Paris yesterday - in solidarity with the Tunisian revolution

Few could have predicted how rapidly events would unfold in Tunisia over the past few days. A repressive dictatorship, with any public display of dissent rare and fear of the police widespread, the country has been rocked by mass protests over the past month, as we reported last week.

Initially an uprising of urban youth over rising food prices and high unemployment, sparked by the suicide attempt of a young graduate,  it quickly developed into a broad front against the regime of Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, in power for 23 years. As the official organs of civil society entered negotiations with the government – in some cases winning significant concessions – the masses continued to take to the streets, against the threat of bullets, tear gas and imprisonment, raising the chant of “no, no, no dialogue, Ben Alí must go!”

In a desperate bid to cling onto power, on Thursday Ben Ali made a televised address to the nation, in which he pledged not to stand for re-election in 2014 (elections he would have won: in 2009 he took 90% of the vote amid tight media and candidacy restrictions), to introduce sweeping social reforms, and to investigate the police killings of protesters during recent demonstrations.

It wasn’t enough. On Friday, the protests continued. Trade unions called a two hour general strike, and thousands rallied outside the Interior Ministry. A state of emergency was put in place; Ben Ali fired his own government and called fresh elections within six months. On the streets, the police continued to fire live ammunition and tear gas at the now illegal protests. Yet only hours later, reports began to emerge that Ben Ali himself had fled the country – now sheltering as a guest of the Saudi royal family.

But the same political elite are still in power, at least for now. The Speaker of the country’s Parliament has taken the role of interim president, while the army maintain a strong presence on the streets. The new president has promised to abide by the constitution, which states that a new presidential election must be held within 60 days – whether it will prove to more open and democratic than previous elections remains to be seen. Across the country, the army are visibly removing portraits of Ben Ali and other overt signs of his regime. But these changes are superficial, little more than an attempt by the same ruling class to pretend that something has changed, to appease the masses and send them home.

Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali

Ben Ali ascended to the presidency in 1987, when his predecessor was forced out amid a political and economic crisis. What was meant to be an interim measure became permanent, with Ben Ali refusing to cede power. The Tunisian masses are only too aware of this, and will not be duped similarly this time. The events of the past few days have shown that it is the workers, the students and the unemployed of Tunisia who hold the real power – and the future direction of the country is now for them to determine.

The ruling classes are in a state of panic – earlier today the  Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi came out and condemned the Tunisian revolt, blaming it on Wikileaks cables deliberately created by US diplomats “in order to create chaos”. The irony couldn’t be greater – President Ben Ali was a firm ally of the United States, a proponent of neo-liberal reform and willing participant in the ‘war on terror’. Gaddafi is terrified because the uprising is already beginning to have an impact throughout the region – in Algeria last week, in Jordan and even in Libya itself. The lessons for the whole of North Africa and the Arab world, and its collection of despotic rulers, couldn’t be clearer.

Tunisia is at a crossroads – one dictator has been forced out, but the revolution has just begun. Socialists in the country now have a key role to play in arguing that the Tunisian people must go beyond simply demanding base reforms to be instituted by another government from the same elite elected through a sham democracy, but that the masses must take power into their own hands. And only this, a democratic system under workers’ control, free from interference by western imperialism, can provide a long-term solution to the day-to-day problems suffered by the people of Tunisia.

An explosion of popular protest has broken out in North Africa over the past few weeks, with anti-government demonstrations and riots continuing in both Tunisia and Algeria.

Localised unrest first began in Tunisia in mid-December, sparked by the attempted suicide of 26-year old graduate Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself alight outside a government building in protest at the police seizure of his fruit and vegetable stall, reportedly for selling without a permit.

Protests in Tunisia – a repressive, western-backed de-facto dictatorship – are rare, but Bouazizi’s action brought issues which have been simmering for years to a head and proved to be the catalyst for nationwide demonstrations. While he has since died in hospital, the rioting and protests have continued.

A number of factors lie behind the unrest – high graduate and youth unemployment, endemic corruption among the elites and government officials, and rampant inequality. On top of this, global food prices are at crisis point, reaching a record high last month.

What started as a rebellion of urban youth has now developed into a much broader front against the repressive government of Ben Ali, who’s been president for 23 years. Thousands of lawyers have been on strike and in the streets, demanding an end to the brutal repression of the protests, of which the death toll is continuing to mount. Trade unions have held mass rallies against unemployment, which have also been attacked by security forces. However, clear reports of what’s happening on the ground are hard to come by – foreign journalists are banned from the country, meaning almost all reports abroad are relying on agency copy. Inside Tunisia, journalists are being banned from towns in which protests are going on, and the government have come down heavy on social media and internet reportage.

Indeed, it’s interesting to compare the media coverage the Tunisian uprising has had with the much-feted, not dissimilar, protests in Iran in 2009/10, in that case over a disputed election result. While the ‘Green Revolution’ dominated headlines for weeks, the Tunisian protests have hardly merited a passing mention on mainstream news broadcasts, and the angle taken has been noticeably different. Whereas with Iran, media outlets played up the pro-democracy, pro-human rights youthful activists WITH TWITTER vs. repressive government aspect of it, this has been virtually absent from what little has been said about Tunisia. As one commentator over at Al Jazeera has asked, could the reason be that the Tunisian government – ranked alongside North Korea in terms of its internet censorship – is an ally of the west, and thus doesn’t fit the familiar, easy to understand narrative of nasty baddie Arab regime vs. secular, democratic western opposition? Indeed, while the US and other governments regularly condemn the Iranian government for their crackdowns on dissent, we’ve yet to see any similar pronouncements regarding Ben Ali’s regime in Tunisia. Apart from in secret, that is, with one leaked US embassy cable describing the country as a “police-state”, and laying bare the reality of the regime. Maybe it’s something to do with the fact that Tunisia uses American technology to enforce its strict internet censorship policy, and recieves millions of dollars of US military aid every year as an ally in the ‘war on terror’. Hmm.

In neighbouring Algeria, protests broke out last week, sparked by rapidly rising food prices, with the cost of some commodities up 20-30 percent in recent days, coupled with massive youth unemployment. Like in Tunisia, rioting and demonstrations have spread rapidly across the country. The Algerian Socialist Workers Party (no relation lol) have said in a statement that I’ve badly interpreted from Google Translate:

For several months the discontent has been bubbling. In fighting for the elusive bag of milk, in search of a bakery open, the rage at those billions stolen in front of them: princely gifts made to the Gulf emirs, the lords, or the Algerian kings of Europe, all exempt of tax.

The origin of the explosion, increasing the price of sugar, oil and groceries. The sight of the legitimate revolt of young people of Tunisia, of course, inspired the protests. The distribution of social housing has rekindled the hatred of corruption. We are asked to wait, but we see the fortunes ride without waiting.

Wage increases achieved in the public sector after years of struggle, strikes, repression, are ridiculous for working classes, that is to say for the majority. And these increases are not yet implemented everywhere, and are already eaten by higher prices.

The final outcome of the revolts in both countries remains to be seen, but what’s become clear from the protests is the huge level of discontent at high unemployment, lack of opportunity and the rising cost of living, which is continuing to mount. Mass arrests, repression, censorship and state murders have so far failed to quell protests in either country: while Algeria is accustomed to demonstrations of this kind, Tunisia is not, raising the possibility that they could spread throughout the region.

Pour les libertés d’expression, d’organisation, de manifestation et de grève !

Leftfield has already reported how the World Cup, far from being an economic benefit to South Africa, has in fact been a license for FIFA and international capitalism to loot the country.

Now it looks as if the full force of the law might be used to keep the electricity supply to fans’ TVs running, and prevent workers from exercising their right to strike.

Eskom is South Africa’s state owned electricity supplier, although attempts were made to at least partially privatise it in the late 1990s, meaning it operates in many ways as a private business. Eskom workers are demanding a 9% pay increase, as well as a housing allowance to help them cope with the rocketing cost of keeping a roof over their heads. The company has refused to meet their demands, offering increases in wages and allowances well below what the workers need during an economic crisis.

A strike would be unlikely to affect the actual electricity supply to the stadia themselves, as they generally have back up diesel generators. But it could affect the supply to TVs for fans from around the world who are in South Africa without tickets. More importantly for the South African economy, and global capitalism, it could disrupt platinum and gold mines, affecting the global price of these commodities.

In response to the unions pledge to push ahead with strike action next week, as the World Cup moves towards semi finals, Eskom has threatened to go to the courts and have the strike declared illegal, because electricity is deemed an “essential service”, and therefore presumably electricity workers should have no rights. “This is a country of laws and we must all abide by the laws,” said Eskom CEO Brian Dames.

The unions counter that they have tried to reach a ‘minimum service agreement’ with Eskom, meaning that non-essential workers would be able to strike while the lights were kept on. Eskom instead proposed an agreement that would have completely removed the right to strike from all workers, which the unions refused to sign.

What’s particularly ridiculous about Eskom’s refusal to budge is that its own executives have been caught out using company funds to feather their own nests. Executives are to be paid a 9.6 million Rand performance bonus, while they claim they can’t afford to pay their workers properly. They have established a R1 billion pool to fund payments to top bosses.

They’ve also spent R12.6 million on World Cup tickets for top execs.

Dames said he was appealing for “organised labour to play a part in putting our country first.”

But union spokesman Lesiba Seshoka hit back, saying: “We would like to put our country first; why don’t they put their workers first? Why are they putting themselves first?”

After the government attempted to partially privatise Eskom in the late 1990s, it refused to provide funds for the building of extra electrical power plants, meaning that there are now problems with supply leading to blackouts. A huge proportion of the poor population of South Africa continues to have no access to electricity supply.

Protesters slam rising electricity bills

During the Apartheid era, it was common for people to refuse to pay their power bills as a form of struggle against the racist and oppressive government, and to covertly connect themselves to the supply illegally. This form of struggle has seen a resurgence in recent years as the urban poor have been enraged that the impact of neoliberal economic policies means many still have no access to a proper home, electricity or clean water, and for those that do have access to utilities bills have jumped.

These policies have been implemented by the African National Congress government, which has now largely abandoned its left wing roots to become a party that only implements policies that suit South African and international capitalists. Significantly, the British bosses’ paper, the Financial Times, reckons there’ll be no strike because of the ANC. “If things aren’t sorted out by the weekend, expect party heavyweights to get involved,” they write.

The latest strike threat to the World Cup comes after the dramatic strike of stewards at stadia forced police to take over security at games. The stewards were angry that at their poverty pay at the hands of FIFA contractor Stallion Security. They linked up with community protesters who held banners demanding “World Cup for All! People Before Profit” and declaring “Apartheid Still Exists!”

Police used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse strikers before taking over security themselves at games such as the first round match between Brazil and North Korea.

Workers on strike at Soccer City

The heavy handed security for the World Cup has been a scandalous issue, with FIFA using South African police as a tool to protect their own business interests, excluding anyone who wanted to expose their role, or local traders trying to make a livelihood in the zones around the stadia where FIFA has been given exclusive economic control. A local environmentalist was arrested in durban for handing out leaflets about the World Cup’s impact at a ‘Fan Fest’ event, and another man who was found with 30 tickets and “no explanation” was given three years in jail.

Stallion itself is a scandal ridden operation, after a promise by the labour minister to ban it due to its terrible treatment of workers was not fulfilled. In 2001 it was responsible for a stampede at a Johannesburg football game that left 40 dead.

Their partner as head of security for FIFA’s local organising committee is former prisons commissioner Linda Mti, who gets a cut from a notorious privatised concentration camp for immigrants who have been arrested at Lindela (as well as being a triple arrestee for drunk driving.)

The Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa

Yesterday marked the celebration of 50 years of independence for the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In 1960, Congo was finally able to free itself from one of the most brutal regimes in all of colonial Africa: Belgian control. Of all the European colonial powers, the Belgians were notorious as the worst for their ruthless exploitation of the Congo’s resources, and their horrendous violence against its people.

Since independence, there’s not been much for people to celebrate, with a 32 year brutal dictatorship followed by a state of total civil war which is the second worst war in the history of humanity, and has claimed for more victims than world war one.

Around the world, not many people think about the almost unimaginable death toll of the wars in Congo, and when they do it’s only to confirm racist stereotypes about independent Africa. The Congo today is not only the home of a devastating war, but also unbelievably high rates of sexual violence, preventable disease, illiteracy and poverty.

But the blame for the disastrous state of the Congo today shouldn’t be put at the door of the Congolese people. Rather, its European powers, and later the US, that must accept responsibility for turning swathes of Central Africa into a hell on Earth.

Read the rest of this entry »

He's a bastard, in't he?

By Calum Nelson, MPharm

In South Africa there’s a popular comedian called Matthias Rath. Here’s one of his jokes:

“Patient: Doctor Doctor, I’m worried about transmitting HIV to my unborn baby.

Doctor: Don’t worry, just have some potatoes. Whatever you do, don’t take any poisonous anti-viral medicine which will actually cause AIDS.”

It’s a screamer eh? Ok, I lied. Matthias Rath is actually a doctor from Germany, not a comedian, and some might also say he’s a serial killer. Not a serial killer in the Harold Shipman way, but his practices have almost certainly led to the deaths of thousands of South Africans.

South Africa is a nation with a massive HIV/AIDS crisis. It is currently estimated that 11% of South Africans are HIV-positive. This means that if you walk down a busy street in South Africa, chances are 1 in every 10 people you see has HIV. This changes by province; in KwaZulu-Natal the rate goes up to 26%. With a disease this widespread, anyone able to market a treatment might end up very rich very quickly and it appears that Matthias Rath also knew this.

Having studied medicine in his native Germany, Rath went into research in California. It was here that he started making claims about the use of high dose vitamins in treatment of cardiovascular disease. He began suggesting that conventional cancer treatments should not be used as they kill patients and that they should instead take Rath’s vitamin supplements. His books developed an impressive readership throughout Europe and he sold lots of interestingly priced vitamins. Despite being criticised and fined throughout Europe for claiming his pills could cure cancer, he developed an impressive following and an impressive bank balance, allowing him to try and break South Africa. Well he broke it alright.

With all guns blazing he filled newspaper pages with his claims. “Antivirals are a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical industry to poison you. Vitamins are the true solution to AIDS. Stop taking your antivirals right now…RIGHT NOW. STOP IT. STOP TAKING THEM. SPIT IT OUT. Now don’t let me catch you doing it again.” Ok, so those weren’t his exact words, but they might as well have been. Soon he was conducting trials, recruiting poor black township residents with promises of money or food. The patients were told to stop taking their antivirals and were instead given high doses of vitamins. Guess what happened. Guess. Everyone was actually fine and they all lived happily ever after. Sorry, typo, what I meant to say was that a considerable number of the study participants quickly deteriorated and died. The South African High Court eventually found that Rath’s trial was illegal. This could have ended up being an unfortunate isolated incident in which a doctor with crazy ideas performed an unethical trial. Thousands of lives may have been saved if one of Rath’s supporters didn’t just happen to be the President of the Republic of South Africa.

And so it came to pass that thanks to Matthias Rath, a country with one of the highest HIV rates in the world was telling people to take African potatoes and garlic instead of antivirals. The country refused to roll out antiviral treatment programmes; they turned down grant money intended for the purchase of HIV medication and even turned down donations of drugs. Presidential advisors recommended banning HIV tests and denied any knowledge of an AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Thabo Mbeki himself repeatedly denied that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS and his health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang repeatedly praised Rath’s work and publicly decried antiviral therapy as being dangerous and counterproductive. Overall it’s estimated that around 330,000 people died unnecessarily in the space of 5 years thanks to the government’s policy on antivirals.

Naturally these policies encountered opposition; the Western Cape province ignored governmental advice and continued to supply antiretrovirals. Groups such as Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) did their utmost to get HIV medication to those in need. This resulted in Anthony Brink, a colleague of Rath, taking TAC to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, accusing them of genocide. In his indictment Brink set out what he believed to be an appropriate punishment for Zachie Achmat, the founder of TAC:

“APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL SANCTION

In view of the scale and gravity of Achmat’s crime and his direct personal criminal culpability for ‘the deaths of thousands of people’, to quote his own words, it is respectfully submitted that the International Criminal Court ought to impose on him the highest sentence provided by Article 77.1(b) of the Rome Statute, namely to permanent confinement in a small white steel and concrete cage, bright fluorescent light on all the time to keep an eye on him, his warders putting him out only to work every day in the prison garden to cultivate nutrient-rich vegetables, including when it’s raining. In order for him to repay his debt to society, with the ARVs he claims to take administered daily under close medical watch at the full prescribed dose, morning noon and night, without interruption, to prevent him faking that he’s being treatment compliant, pushed if necessary down his forced-open gullet with a finger, or, if he bites, kicks and screams too much, dripped into his arm after he’s been restrained on a gurney with cable ties around his ankles, wrists and neck, until he gives up the ghost on them, so as to eradicate this foulest, most loathsome, unscrupulous and malevolent blight on the human race, who has plagued and poisoned the people of South Africa, mostly black, mostly poor, for nearly a decade now, since the day he and his TAC first hit the scene.

Signed at Cape Town, South Africa, on 1 January 2007

Anthony Brink”

Fortunately Rath’s heyday is over in South Africa. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang was replaced as health minister and Mbeki was replaced as president by Kgalema Motlanthe, who stated that “the era of AIDS denialism in South Africa is over.” Despite this, a massive amount of damage was done by Rath and the other AIDS dissidents in South Africa. The lack of HIV medication is estimated to have caused 35,000 babies to have been unnecessarily born with HIV and 171,000 preventable HIV infections. Antiviral medication is difficult enough for the poorest to afford at the best of times thanks to prohibitive pricing by the pharmaceutical industry and so extra restrictions are likely to have a devastating effect. Purely for the sake of money and advancing his own career, Rath destroyed thousands of lives and thousands of families across South Africa. In a similar fashion to our own MMR scare, irresponsible claims made with a lack of evidence proved dangerous and the importance of examining evidence is once again demonstrated.

Today sees the launch of the 2010 football world cup in South Africa. It’s great news for football fans, and we’re playing our part with a world cup raffle (comment if you’d like to get a ticket!) and South Africa night for the final (watch this space for details.)

But great as it might be for us on the other side of the world to get a month of football to watch, the real costs of the tournament for South Africa are getting hidden amongst the excitement.

Over the next month we’re going to be bringing you a series of articles about South Africa, its history and long political struggles for democracy and socialism that are far from over.

Twenty years ago, holding the world cup in South Africa would have been unthinkable. The world at large refused to allow South Africa to participate in most major sporting events because of Apartheid, the state enforced system of extreme racial segregation and oppression.

But with the fall of Apartheid in the early 90s, the world’s media told us South Africa’s problems were solved. There was democracy, and a government elected by the black majority was finally in power.

Since then however, South African governments have turned away from the left wing ideas that inspired many in the struggle against Apartheid, and looked to global capitalism to solve South Africa’s problems.

The result has been that the majority of South Africans continue to live below the poverty lines, with millions of homeless and low rates of access to clean water or electricity. The average male life expectancy is just 49, and there are unemployment rates of 40%.

While so much has been spent on the world cup, the government still does not provide thousands with a proper home

The government has made the world cup an important part of its economic strategy, and has spent $4.1 billion on hosting the event, more than any other country before it. A series of brand new stadia have been built, driving an economic bubble in the construction industry. However, now that the work is done, the real question is, how much will South Africa actually benefit from the world cup?

Read the rest of this entry »

SSY has a long and proud record of celebrating when fascists die in embarrassing and or unfortunate circumstances. Whether it’s the sad loss of BNP founder John Tyndall (we coincidentally had a BBQ the day he popped his clogs – remember Tyndall burgers?), homophobic Austrian Fuhrer Jorg Haider who killed himself in a car crash after coming back pissed from a gay bar, or of course, Mussolini riddled with bullets hanging upside down in an Italian Garage. So SSY is pleased to announce another addition to that list of human shit, none other than Eugene Terre Blanche.

"I look all annoyed because I don't like the blecks"

Eugene Terre Blanche was the leader of the AWB – the Afrikaner Resistance Movement. The AWB is a far-right organisation that was founded in the 70’s because some Afrikaners were so mental they thought pro-Nazi Prime Minister BJ Forster was too liberal. The AWB violently opposed relaxation of even “petty apartheid” rules, like black and white people kissing, marrying, shagging etc.

Even when the chips were obviously down for apartheid, the AWB were trying to organise a civil war and carve out their own all-white Boer state out of a multiracial South Africa, not dissimilar to what the Serbs did in Bosnia. At their height the AWB had the support of roughly 5-7% of South Africa’s white population, a similar % that the BNP get today from the UK population.

The AWB organised violent attacks against Blacks in South Africa as well as those Afrikaner politicians they believed were too liberal; for example, shooting and throwing grenades at Black South Africans during the chaos of the Bophuthatswana coup where their members declared they were on a “kaffir hunting picnic”.

The AWB also turned up armed and provoked violence outside a meeting where President FW Klerk was speaking in the Battle of Ventersdorp. Klerk had enraged a minority of Afrikaners for unbanning the African National Congress and releasing Nelson Mandela. This wasn’t the only violent attempt to stop the dismantling of apartheid – the AWB also stormed the Kempton Park World Trade Centre where negotiations to conduct South Africa’s first free and fair multiracial elections were being conducted.

The AWB’s campaign of violence was unable to stop the inevitable destruction of apartheid however. Despite having a small but armed minority of support among Afrikaners, the White population of South Africa was too small to survive as an indefinite dictatorship over the Black majority population any longer. The AWB’s demand for a white ruled Boer Republic was a fantasy, as there was no contiguous landmass in South Africa that had a white majority. The South African state and economy was dependent on the overwhelming majority of the population, the Black population, having no rights whatsoever, allowing South Africa to construct a slave economy over the backs of the populace.

The Boers themselves were largely made up of the descendants of Dutch colonists who had arrived in the South of Africa over 300 years ago. They fled the British ruled Cape Colony, in what was called the “Great Trek” where they lived a nomadic lifestyle. They called themselves “Voortrekkers” and were similar to the European colonists in North America and Zionist settlers in Palestine in that they saw their role as taking control of “virgin territory” that had been unused, left to waste until a superior race of people could exploit it. Like in North America and Palestine however the Voortrekkers were not alone – this land too had a people.

The Voortrekker’s superior technology allowed them to massacre the indigenous Zulu tribes. At the Battle of Blood River the Voortrekkers were able to slaughter 3000 Zulu Natal warriors. No Voortrekkers died – only 3 of them were lightly wounded. After this defeat of the native population, the Voortrekkers were able to establish several Boer republics, which eventually became the apartheid South African state.

It’s this siege mentality among sections of the White South African population, that has been a part of their history in settling in Africa that the AWB relate to and try to exploit. Since the collapse of apartheid many White South Africans have lost their old privileges in the political and economic systems of South Africa. Many Boers and their farms have also been attacked, and there is fear among the Boers that what happened in Zimbabwe – where White farmers were expelled from their land will happen to them. On the opposite side many Black South Africans have not seen their quality of life increase substantially in democratic South Africa, and whilst losing a lot of their privileges the Afrikaner population is still better off than any other racial group in South Africa.

We don't know if Wikus Van De Merwe did kill Eugene with alien weaponry, but we are prepared to float it as a possibility.

So whilst most of South Africa’s population support the dismantling of apartheid, it is by no means a perfect multiracial rainbow paradise yet. There still remains a minority of Afrikaners who are attracted to the ideas of the AWB. In 2004 a poll was conducted to find out who South Africans thought their greatest countryman was – unsurprisingly, Mandela topped it, but Terre Blanche came in at No 25.

If you want to see more about Eugene, Nick Broomfield has done a series of documentaries about the nutter which are available here.

Sir Bob shows his radical credentials

The world has watched in horror as the outrageously corrupt BBC and Channel 4 has attempted to make the ludicrous claim that there are still problems in Africa.

Sensible people everywhere know that Africa is now a paradise thanks to the efforts of their saviour, multi-millionaire Saint Sir Bob Geldof the Wonderful.

Sir Bob has been on the defensive over the last few weeks, after several different investigations attacked his legacy of work against poverty.

First of all, a BBC World Service investigation received information from several former rebel leaders in Ethiopia that a portion of aid money raised by the Band Aid charity in the 80s was in fact diverted by rebels to buy weapons.

Now, Channel 4 is to screen a documentary next week that attacks His Holiness for distracting attention from the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005.

During the 80s, at the time of Band Aid, the Ethiopian national government was at war with a number of rebel forces in the countryside. Leaders of those rebels are now in power in Ethiopia. However, some former rebel leaders have since fallen out with their former comrade and current Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. They told the BBC that the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) tricked aid workers into giving them money, by disguising themselves as merchants, as well as covering sacks of sand with sacks of food when taking aid cash.

Former TPLF leaders claim that they got $100 million this way, which was spent on weapons to overthrow the government. They also claim that they used front groups, such as the Relief Society of Tigray, to get cash. Band Aid’s own records show they gave $11 million to the society.

His Excellency Sir Geldof has been outraged by the claims, and has threatened to sue the BBC, demanding that the reporters who filed the story and their bosses should get the sack.

“Martin Plaut, [the World Service news and current affairs editor] Andrew Whitehead and Peter Horrocks should be fired. There should be an immediate investigation into what went wrong, steps should be taken to rectify the identified faults and the World Service must work very, very hard to re-establish its trust and hard-won reputation as the world broadcaster of excellence.”

It seems that, according, the His Most Generous Wonderous-ness Geldof, Band Aid should be completely above criticism. How

"Why don't people get that I'm fantastic?!"

dare anyone suggest that a major aid effort in a starving country beset by civil war could ever be affected by corruption?! As BBC journalist Rageh Omaar pointed out in the Guardian, the journalists behind this story were in Ethiopia in the 80s, received serious and credible information, and were right to go ahead with it. There should now be a full investigation. The Most Marvellous Geldof’s response? Omaar is “ridiculous.”

Geldof went on to make the laughable claim that:

“Not a single penny went on armaments. Not one. Not a pound; not a penny. Let me be clear on that. And I’ve also spoken to some of the others, including the Red Cross, who say it is absolute rubbish that any of their money could have possibly gone on arms.”

At this point he really does sound desperate. He could have argued that corruption wasn’t on the scale the story claimed. But to claim that “not a single penny” went astray? As this article on Pambazuka points out, every single aid effort to Africa suffers from corruption. In a continent afflicted by poverty, undemocratic governments and the interference of imperialism in their affairs, it’s impossible to have a completely clean and transparent aid process. In fact, much of the way that aid is given by the western capitalist powers makes things worse.

The vehemence of Geldof’s denial has the opposite effect from the one he intended: it leaves you wondering what it is he’s so desperate to hide.

Meanwhile, in a separate programme, More 4 are screening a documentary called Starsuckers next week which will attack Geldof’s role in the G8 protests in 2005.

At the time, a major coalition of charities, campaign groups and churches came together in the Make Poverty History coalition. This demanded debt relief for third world countries and more aid from rich ones. It organised a mass march through the centre of Edinburgh, all dressed in white. At the time the SSP and SSY took part, but instead of white, we dressed in red, to symbolise our desire to Make Capitalism History. We argued that the structure of the international economy was geared to do nothing else but increase inequality and keep poor countries poor. An appeal to the G8 leaders meeting in Scotland was useless, they must be attacked and defeated.

SSP marching against the G8

However, even this charity campaign was too radical for the All Knowing Genius Geldof, who organised Live Aid, a massive celebrity mutual masturbation fest, were stars both young and has-been got together for a concert where they told the world how great they were.

Starsuckers claims that Geldof hijacked the Make Poverty History campaign for his own ends. After the summit, it became clear that G8 leaders were going to do sweet FA to help third world countries, and that all the talk of progress had just been rhetoric for the cameras. But Geldof said he gave the global political elite “10 out of 10″ for commitments on aid, and “8 out of 10″ for debt relief. He later said the 8 score should be upgraded to 10 out of 10. In the process he showed just how much he himself was part of the PR machine defending the corrupt imperialist governments of the west.

The ever furious Geldof has penned a 6,000 word letter attacking Starsuckers and attempting to defend his rapidly-vanishing legacy. The theme underlying all this outrage is that clearly Geldof is pretty sensitive to allegations that show him up for what he is: a completely useless celebrity attention seeker. A man who wanted to do good, but has been completely compromised by working hand-in-glove with the powerful forces actually responsible for third world poverty.

He attacked anti-poverty campaigners as “wankers dressed as clowns”, and said Make Poverty History was “a bit lame and almost entirely ineffectual. . .boring, futile and adolescent.” Again, he says he’s contacted his lawyers.

On the other hand, according to his letter, Live Aid had an acute political vision of the world economic situation and the realistic prospect of ending under-development throughout the global south. Just listen to this piece of stunning analysis from Geldof:

“Richard [Curtis] and Bono came to me and said do another gig. I said you fucking do it if you’re so eager. Bono said he’d play with McCartney and they’d open the gig with “It was 20 years ago today” – a reference to Live Aid. I wanted to see that. Precisely that rock n roll moment I wanted to see, so I said ok. That’s why I did it. Pathetic but y’know …”

Yes Bob, we do know.

The fact of the matter is, the protests against the G8 weren’t as successful as some of the previous mobilisations against international capitalist summits, like the Battle of Seattle. A lot of this was to do with the political confusion-were we against the summit, or asking the leaders to do something for us? Despite the best efforts of the SSP and others, Make Poverty History’s campaign contributed a lot towards stopping a more radical, anti-capitalist approach.

But Geldof knows exactly what side of the power divide he comes down on. In his letter he writes:

“Like it or not the agents of change in our world are the politicians. Otherwise you’re always outside the tent pissing in. They stay inside their tent pissing back out at you. This is futile. My solution is to get inside the tent and piss in there.”

"When we get inside the tent can we piss on each other again?"

Whilst Geldof and the G8 leaders engage in bizarre watersports, those of us who actually know what they’re talking about can unpick what he’s said here. The only way to get any change is to rely on the same global elite who are responsible for creating the situation as it stands, claims Geldof. But rich countries are rich precisely because they have looted Africa and the rest of the third world for centuries now, and it’s still going on. Those people and movements who’ve tried to stand up to this have faced ferocious attacks from the west and their corrupt allies. The G8 leaders will NEVER solve poverty in Africa, because they are responsible for it.

The way forward for poor countries is demonstrated by the handful of examples where the people have won and the government stands up to the rich world. Today, Venezuela and Cuba, which have revolutionary governments supported by the mass of the people, are able to provide world class health and education to their people, and do not suffer from famine as countries like Ethiopia do. The people of these countries, and their allies here, are the real agents of change, not rich politicians.

As for us in Scotland, it’s clear that sitting around watching wanker celebrities on telly is going to change nothing. We have a responsibility to help people in the third world. The best way we can do that is by fighting for socialism here, and trying to take down our own corrupt governments responsible for so much suffering across the globe.

Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, has been in the UK meeting the Queen and causing a stir.

The Daily Mail has whipped itself into a frenzy, calling Zuma a “vile buffoon” and a “sex-obsessed bigot”, as well as repeatedly calling him “Zulu Boy”.

The Telegraph is appalled that he has been invited after  describing the British as “condescending imperialists” and think Her Maj ought to teach him some manners.

The BBC is obsessed with his multiple marriages.

The Guardian’s front page pictured the Queen next to Zuma’s wife Thobeka Stacey Madiba, as if to contrast liberated white womanhood against Mrs Zuma as chattel.

Let’s get some things straight. Jacob Zuma isn’t a very nice man. He’s a corrupt, homophobic, misogynist, rapist.

But most Heads of State and people of power are pretty distasteful, if you look in to it.  The Queen has hosted Mugabe and Ceauşescu, for goodness sake, as well as being big buddies with George W Bush.

So how come the media aren’t reporting on Zuma’s corruption, or his politics, or what he’s done in his role as President? How come they’re not using his actions to talk about issues of rape, women’s rights, gay rights, and equality in South Africa and the rest of the world today?

All we’ve learnt from the media coverage of Zuma’s visit is that we can all point and laugh at the crazy brown man, mock him and his culture and call him ‘Zulu Boy’ and get away with it. It all stinks of racism and white supremacy.

If the British media wants to criticize Zuma, maybe they could have reported on the South African feminists fighting for equality under Zuma’s regime, such as Pumla Gqola, whose wonderful myth-busting article on polygamy cuts right to the chase:

The point of the matter is not whether in a feminist republic we’d force Zuma to choose one wife or banish him… We’d probably banish Zuma for many more reasons, least of which his preference for multiple partners.

How come the white ruling class only give a shit about women’s rights when they’re trying to justify their own racism?