'SADC election observers should go to Zimbabwe immediately'

Herewith, in full, a statement released on June 10 (2008) by the University of Pretoria Law Faculty's Centre for Human Rights.

Thanks to Pierre at Constitutionally Speaking from whom I picked up the story. It is encouraging that civil society is becoming more and more vocal in South Africa.

In all honesty, even if scores of observers are sent to Zimbabwe immediately it will be too late to provide the MDC with a reasonable chance to rally their supporters ahead of the presidential election scheduled for June 27, which is now only 15 days away. It may help to expose power abuses during the actual election and thereafter. But the bottom line is that South Africa and SADC have failed the people of Zimbabwe once again. One can only hope for a miracle come June 27...

SADC election observers should go to Zimbabwe immediately

Release date: 10 June 2008

The Centre for Human Rights, at the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, calls on President Mwanawasa, in his capacity as Chairperson of SADC, and on President Mbeki, in his capacity as SADC mediator on Zimbabwe, to take all possible measures to ensure the immediate and extensive deployment of SADC observers in Zimbabwe.

It is encouraging that President Mbeki has already voiced his support for the deployment of SADC observers, and that he reminded member states to make the necessary resources available for this purpose. However, these observers should not focus primarily on monitoring the polls on voting day, but should be put in place as soon as possible to cover the period leading up to the elections and a reasonable period thereafter. These observers should also be representative of SADC as a whole.

An election is a process, consisting of three main phases: (1) the pre-election period; (2) the voting day itself; and (3) the period between voting and the release of results. If election observers focus on what happens on voting day only, the important determinants of a free and fair election prior to and after voting day would not be taken into account. At the moment, there are clear indications that the pre-election conditions are not only making a free and fair election impossible, but are skewed in favour of the candidacy of President Mugabe. Even if people are allowed to go to the polls on voting day, free and fair elections are impossible due to the harassment, arrest, detention and even disappearance of activists and leaders; restrictions on the media; and fear and intimidation of the population and non-governmental organisations.

According to SADC’s own ‘Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections’, the SADC election observation mission should be deployed ‘at least two weeks before the voting day’ (para 4.1.10). Under the specific circumstances prevailing in Zimbabwe, the ‘normal’ period of two weeks should be increased as much as possible. It is imperative that all efforts should be made to get as many observers into place, covering as extensive an area as possible, as soon as possible. The elections, scheduled to take place on 27 June, is just 16 days away. Observers should be on the ground now, and should stay at least until election results are announced.

Observers should insist on the full compliance with the SADC Principles and Guidelines, which includes the following:

• The government must safeguard the human rights and adequate security of all stakeholders and parties (para 7.4; 7.5).
• The observers must have unimpeded and unrestricted access to all polling stations and counting centres (para 7.19).

Once deployed, SADC observers must submit regular reports, so that matters requiring urgent attention may be dealt with by the appropriate SADC organ.

To ensure a credible election, as many observers as possible should be allowed into the country. Presidents Mwanawasa and Mbeki should insist that Zimbabwe allows other observers, in line with the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights’ ‘Resolution on the Forthcoming Run-off Election in Zimbabwe’, adopted in May at its 43rd ordinary session. In this resolution, the African Commission requests that the Zimbabwean government allows ‘both national and international election observers to observe the entire electoral process, so as to enhance the credibility of the electoral process, and acceptance of the results of the elections by all contesting parties’.

The Centre for Human Rights further urges Presidents Mwanawasa and Mbeki to exert all possible pressure on President Mugabe to halt violence, intimidation, and selective use of to law stifle opposition, and to abide by the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections and the Zimbabwean Constitution and Electoral Act.

For more detail, please contact: Frans Viljoen, Director of the Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, frans.viljoen@up.ac.za; tel: 012 4203228; cell: 073 393 4181

NY Times Blogging Heads: Is Racism Over?

I love the New York Times, although lately I've had very little time to indulge in it. On occasion I've noted a link to 'Bloggingheads', but 'till today never followed it. The Bloggingheads topic featured on the NY Times online edition today caught my attention and I took the leap. The format of Bloggingheads is mostly that of two participants, seen in a split video screen, discussing a topic via an internet video feed. It is non-moderated and free flowing.

(The Bloggingheads video follows lower down. The video may not be visible if you're reading this post outside of my blog).

Is Racism Over (in US Politics)?
In this 'edition' of Bloggingheads two (black) academics discuss the Obama-Clinton primary race, which has since concluded. In one or two of the states that Hillary Clinton took, race seemingly played a decisive issue in voters' minds. Simply put white voters voted for the white candidate. Does this support the notion that racism is still very much active in American politics or is there a more complex explanation? This kind of discussion can off-course be very gloomy and dark. However, the two academics paint a very interesting and nuanced picture. One which gives hope that non-racialism may have taken a few steps forward in the States.

Their discussion is also one which in my view looks at racism from different angles, not simply white on black. A very refreshing aspect, which is sorely lacking - although not totally absent - in South African deliberation on this very important matter. Their analysis goes where few discussions tend to, that is to a place where you also take a critical look at the validity of ideas which would normally be used to defend your own 'position'. I'm going to be keeping an eye out for these two guys, it's worth the trouble!

By the way, the 'two guys' are John McWhorter of the Manhattan Institute and Glenn Loury of Brown University.

Will the presidential election results reflect on racism in the US?
If Barack Obama gets elected as the next US President there will off-course be a very strong argument that America has indeed come a very long way in how it views race. His winning of the Democratic ticket is that already, although we are dealing with the more progressive of the two dominating political parties. One can also argue that in the popular vote, i.e. even more so than in the delegate count, things turned out very evenly for the two Democrats. Thus, for argument's sake, if virtually all Republicans and independents voted for McCain and a large portion of Clinton's supports did the same Obama will end up short by a country mile. That will off-course not automatically signal racist convictions amongst voters. It may be a genuine conviction amongst voters that McCain stands for better policy and is a better leader (not my conviction). A better explanation will probably be that America is still in the hold of politics of fear. But should Obama win the presidential race, and at this stage it seems there is no reason why he couldn't, surely it has to say something about a changing America - at least in as far as racism is concerned?

Obama on racism
It was unavoidable that the topic of race would surface somewhere in the primary race, as it did. Obama handled the issue, I believe, with exceptional well phrased candour and grace. If you missed THE speech on racism, by Obama, during the primaries read the post I wrote on it here (YouTube video of full speech included).

The Bloggingheads video
The very interesting section of the McWhorter & Loury discussion (approx. 6-min) featured on the NY Times' website follows directly below (you'll need a broadband link to watch this).



To view the full discussion, which I recommend, click here (It intro's with a bit of personal banter before diving into deep water - running time = approx. 45-min).

Slideshow: Soetwater 'refugee camp' (News24.com)

News24.com posted an online slideshow (with audio commentary) on their website today. It features Soetwater 'refugee camp', a tent compound set up on Kommetjie's Soetwater Recreation Area (Cape Peninsula / Greater Cape Town). The camp currently houses 3000 refugees with more arriving. Most of the services at the camp are currently being provided by volunteers, with donations from the public being the main source of supplies. This may change as reports suggest Government may be gearing up to establish official refugee camps.

Click on the image to view the slideshow on News24.com's website.

Govt prepares for 14 camps: South Africa: Xenophobia: News24

News24.com, an online news portal in the Naspers group of companies, posted the article below an hour ago (produced by Beeld). To read it in its original context, click on the article heading below.

This is a first for South Africa and has been called for by various groups since well before the current wave of xenophobia. In my opinion this is a major development, if it is confirmed officially off-course. I'll comment on it lower down...

Govt prepares for 14 camps
29/05/2008 08:24 - (SA)

Staff Reporters, Beeld

Cape Town - The government was to announce on Thursday that camps would be set up countrywide for the victims of xenophobic attacks.

However, the camps would not be referred to as refugee camps because of the negative connotations of such a name worldwide.

From what Beeld was able to gather, the Cabinet met until about 17:00 on Wednesday to discuss the proposed camps, among other things.

This came after a meeting on Monday between President Thabo Mbeki, the Cabinet committee which was established to deal with the matter, and provincial premiers.

Mbeki was to meet UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres in Japan on Thursday where the crisis would be discussed.

Exact details of the plan could not be confirmed officially on Wednesday, but Beeld was able to determine the following:

"Shelter camps" (perhaps with a more-acceptable name) would be announced which temporarily would provide foreigners with shelter and food in the interests of their safety, health and sanitation; There would be up to 14 of these camps countrywide - seven large and seven small ones; Foreigners would stay in the camps "for as long as necessary" - no timeframe was given; It looked as if metro councils would be approached by provinces to cordon off areas for the camps. Metro councils in Gauteng and the Western Cape - where the xenophobic attacks were the most widespread - would get camps, but not the metro councils in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal; The number of foreigners in the country was estimated at about 51 000 on Wednesday night, of which about 28 000 were in Gauteng and 20 000 in the Western Cape; (((I assume this refers to the number of people displaced by the xenophobic violence as there are obviously many more foreigners in the country!))) It seemed as if the national government was not in favour of the UN openly helping because it considered the country to be in a position to resolve the matter itself; The Ekurhuleni metro would erect tented camps on the outskirts of Springs and Germiston, and possibly in the Kempton Park area too; and The greater Johannesburg city council already was working on plans for camps, together with the national and provincial government. At the time of going to press no comment could be obtained from the Tshwane metro council in Pretoria.

Years ago, as a student journalist, I was part of a church drama group that went to sing for FW & Marike de Klerk... :-). At the time he was still the president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela had been released from prison and negotiations for a new dispensation was well under way. We got to drink tea and enjoy snacks with the first couple in their official residence afterwards. A very strange experience! Being a young idealistic, aspiring, journalist I asked FW for his thoughts on the role of the media. He answered that he saw it as a necessary evil. I was slightly taken aback...

In the years since I've used the phrase quite often myself. It comes to mind again with the above breaking news. To spell it out: Setting up refugee camps (or whatever you elect to call them) in South Africa is a necessary evil at best. It is too late to avoid it. It is not good news.

I actually value the Government's stance up to now, i.e. that it is best for immigrants to integrate with society in general. However, it seems as if this policy was also an excuse to ignore the problem of illegal immigration. Best also not to create camps for Zimbabwe immigrants, how do you explain then some of the mind boggling claims by Thabo Mbeki that there's no crisis in Zimbabwe? For immigrants to integrate successfully into society they should have been officially recognised as immigrants or refugees. They should have been processed, i.e. given documents. This should have been done in a way that ensured local communities that foreigners living among them where there legally. And so one can go on. The list of shortcomings, policy failures, mismanagement, incompetence, corruption and neglect in regard to immigration by Government at all levels is a very very long one.

Where to from here? I fear incredible damage has been done in the last few weeks. While the occurrence of xenophobia is not entirely new in South Africa, the scale of the the recent events is such that it complicates the issue tremendously. In an ideal world politicians would talk to the relevant local communities and lay their fears to rest so that they can welcome back immigrants and they would live together happily ever after. Dream on...

We now have a bizarre new kind of Apartheid in South Africa. Us equals South Africans and them the 'illegal ones' or 'refugees'. In the short term pure humanitarian considerations dictate that camps be set up. But would you like to live in such a camp? Do you want your children to live in such a camp!? How much better would it be for these people to get out into society again and earn their keep through productive means. I suspect that the refugee-camps-by-another-name will also function as a first stop in the deportation chain ending somewhere north of our borders. While some of the deported will have doubts about returning to South Africa they will find exactly the same circumstances they fled in the first place - virtual dictatorship in Zimbabwe, anarchy in Somalia, etc. As before most of them will probably come back through the revolving door that is our borders. Deportation is not a viable long-term solution. They only kind of deportation that works is the kind that basically assists the limited amount of immigrants who want to return to their home countries in doing so.

I'm very curious to see how these camps will be managed. Will the inhabitants thereof have freedom of movement in and out of the camps? Will they be documented? Will they be assisted in finding alternative housing? Will permanent structures be built in the camps? Only time will tell, but what is sure is that South Africans cannot be critical enough in following future developments around this - it goes to the core of the values entrenched in our constitution.

BBC News (online) exposure for this blog - the good & 'the bad'

I received a message from Mhambi yesterday informing me that comments by both of us on the xenophobia currently raging in parts of South Africa featured on BBC News' website. The BBC piece, headlined 'SA bloggers want end to violence', quoted from ten blogs by South Africans. Inside South Africa (Xenophobia - images of shocking hatred) and Mhambi were included in the pool.

For a list of all the blogs, and links to all of them, go to the article and you'll find it under the heading 'Related links' in the right-hand menu (you'll need to scroll down a bit).

I'm delighted! However, this elation is somewhat tempered and needs some qualification.

South Africa's "bad publicity"
Most people with any knowledge of public relations or journalism will be able to quote the mantra: "There's no such thing as bad publicity". While this is undoubtedly true in most respects, it certainly does not mean that anyone would crave such 'bad publicity'. In this particular case it saddens me that South Africa is, deservedly, getting a lot of bad publicity. While it is vital that the current events, and its underlying causes, get exposed and debated it is also true that it will result in lost investment and economic damage - in short diminished trust in South Africa. Yes, it may be a wake up call for Government and the ANC which may lead to concerted efforts to solve various pressing socio-economic and human rights issues. But should those gains materialise it comes at a cost. How much better would it have been if these issues received priority before this all blew up in our faces?

Article not that good
The second reason for my tempered enthusiasm at being included in the article is quite strange, considering what an impressive news organisation the BBC boasts. To be frank, I didn't find the quality of the particular article that good...

BBC's human angle
But let me rather focus on the good for a moment! I love the fact that the BBC goes to great lengths to get the human angle on stories in addition to their more 'hard-news', removed, 'objective', political and analytic reporting. Their stories very often end with an invite to people affected by a specific news story to relate their own experience of events. In the case of their coverage of the xenophobia incidents the standard invite resulted in a very insightful piece 'S African violence: Your stories'. A dimension of reality is added to a story when someone relates, in first person narrative, how a mob knocked on his door and the frantic scramble to get out of harm's way. It is because I appreciate that kind of angle that I included the aforementioned link in my post that was thereafter featured by the BBC.

BBC's sampling of bloggers' comments
Sampling bloggers' comments is another way to relate a more 'localised' and 'local' angle on a story. The strategy definitely has value. I put the two words in inverted commas because many of the writers are quite far removed from events. The 'local' or 'localised' element to sampling their views lies in their nationality (South African in this case), rather than their location. While nine of the bloggers seem to live in South Africa -it's difficult to be sure- I suspect that none of them has been affected directly by the violence at the time they posted their opinions (one is actually of English nationality, but living in Cape Town - as pointed out in the article). I believe, for instance, that none of them actually saw burning barricades, mobs roaming the streets and so on. That is, all of them provided opinions based on what they saw or read in the media (no different from anyone else). Furthermore labelling their opinions as representing 'local' opinion is obviously dangerous - as a sample of ten is by no means representative. But it is quite clear that they do indeed represent different 'local' schools of thought and as such relating their opinions have value.

Poor selection of blogs?
So where's the 'bad' in all of this? I'm disappointed with the quality of the BBC's selection (read 'the BBC employee's' / 'journalist's '...). Some of the blogs, such as 'Mhambi', 'Reggie' and 'In the news' seem to be of a good to excellent quality. However, a mere casual check of quality should, in my mind, have disqualified more than one of the selected blogs from inclusion in the article. I'm thinking of 'South Africa Sucks' and 'I love South Africa... but I hate my Government'. Both of these blogs feature explicit racism and clearly operate at the level of highly prejudiced propaganda.

I'm all for freedom of speech, in fact I'm passionate about it. But surely, when one seeks comments on developments in a country you look for people who at least represent a somewhat critical analysis of events? None of the ten blogs included in the article where dismissive of the extremely negative turn of events - rightly so. Thus I'm not arguing that the BBC should have looked for bloggers who sing the government's praises. In fact I don't believe any of the included blogs do that. However, the two mentioned blogs interpret virtually anything that happens in the country through thick racist lenses. As such any new development is not analysed or explained on merit and within a complex context. It is simply rolled out as 'evidence' to support a preconceived notion that 'everything is going down the drain in South Africa' because 'they (blacks) can only mess things up'.

To drive my point home, surely the BBC would not include 'The UK Sucks' or 'Keep the UK white' (fictional blog names) when sampling English bloggers' opinions on developments in the UK? Unless they're doing an expose on supremacist groups or the like, that is. At the very least they will probably qualify that these (fictionary) blogs represent an ultra-conservative viewpoint?

While the excerpts from the two blogs pointed out by me on their own don't necessarily relay overtly the racism prevalent on the blogs, they do include questionable statements. For example a quote in the BBC's article, attributed to Doberman on 'I luv South Africa... but I Hate my Government', reads:

"...for allowing millions of foreigners to invade our country illegally, to steal jobs, resources, to commit crime...".

I can't help but think that the mobs who are engaging in the sickening xenophobic violence will love this quote... It smacks of the prejudice that seems to be driving them. Note the use of the words 'invade' (not flee from economic hardship or oppressive governments), 'steal jobs' (sure) and 'commit crime'. Are we to believe that in our overflowing prisons foreigners vastly outnumber South Africans? Get real! I don't think this kind of rubbish should feature on a reputable news service's site, unless meant to illustrate prejudice.

On balance, the misgivings expressed above doesn't change the fact that I'm chuffed at the inclusion of this blog in the BBC's article. I'm thrilled! Hopefully, if in future the BBC is more circumspect about who's ramblings they quote this blog will still make the grade...