)

Apropos of this, it might be helpful to know that, according a June 11, 2011 report by the Associated Press titled Robert Gates: NATO Alliance Future Could Be ‘Dim, Dismal:’

The U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.

There are clearly many areas of the Pentagon’s bloated budget that can, and should, be cut. And Gates’s speech leaves no doubt that its spending on NATO is one of them. In fact, a good measure of what the U.S. defense budget should be is for it to be capped at two times that of all other NATO members combined. Which means that it should be $440 billion instead of $700 billion. How’s that?

June 14

Obama’s Withdrawal Plan (for Afghanistan) Is a Political Feint

It’s clearly not as fashionable to be an Obama supporter today as it was in 2008. But I am still an unabashed supporter; moreover, my confidence that he will be re-elected is every bit as great as my hope that he would be elected president in the first place. I sincerely believe that he will be much better (for the United States and the world) than any candidate the Republicans can possibly nominate to replace him.

Nevertheless, regular readers know that I have been equally unabashed in criticizing some of his policies—as I did just yesterday in a commentary pooh-poohing his specious claim about abiding by the War Powers Act in his march of folly into Libya. Well, as much as it distresses me, I am constrained to register another criticism today. This one concerns the big show he’s making of his plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan—complete with a prime-time address to the nation tonight to inform the American people about it. But unless he announces the immediate (i.e., not phased) withdrawal of all 100,000 combat troops (i.e., not just the 70,000 he surged into the killing fields of this country in 2009), his plan will amount to little more than another political feint.

Reports are that Obama will announce the withdrawal of 5,000 this summer and another 5,000 by the end of the year. But this is only making a joke out of the farce the war in Afghanistan has become. It has been a misguided, costly, and unwinnable mess for years. More to the point, just as it was in Vietnam, the presence of U.S. troops is only delaying the day of reckoning when local factions will fight it out among themselves for control of their own country. So the sooner the United States gets out of the way the better. Not to mention the lives and money an immediate withdrawal would save. In any case, the war in Afghanistan today is more about Obama’s Faustian ambition (he doesn’t want to be the president who loses this unwinnable war) than about U.S. national security.

Incidentally, the notion that Obama should follow the advice of his generals is belied not just by the Constitution, but by modern technology as well. After all, as commander in chief, it is for him to give orders based on all information available and with supervening regard for what he considers to be the big picture. This is not the 1960s when the president had to rely on generals in the field for that information. Today’s media and technology are such that everyone in the world knows, almost in real time, what is going on. And the futility of continuing this war effort—even with twice as many troops—is plain for all to see.

Therefore, Obama cannot hide behind the advice of his generals who, like those in Vietnam, only want more troops to fight their war no matter how clearly lost the cause. Instead, leadership requires him to order them to bring those troops home … NOW! He should leave only enough (around 5,000) to man a base from which Special Forces can launch the kind of operations that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Meanwhile, the blood of every troop who has died (and will die) because he decided to escalate this war, instead of ending it in 2009, is on his hands. No doubt this explains the lines now creasing his face and grey hairs now sprouting up all over his head. According to a report today by CNN, in the seven years before Obama’s surge (2001-07) 570 American troops were killed. In the two years since his surge (2009-10) 970 were killed.

And, no matter what Obama says about amorphous successes, he can cite no development in Afghanistan on his watch that was worth this spike in casualties. Even worse, everybody knows that—given the terminally corrupt, fractious, and ungovernable nature of this country—whatever success there might have been since 2001 will be rolled back with a vengeance by Taliban and al-Qaeda forces whenever U.S. troops finally leave. I warned him….

June 22

Obama Ends War in Iraq

It might seem impossible for a president to be triumphant, modest, contradictory, solemn, and opportunistic all at once. Yet President Obama was just that when he made the following announcement on Friday:

After nearly 9 years, America’s war in Iraq will be over…

Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq—tens of thousands of them—will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. The last American soldiers will cross the border out of Iraq—with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end…

Today I can say that troops in Iraq will be home for the holidays….

(White House.gov, October 21, 2011)

He was duly triumphant because ending the war in Iraq was the raison d’être for his presidential campaign in 2008.

He was modest because the terminally combustible state of affairs in Iraq prevented him from declaring victory. The stated mission, remember, was to build an Iraq that can govern, sustain, and defend itself. But nothing conveyed what a Sisyphean quest this was turning out to be quite like Gen. David Petraeus reporting five years into this war that all of the progress being made in Iraq is fragile [and] reversible.

He was contradictory because Obama did not want to end America’s military efforts in Iraq this year. In fact, the only reason the troops will be home for the holidays is that he failed to negotiate a new status of forces agreement with an increasingly hostile Iraqi government to keep thousands of troops in the country on U.S. terms—to continue training Iraqi soldiers and counter growing Iranian influence. That the Iraqis refused to extend the immunity U.S. troops have enjoyed (i.e., they now wanted the right to arrest and imprison any of them) was the deal breaker, and rightly so. Yet the irony seems lost on the Republicans criticizing Obama for withdrawing these troops that it would take playing the neo-colonial card for him to keep them there. Which, of course, would make a mockery of their own claim the United States has installed a democratically elected government in Iraq; since such a government would have the right to tell the Americans to get out, no? (But more on Obama’s contradictory and confused critics later….)

He was solemn because he understands all too well that America has little to show