As someone who tangentially follows South African politics, I found this expose to be relevant for multiple reasons. For the last 16 plus years, the country has been controlled by the ANC, or African National Congress. Recently, however, discontent has been building over their failure to reduce the high unemployment rate (at around 25 percent right now), curbtheir corruption, and stop their abuse of state power to silence opposition. An example would be the recent laws passed by the Zuma administration that many feel are serious restrictions of press freedom.
So, what does this have to do with an article describing a state visit to Equatorial Guinea? Well a lot, I think. Basically, it tells of a visit by Jacob Zuma to the oil-rich nation. Guinea's long time dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema, released four South African mercenaries as a good will gesture. Apparently, he wants to become a "respected statesman and run a proper democracy." Based on past actions, though, I don't think that Zuma really cares whether this nation becomes democratic or not. He has no problem supporting the racist dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. South Africa, you see, wants access to their substantial energy resources (of course, the United States does exactly the same in many other places, but that doesn't make it any better). Ultimately, as a man who doesn't seem to respect democracy at home, I find it hard to believe that he cares about it abroad.
The Mail and Gaurdian also goes into great detail about the mercenaries released. It describes their individual and collective histories, particularly that of Nick du Toit. An officer in 32 Battalion, he joined Executive Outcomes (a funny name for a mercenary company), and popped up across Africa in places as diverse as Sierra Lion and the Comoros. I think that his story definitely warrants further exploration, as do the other names mentioned throughout the piece.
After you're blog's horrendous post cleverly titled "Interesting Articles," I've made your blog a regular destination of mine. I found it helps me keep in touch with the mentality of the least intelligent.
ReplyDeleteThis post's lack of depth astounds me. You have the minimum of awareness necessary to attempt to understand the fascinating sidelines of history, yet lack the basic inquisitory skills required to to interpret these sources.
Oh, and it's spelled "Guardian."
I would respond to your accusations, except that they don't make any sense. I get the feeling that you use big words and cryptic grammar to attempt to sounds smart. Unfortunately, however, you fail miserably. As for my spelling mistakes, who cares? If the best you can do is attack my wording, then you clearly have no way to refute the actual narrative of my post.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you only need one "to" in your penultimate sentence - but that doesn't really matter now, does it?