SADC in danger of dustbowl economy

Uninformed, opportunistic people, not understanding realities, seem to push hard for anarchy and lawlessness in their drive to undermine states and ruling parties. Misinterpreting the land issue, Southern African countries would be turned into a dustbowl like Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and the Middle East.

Foreign US/Israeli/UK/EU interests seem to have it easy in their efforts to destroy the Middle East. They simply exported “democracy” to the North African and Middle East Arab countries. NATO’s targeted “humanitarian bombing” of Libya, igniting “rebel wars”, supplying “rebels” with heavy weaponry, ammunition and military training, mobilizing the Egyptians on Tariq Square in Cairo, are cases in point of “democracy come anarchy”.

“Democracy” is the useful tool. By now, the Ukraine and the Middle East are done with. Syria and Iran however, are still standing. The Saudis control Yemen. The Gulf of Aden has been shut down and adjacent countries are suffocated.

The above demonstrates that what the capitalist West does not control is exposed to viciously destructive chaos and reduced to a dustbowl. This is a strategic holocaust to achieve and retain total control over global currencies, resource- and financial markets.

Now seems the opportune time to move the same ‘forces of destabilisation’ down south targeting southern Africa. Foreign interests’ planned agenda is to destabilise Southern Africa by raising the emotive land issue.

South Africa’s democracy was achieved through a lengthy liberation struggle. Today, the African National Congress talks and lives democracy. South Africa is seen as one of the best democratic states.

For example, former ANC-caretaker-president and trade unionist, Kgalema Motlanthe, recently went as far as praising former apartheid-president De Klerk, for having “freed the ANC and its alliance partners”. Motlanthe even suggested that “apartheid-De Klerk should be honoured with South Africa’s highest order”. 

However, Motlanthe’s laudation was factually and historically flawed. Yet, no one stood up to correct him.

In above context, no one knows, nor understands South Africa’s democracy.

Political parties opposing the ANC and Namibia’s SWAPO Party talk ‘land’ in their attempt to contribute to national and regional destabilisation. 

Misguided people, misleading the unemployed and poverty-stricken masses with their regurgitations that sound real and good, head those same opposition parties. 

What they do not understand is, they were given a template to destroy their countries in this region.

The same old imperialists and architects-of-apartheid set the agenda. 

The outcome is therefore, not the desired result. It will be a toxic anarchy, where right-wing forces lead the land issue, fraudulently pretending to give the opposition what they and their followers are looking for.

The hunger for land is a fiercely contested fact.

After independence in 1980 Zimbabwe was hailed as the breadbasket for the southern African region. Small scale and communal farmers produced 60% of the maize harvest. This was more than the commercial farmers could bring to the market. The commercial farmers produced tobacco, which brought capital.

Zimbabwe’s platinum belt together with South Africa’s platinum resources produce 80% of the world’s platinum. 

This means, together both countries control the world platinum market. 

Add gold, chrome, vanadium, copper, iron-ore, coal, emeralds and diamonds and you should have an immensely rich, powerful and sophisticated regional economy.

But, Zimbabwe made a fatal mistake. It accepted the World Bank’s Bernard Chidzero as Minister of Finance. President Mugabe became the darling of the international West. It dawned later on Zimbabwe’s government that Chidzero had destroyed the country’s economy by implementing the World Bank’s fraudulent “structural adjustment programme”.

Based on the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, Zimbabwe was inevitably marginalized. Certain fundamentals of Zimbabwe’s constitution cannot be changed, as parliament needs 75% majority to change the constitution.

One example is the binding clause of “willing seller, willing buyer” which is included in the Lancaster House Agreement. 

This is dangerous as it leads to destabilisation.

The imperialist West played with time, or at least thought, it would settle matters their way within ten years, or so. According to their calculations all leaders in Zimbabwe would have either left office, or passed on. 

By then a new generation without any struggle experiences or credentials would have taken over. 

The resilience of Zimbabwe’s old guard was underestimated. Land redistribution was set in motion. 

Britain led the international West in imposing illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe. The World Bank-IMF rolled out a programme of destroying Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe was made an example of. The rest of Africa became fearful and shied away from historical land issues.

Back to South Africa. Zimbabwe’s southern neighbour has been exposed to the same template and the same strategy of marginalization through destabilisation.

First, South Africa had to accept an “economic programme”. Recalled former president Thabo Mbeki’s ‘Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR)’ programme followed. It was the same “structural adjustment programme” of the World Bank-IMF.

The IMF added “land capping” as a solution to South Africa’s land issue. 

Again, it would not work, as no one would really know, when to “cap” commercial farmland. Farmers would shy away from investing and developing agricultural land. 

Food security would be risked, resulting in scorched earth and nationwide starvation.

The above-mentioned World Bank-IMF programme includes two strategies – (i) having had to do away with all agricultural boards such as for example the maize board, meat board, poultry board and many other such boards. 

This was already done under late former president Nelson Mandela’s watch. (ii) 

In order to bring about a dustbowl economy, both, agriculture and land would be destroyed through opportunistic and emotive land occupation.

A responsible government would need to protect South Africans against strategies to unsettle them through lawless efforts using land as a tool for destabilisation. 

All attempts to enforce an “Arab Spring” would have to be promptly dealt with.

June 2015
« May   Jul »