By BAR Editor & Senior Columnist Margaret Kimberley

The Obamas’ visit to South Africa, for people of color on both sides of the Atlantic, is heavy on symbolism and photo-ops, but devoid of any substance for those who hunger and thirst for justice. The ANC won the flag at the end of apartheid, but South Africa’s white elite kept the land and the money, after allowing a few well-connected black faces into high places.

 

Let the world never forget that —paying in blood—it was little revolutionary Cuba that broke the back of the Apartheid regime. [/pullquote]

That history of struggle and the group identity it creates have not been limited to the American experience. The decades long fight against the racist apartheid system in South Africa was supported by millions of people in this country too. Jim Crow was America’s own apartheid. It is only logical that the sight of black people being treated cruelly in the name of white supremacy would elicit feelings of affinity in this country and around the world.

Nelson Mandela’s release from 27 years of imprisonment and his subsequent election as president created a surge of pride and joy among black people everywhere. Unfortunately we did not truly understand what we were witnessing. These events came about as a result of forces unacknowledged in America and they also came with a very high price.

The name of the Angolan town Cuito Cuanavale [5] means little to all but a handful of Americans but it lies at the heart of the story of apartheid’s end. At Cuito Cuanavale in 1988 Cuban troops defeated the South African army and in so doing sealed apartheid’s fate.

It is important to know how apartheid ended, lest useless stories about a miraculously changed system and a peaceful grandfatherly figure confuse us and warp our consciousness. Mandela was freed because of armed struggle and not out of benevolence. He was also freed because the African National Congress miscalculated and made concessions which have since resulted in terrible poverty and powerlessness for black people in South Africa. By their own admission, some of his comrades [6] concede that they were unprepared for the determination of the white majority to hold the purse strings even as they gave up political power.

Now the masses of black South Africans are as poor as they were during the time of political terror. The Sharpeville massacre [7] of 1960 which galvanized the world against South Africa was repeated in 2012 when 34 striking miners were killed by police at Marikana. The Marikana massacre [8] made a mockery of the hope which millions of people had for the ANC and its political success.

Obama’s recent visit to South Africa when the 94 year old Mandela was hospitalized created a golden opportunity for analysis and a questioning of long held assumptions about both men but the irrefutable fact is this. The personal triumphs of these two individuals have not translated into success for black people in either of their countries.

“ It isn’t true that black people benefit from the political success of certain individuals..”

The victory of international finance capital wreaks havoc on both sides of the Atlantic ocean. In the U.S. black people have reached their political and economic low point during the Obama years. The gains won 50 years ago have been reversed while unemployment, mass incarceration, and Obama supported austerity measures have all conspired to undo the progress which was so dearly paid for.

Obama’s visit to Africa as Mandela lay critically ill brought very sincere but very deeply misled people to remember all of the wrong things. It isn’t true that black people benefit from the political success of certain individuals. It isn’t true that role models undo systemic cruelty or that racism ends because of their presence or that white people see or treat the masses of black people any differently when one black person reaches a high office.

The maudlin sentiment was all built on lies. Mandela fought the good fight for many years and is worthy of respect for that reason alone. But his passing should be a moment to reflect on his mistakes and on how they can be avoided by people struggling to break free from injustice. Obama’s career is a story of ambition and high cynicism which met opportunity. There is little to learn from his story except how to spot the next evil doer following in his footsteps.

It is high time that myths were called what they are. They are stories which may help explain our feelings but they are stories nonetheless and they do us no good.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [9] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

oswalt en septiembre 24, 2010 a las 6:27 PM dijo:

Responder
(Part of a long discussion in the blog, La Ultima Guerra, dominated unfortunately by anti-Castro voices..)

[pullquote] Bitter irony for the scum that own and populate the top echelons of the American media that the much vilified Russian media should today be among the most credible in the world. [/pullquote]

Amidst the manhunt for former NSA staffer Edward Snowden, who is presently stuck in the transit zone at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, some US observers are displaying the hypocrisy that comes with hyper-power, accusing Russia of not being a true ally.

Judging by the one-fruity-flavor variety of US media chewing points, Russia has been typecast — no plot spoiler here — as the villainous antagonist in this tantalizing tale of non-fiction that pits a lonely whistleblower from the National Security Agency (NSA) against the very government — and even girlfriend — he betrayed.

And as if to purposely taunt his imperial pursuer, Snowden has chosen the longest, most arduous route on the road to Ecuador. Indeed, the 29-year-old — who dropped the bombshell that the NSA was storing the details of hundreds of millions of telephone calls every day, as well as the communications of individuals overseas — did not board a boat to Havana or even Caracas after blowing the whistle on his employer, and this does not seem to have been an oversight on the part of his tour operator.

The American high school dropout does not seem to have cashed out of the game just to retire to some Caribbean banana republic, and that’s not because Guantanamo Bay detention facility is still spoiling the scenery. Snowden was looking for maximum exposure, cause celebre, as it were. And like Julian Assange of WikiLeaks notoriety, he is certainly getting it.

First stop: Hong Kong. Aside from the low possibility that Beijing would hand over Snowden to a tight-lipped US tribunal, the choice was embarrassing for Washington for one obvious reason: As early as May, the US authorities were pointing the imperial finger at Beijing for targeting cyber-attacks on US government computers.

“In 2012, numerous computer systems around the world, including those owned by the US government, continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military,” the report read.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese authorities denied the accusation.

Now when we consider the uncanny Chinese knack for copying everything under the sun — from computers to sneakers to satellites — well, that just makes Snowden’s choice of the quasi-commie, quasi-capitalist regime all the more sensational. What kind of a gnarly tree will grow out of the kernel of information that the Chinese may have skimmed from Snowden’s laptop is anybody’s guess.

Next stop: Moscow. Since Sunday, Edward Snowden has been spending what must be some very uncomfortable nights in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport. Whether the American is permitted to shop around Duty Free between arriving flights is anybody’s guess, but clearly, the life of a whistleblower on the lam is no piece of cake.

US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed indignation that neither China nor Russia seems overly inclined to return missing American property.

“It would be deeply troubling, obviously, if they had adequate notice, and notwithstanding that, they make the decision willfully to ignore that and not live by the standards of the law,” Kerry said

Russian officials claim they lack the legal authority to detain Snowden — whose passport has been canceled by US authorities — no less to hand him over.

“The Americans can’t demand anything,” human-rights ombudsman Vladimir Lukin told Interfax, saying that as long as Snowden did not leave the Moscow airport’s transit zone, he was not officially on Russian soil and could not be seized.

Meanwhile, US media continues to bemoan Washington’s inability to sway Moscow and Beijing to behave in accordance with its “will.”

“For the moment, Moscow appears to be holding firm against Washington’s demands,” lamented The Washington Post. “Within the United States, that’s prompted some alarm over not just Russia’s refusal — which is not shocking — but America’s apparent inability to force its will on the issue.”

After all, the United States has become used to the ability to resolve its issues with foreign countries not with the diplomatic pen, but increasingly with the militaristic sword.

“From Washington’s point of view, Snowden is an American fugitive wanted on serious charges, hanging out at the Moscow airport, and we can’t even compel his release,” the article continued. “Whatever happened to American power abroad?”

Another US commentator said Moscow is not cooperating in the Snowden case because, to quote Michael Hirsh writing for The Atlantic, “The Russian leader enjoys humiliating Washington, so the Obama administration shouldn’t expect much help from him in nabbing the NSA leaker.”

Yet, as Hirsh admits, President Putin himself emphasized he didn’t want the National Security Agency whistleblower to loiter around a Russian airport, saying “the sooner he chooses his final destination, the better it is for him and Russia.”

Nevertheless, the author jumps to the conclusion that “Russia’s foreign policy is largely shaped by its leader’s desire to meddle with America and its designs around the world.”

Hirsh uses as examples global hotspots, specifically in Syria (“with Putin backing Bashar Assad against the US-aided rebels”); Iran (“where Moscow opposes too-stringent sanctions and is building a reactor”); or missile defense (“where Putin pressured President Obama to retreat from a missile-defense system, angering the Poles and the Czech Republic”) where Moscow and Washington hold different views on what course of action should be taken.

But for Hirsh, Moscow daring to question Washington’s decisions — which were proven to be occasionally short-sighted, especially after the intelligence failure that led to the disastrous war in Iraq, and later in Libya — is exactly the heart of the problem: Another country — Russia — is actually attempting to second-guess America’s “designs around the world,” as Hirsh not-so-delicately puts the matter.

Meanwhile, the revelations made available by Snowden show without a doubt that Washington has not always been a straight partner with Moscow, even at the best of times.

As The Guardian reported, “American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.” So much for trusting internet cafes at international summits.

The details of the intercept were shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, it noted. It goes without saying that this information drew some raised eyebrows in Moscow, exactly as it did in European capitals.

Although the intelligence gleaned from the surveillance may have amounted to nothing more interesting than what the Russian leader ordered for lunch, the reports of eavesdropping did nothing to invigorate the lackluster US-Russia reset. Despite these reports, it is the US that thinks Russia is trying to “humiliate” it over the Snowden affair.

Considering the history of Russia-US bilateral relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is it really fair to say that Russia in general and Putin in particular “enjoys humiliating Washington”? It seems, if we’re going to split hairs, that exactly the opposite is true.

It is enough to consider the ongoing controversy over the US missile defense shield going up in Eastern Europe, just miles from the Russian border, together with the eastward spread of NATO, which some say should have been disbanded following the demise of the Warsaw Pact.

On the question of missile defense in Europe, Obama initially shelved the plan back in 2009; it didn’t stay on the shelf long (and to set the record straight, it was not Putin who angered the Czechs and the Poles over missile defense, as Hirsh suggests, but rather their own governments, who were pushing for the US system despite heated local objections to the plan. Not only that, but Dmitry Medvedev was Russia’s president at the time).

Today, as with so many other seamless transitions between the foreign policy objectives of Bush and Obama, the system is not only a reality, it threatens — if it has not already managed — to spark another arms race as Russia understands that nuclear disarmament in the face of a mighty shield is, potentially, geopolitical suicide. Given that the United States fully understands the risks involved, why is it so determined to push ahead with an unproven missile system, to defend against an unproven enemy, with the risk of permanently alienating Russia, a proven ally, Russia? It makes no sense.

The issue goes beyond merely the question “humiliating the United States,” of course, which is probably the worst crime that may be committed against a superpower. The inability for Washington and its NATO allies to cooperate with Russia on this and other projects could have severe consequences that outlast many generations of diplomats.

So now that it has been revealed that the NSA was actively collecting surveillance on Russian leaders at prominent international gatherings, this may not be the best time to criticize Moscow’s lack of enthusiasm, or its desire to “humiliate” the US, when it comes to the handling of Snowden.

In the final analysis, whistleblowers are always going to be with us, at least until the computers can do without the need for human intervention. No matter what kind of security firewalls we place on our sophisticated computer systems, no foolproof system has been devised that could remove the judgment of individuals — complete with conscience and reasoning abilities — from the final analysis. For security experts, the human being represents the weak link in their system; for civil rights groups, the human component is a safety valve, the last line of defense, as it were, that prevents us from being victimized by some Orwellian surveillance state.