south africa

 

The front pages of South African newspapers over the past few weeks have been dominated by one story – that of the execution of Janice Linden. Three years ago she was convicted of smuggling 3kg’s of tik through China’s Baiyun International Airport, an offence which, in China, carries the penalty of death by lethal injection.

I am going to go on record and say that I have no time for drug mules – admittedly, I do not know of their motives, whether it is for money or for pleasure, but to risk throwing away your life, literally in this case, is nothing short of idiotic.

I do however reserve some sympathy for Janice Linden. The death penalty is a shockingly outdated punishment, one that has rightly been outlawed in most parts of the world. I personally do not believe that any action is justifiably penalised by death.

This is a common view, and understandably news of Linden’s execution has been met with much outrage in her native country. China play an increasingly influential role in not just South Africa, but Africa as well, and thus the connection linking the two countries is growing stronger as each year passes.

Surely then, her fellow citizens fume, we could have put up more of a fight? Linden’s family have expressed their deepest disappointment in the South African government in the way they seemingly idly stood by whilst one of their people was put to death by one of their biggest trading partners.

There have been cases, six in total, where South Africans have been spared the death penalty in China for similar offences – although whether these were via pressure from our government is debatable.

But I think that you could argue that there was not much that could have been done. China is a vastly proud and traditional society, and this is exemplified by the fact that they have kept laws like the death penalty whilst a large part of the world seems to have moved on – in fact, China execute more of their own people, even on a per capita basis, than any other country in the world.

I am not going to pretend that I understand Chinese culture; their motives or their traditions. From our point of view, the execution was handled extremely badly in that she was told a mere few hours before it was to happen, but we live in a completely different society, so we cannot judge and criticise that which we do not understand. Whilst Janice Linden’s execution and the way in which it was carried out might seem gravely harsh to us, it seems perfectly justified to the people of China. That is the world that they, and we, live in.

In short, Janice Linden chose to risk her life, and it just so happens that she must pay the ultimate price because of the place she chose to risk her life in. Whilst we could go on about how our government did nothing to help her, in the end I do not really think there is much they could have done to change the practices of one of the oldest institutions in the world. Janice Linden chose her fate when she decided to smuggle 3kg of tik through Baiyun International Airport, and we, as fellow South Africans, must accept this.

 


On Friday, China, South Africa, Brazil and India all called on developed and highly industrialised countries to make greater efforts to reduce their emissions. The call comes a few months before the United Nations climate summit, which will be held in Durban, South Africa, this November. The meeting will focus on the extension of the Kyoto Protocol targets that are supposed to be met next year, as well as other plans to reduce global emissions.

The success of the Kyoto Protocol is doubtful, because neither China nor the USA has signed the agreement, even though the two countries are the world’s two heaviest polluters. UN statistics from 2007 show that the percentage increase in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2007 has been greatest in Brazil, China, South Africa and India, especially when compared to developed industrial countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. China’s percentage increase, for example, was 165.7%, whereas the United States increase was only 20.2%.

Are these developing nations trying to divert the attention away from their poor attempts at reducing emissions? Or do they genuinely believe the responsibility to reduce global emissions rests on the shoulders of the developed world?

 

It seems nothing brings a group closer together than a financial meltdown. Systematically higher growth rates in emerging economies led to a decoupling of potential output, but the severity of the downturn reinforces the notion of cyclical coupling in the interconnected contemporary world. Looking at the debris is telling: the global economy is now at 2008 levels, some USD7.5 bn smaller than most had expected it would be at the start of 2008. Rightly, ideological debate and multilateral reform played second-fiddle during the past three years. The highly synchronised fall in income, employment, output and trade demanded all hands to be on deck.

Truthfully, the exorbitant number of multilateral meetings held since the collapse of Lehman Brothers has yielded very few tangible results. Even the change in emphasis away from the G8 to the G20 was unavoidable: global institutions hoping to retain any semblance of legitimacy in an era of multilateral stasis had to (and still have to) reform. The shift could prove meaningful but crucially depends on the organisations ability to transcend multilateral static and deliver genuine results. Yesterday’s institutions are struggling to address today’s challenges. And won’t manage to deal with tomorrow’s.

To be sure, the recession and recovery period has exaggerated the divergence in economic momentum between advanced and emerging markets. The shift in political influence away from western exclusivity towards a wider inclusive arc of nations (from the East and increasingly the South) has accelerated. Explicitly, the economic momentum of the emerging markets is explaining a proportionately larger share of global fluctuations.

As their economies limp sluggishly ahead, finance ministers from the advanced nations arrive in Seoul, South Korea, exhausted and deflated in equal measure. Enormous fiscal policies intent on generating large domestic multipliers have run aground. Without inventory restocking and stimulus support the artificial recovery has lost momentum. For many the exorbitant explosions in public debt levels are now under the microscope. Financial markets demand credible pathways, back to fiscal respectability. Importantly, the policy response has been varied: for instance, the UK front-loaded fiscal consolidation and the US has spent to mend. Meanwhile, the monetary responses to these largely shared problems have been distinct too. Granted, each major economy cut rates dramatically to divert apocalypse. However, the US Federal Reserve Bank’s USD600 bn tranche in quantitative easing contrasts with the approach of the Bank of England and European Central Bank, which kept rates unchanged in the first week of November. Moreover, commodity-rich nations such as Australia and Canada have already started tightening cycles.

Clearly, with the advanced economies are meaningful variations. Add to the pot, big and small emerging markets and the broader G20 group has rehabilitating structural variations. For instance, the US economy is larger than the combined economies of the non-G7 members; Australia’s income per capita outsize’s India’s by a factor of 50; large surpluses in commodity exporters, Russia and Saudi Arabia, and manufacturing exporters, China, Germany contrast with deficits in the US, UK, India and South Africa; China and India is called home for over two billion people, whereas, Saudi Arabia’s population is less than 30 mn. Finding a lowest common denominator will prove illusory. Worryingly, the new club members bring even more divergent realities, interests and constituencies, further diluting the possibility of galvanizing common cause.

Even though the direction is remarkably clear, the shape and end point of broader reforms are still hazy, muddied by the shipwrecked capitalist system’s flotsam and jetsam. And akin to punch drunk boxers, a number of advanced economies are holding, white-knuckled, to vestiges of power. Most are rightly preparing to be underwhelmed by the ambitions and achievements of the latest G20 meeting. Going further, the shift from the G8 to the G20 could very well turn out to be a false dawn. Rather than a new era of multilateral inclusivity, powers past could be trying to hold onto the distribution of power. Inevitably the G20’s powerlessness could become even more exaggerated. The problem, of course, in this twilight zone scenario is that it impregnates the atmosphere with a false harmony and expectation.

It will become increasingly apparent that navigating a course within this ever-changing environment is complicated. Already he has made clear his disapproval of the manner in which the US has unilaterally opted for a further bout of quantitative easing. South African exporters continue to suffer from an overpriced local currency. While a powerhouse on the African continent, South Africa’s proportionately moderate economic clout globally elevates the importance of multilateral institutions and dialogue platforms for the country to raise the timbre of its concerns. The G20 is, perhaps, the most important forum in this regard. At last year’s Copenhagen summit on climate change, South Africa formed a core component of the BASIC alliance which ultimately scuppered advanced world domination of the pivotal event’s outcome. While not all of Africa’s 53 states agree, South Africa is held by most as the representative of a continent which is bursting with economic potential and incumbent strategic influence.

 

A small, yet energetic group of demonstrators marched through the streets of South Africa’s Umlazi Township earlier this month to protest against what they claim is Beijing’s inadequate support for the United Nations’ anti-AIDS/malaria/tuberculosis initiative known as the “Global Fund.” Organized by the internationally recognized HIV/AIDS organization AHF Ithembalabantu Clinic located along the Eastern Cape in KwaZulu-Natal, the demonstrators rallied against Beijing for not living up to its financial responsibilities in the battle against HIV/AIDS transmission in Africa.

The clinic’s central charge is that China itself has benefitted enormously from the assistance provided by the Global Fund with $941 million in grants since 2002 yet Beijing has only contributed a paltry $16 million to the fund during that same period. Moreover, they add, now that China is the world’s second largest economy and Africa’s dominant trading partner, it now has the resources to not only consume less of the Global Fund’s resources but also contribute more of its own financial assets to help the fund’s activities in Africa.

This rally went entirely unnoticed by the international media and no doubt didn’t even register among Chinese officials in Pretoria. However, everyone should take notice.  There is a growing popular perception, particularly among many in the developing world, that China is no longer a victim of the industrialized world as it now itself is among the ranks of the major powers. The AHF demonstrators clearly suggest that China is facing an entirely different set of expectations among Africans than it did in the 20th century and that Beijing now has a different level of responsibility that  it must live up to if wants to be taken seriously as a global leader (an assumption, by the way, that still remains to be seen in Africa).

The accusations of Global Fund greed are now just the latest on a expanding list of criticisms of China’s engagement in Africa.  Allegations of widespread environmental destruction, labor rights violations and a general lack of transparency in its dealings with African governments are all contributing to a growing sense of unease among a number of prominent African observers.

China would be well-advised to take heed from the message conveyed by the women outside of the AHF clinic. If Beijing wants to continue to deepen its influence in the region, the government needs to proactively engage its critics.  Engagement does not necessarily imply that the activists’ allegations are just or even accurate, but they must be acknowledged.  If Chinese officials fall back on their natural instincts to hide behind the walls and resist dialogue with their various African constituencies, then the frustrations expressed in KwaZulu-Natal will no doubt spread.

 

On Christmas eve of this year China inviting South Africa to join the occasional meetings of heads of state of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China. Jim O’Neill, the man who coined the term BRIC in 2001 to stand for the four largest emerging markets with “near unlimited” growth potential, responded that South Africa doesn’t really fit into his schema (Via BeyondBrics):

The size of its economy is $350bn. And as O’Neill notes:

… this is quite small by not only BRIC standards, but compared to some others. For example, Russia is around $1,600 billion, nearly 5 times larger than South Africa. And, India is currently similar in size to Russia. Brazil is currently closer to $2,000 billion in size, while China is considerably larger at around $5,500 billion.

That’s of course not the point, the point is that China sees Africa as as a huge potential market, and wants to integrate the continent as much as it can into the “BRIC” story. The largest economy under a single political grouping is South Africa, and thus…

It’s always been a somewhat interesting question whether Africa actually fits in to the BRIC story. BeyondBrics has a bit of a non-committal no. But as I’ve previously mentioned comparisons to India are often made. And of course India and China are much more diverse (even politically) than their single national government would make seem. The rate of demographic growth in Africa throws another variable into the mix.

Of course the BRIC concept was kind of arbitrary to begin with, so how much Africa fits doesn’t really matter greatly. The big point though is that the African story is gaining traction in the global economy. As it should.

 

The Kliptown Youth Program gumboot dancers gave Shanghai commuters an impromptu performance of Shosholoza on Wednesday night, while travelling to the airport and, from there, home to South Africa. Shosholoza is a popular South African folk song, but actually originated among the Ndebele people of Zimababwe, who used to sing on quite different trains, while travelling home from Johannesburg’s mines, where they were employed as migrant labourers. For more on the song, read the Wikipedia entry.

Thanks to @toppingupCT for suggesting the video.

 

Jacob Zuma’s state visit last week gave South Africans an opportunity to compare China’s emerging economy to their own. The comparison was not favourable. South Africa’s economy has only just emerged from recession and almost a quarter of the working-age population are unemployed. The country’s public servants have been on strike for the last two weeks, abandoning schools and hospitals to demand an 8.6% pay increase. The dispute threatens to tear apart the ruling African National Congress’s alliance with the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. It also calls Jacob Zuma’s ability to lead a unity government into question. Zuma, meanwhile, is tired of the media’s constant questions, particularly their allegations of widespread corruption. His party has drafted the Protection of Information Bill, a vaguely worded document which, if passed, would allow government to define any information deemed “harmful” to the “national interest” as classified, and proposed a Media Appeals Tribunal with the power to imprison journalists for breaching the new laws. The bill makes no provision for “public interest” and a number of civil society groups have questioned its constitutionality. A government dominated by a single party placing a vaguely defined national interest above public interest will, of course, sound familiar to many China watchers, and this is possibly no coincidence. The ANC has made its admiration of the Chinese Communist Party plain and the two parties have together set up a jointly-funded program to bring all 88 members of the ANC’s National Executive Committee to China on two-week long “study tours”.

The mood in South Africa was reflected by the country’s most incisive political cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro, better known by his pen name, Zapiro. Shapiro is currently being sued by Jacob Zuma for defamation, after he penned a cartoon depicting the president – then only the leader of the ANC – raping Lady Justice in 2008. You can find more of his cartoons at the Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times as well as a short biography at South African Cartoonists and Illustrators. Zapiro’s own website is at http://www.zapiro.com.

 

South African president Jacob Zuma arrived in Beijing on a state visit yesterday, with a large trade delegation in tow. China is Zuma’s last stop on his tour of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries, where he is trying to drum up investment to create job growth at home. He is scheduled to meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Vice President and prime ministerial heir apparent Xi Jinping and other Chinese leaders, before flying to Shanghai on Thursday to visit the World Expo.

Among the delegation accompanying Zuma is the CEO of South African petrochemicals company SASOL, Pat Davies. Davies is in China to hear the results of a review assessing SASOL’s $10 billion bid to construct a coal to liquid project in partnership with local company Shenhua Ningxia. The deal is said to be the largest single-project joint venture in Chinese history. SASOL’s technology, developed when sanctions forced South Africa to search for alternatives to oil, has an obvious appeal in China, where coal is plentiful but oil scarce.

South Africa and China have a complicated relationship atypical of Chinese relations with the rest of the continent. China is South Africa’s largest trading partner and last year overtook the United States to become the country’s largest export destination. Although much of South Africa’s exports are unprocessed minerals and other raw materials, the two countries are also competitors and partners in the rest of Africa. Chinese bank ICBC owns a 20% stake in South Africa’s Standard Bank, which operates in 18 African countries. South African mobile network operator MTN is Africa’s largest mobile operator, while Chinese company Huawei sells the continent’s most popular handsets. Continue reading »

 
Jacob Zuma by Xu Weixin

Jacob Zuma by Xu Weixin

Xu Weixin is a professor at the Art School of Renmin University of China in Beijing. This is translated from his blog:

Painting South African President Zuma’s portrait

On May 15, when South African president Jacob Zuma visited China and spoke to the National People’s Congress, the school asked me to paint a portrait of him to be used as a gift. I accepted with pleasure.

After South Africa successfully held the World Cup and I saw his beaming face, a model for Africa’s developing countries, I felt good about him and his country.

After thinking carefully, I chose a canvas 120 x100 cm (easy to transport, big enough for a strong visual affect). The materials are oil paint on cloth canvas.

Zuma and a large delegation of South African officials and business people will be visiting Beijing and Shanghai next week, when one assumes the painting will be handed over.

Thanks to Bill Bishop for the link.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha