Through+the+eye+of+the+M+and+G,+and+Burma,+YCL+Bottom+Line

The Bottom Line, Issue 2, Vol 4: 22 February 2007

 * In this issue:**


 * Through the eye of the //__Mail & Guardian__//
 * We Are For Burma!

=Through the eye of the //Mail & Guardian//=


 * Buti Manamela**, National Secretary



The essence of the article in the Mail & Guardian last week is that there are people who seek election in the Western Cape and in the Central Committee of the SACP and are using the newspaper and the journalist as their springboard to this positions. These leaders have drawn on the Jacob Zuma situation, the attitude of some of the leaders of the SACP towards the SACP position, the media coined phrase of Zuma supporters and Mbeki cronies, ethnic chauvinism and all other ills of a recipe to ensure that they are elected into these positions.

What is happening in reality? Are there indeed deep-seated divisions in the SACP on the basis of who supports Mbeki and who supports Zuma? Is there an attempt of ensuring that certain people are removed from positions of power due to their stance on Mbeki or Zuma? Does the SACP has nothing else to do other than tear itself on the basis on Mbeki or Zuma? Do differences on how the divisions in the ANC should be dealt with constitute factions? In whose interest does a divided SACP serve? We will try and respond to these and other questions today.

The Deputy General Secretary of the SACP, Jeremy Cronin, criticized the so-called Jacob Zuma supporters in his //Joe Slovo Memorial Lecture// in Limpopo, and then opened all doors for opportunism. This has appeared in the form of suggestions that there are divisions in the SACP.

We have not engaged Comrade Cronin on his views, and on whether he was representing the SACP in such views and whether in actual fact he had uttered these views in the same context as they are presented in the media. But the reality is that there are those in the SACP, masquerading as unnamed sources and believing that a divided SACP will usher hope for them to ascend into leadership positions, have deliberately and wittingly distorted the SACP position on the Deputy President of the ANC and seek to present this position as that of the SACP General Secretary and the YCL National Secretary.

These unknown forces to the media, a subject of intrigue to members of the SACP but well known to those in the leadership – who continue to milk them for information and present the SACP as a divided force – are hell-bent to win friends by ensuring that the impression of a divided SACP persists. These forces are not for unity. These forces, because they know that their deeds are a stranger in our organisation, choose to use newspapers with devious agendas such as the //Mail & Guardian// and inefficient journalists such as Vicki Robinson to further their evil course.

All of a sudden an entire 85 years of history of the SACP melts into thin air and its place is taken over //through the eyes of the Mail & Guardian//. Despite the incorrectly spelled names of some of the people in the article and the impromptu election of Mazibuko Jara into the leadership of the YCL, the entire //Mail and Guardian// article rests on chewing the same cud, recycling the same disproved theories, attempting to parade a variety of people //through its own eyes//, serving a factional interest and above all, trying to give feet to a story that will not fly even in the face of the individuals implicated in the story.

Thus, even before the SACP Central Committee decide on what should be on the Agenda of the 12th National Congress, these forces throw a thousand names (with their preferred name in the haystack) as possible contenders for the position of General Secretary of the SACP to remove Blade Nzimande.

In order to do this, a new trick with which we have become familiar with is used. In order to climb the ladder of power, they create a web of lies that will catapult these forces into positions of authority and thus use the SACP against the wishes and interests of the working class and the poor.

They draw some powerful characters in the world of politics, including Nzimande, Zuma and President Thabo Mbeki. They opportunistically locate themselves within the world of anti- this and pro- that and identify themselves as victims of so and so’s agenda.

They further create a sense of being under siege, of being singled out for no particular reason other than where they stand on the Zuma and Mbeki matter, and ensure that even their incompetence as leaders is not brought to question. They level false accusations such as the one of Nzimande failing to manage ideological differences in the SACP, and create mirror images of themselves being principled and vow never to collude with the media to perpetuate the “divisions in the SACP”.

The truth is that they seek to create a leadership that is determined through the eyes of the //Mail & Guardian//.

It is not the first time that an article appears in the //Mail and Guardian// about the divisions in the SACP or the YCL and the fact that some people are either going to be removed or be demoted from their positions. There is no other intention and reason of such deliberate planting of stories in the media other than to seek political empathy and blackmail members of the SACP from taking whatever decisions they want to at the 12th National Congress.

The YCL has just emerged from its 2nd National Congress and reiterated some of the positions referred to in the //Mail & Guardian// article as those of the National Secretary of the YCL. These relates to the matter of the Deputy President of the ANC. The YCL will refuse to personalize its resolutions and reduce them on the basis of a single individual. The YCL will further not hesitate to engage those individuals who seek popularity by wanting to oppose judiciously and procedurally taken resolutions so as to create divisions and confusions in its ranks.

The //Mail and Guardian// article is a reflection of people hell-bent on using their media contacts as their chief lobbyists whom, given the right words and the right courage, will ensure that they are elected. Because these people are also cowards, they continue their desires to operate safely and without detection as “insiders” or “anonymous sources”. They are also a reflection of those who want to use the fact that the SACP is going to its 12th National Congress, as a basis for ensuring that they perpetuate divisions.

They veil the truth of clearly existing //differences// with lies of bloody divisions, and because some of us give them the opportunity and foundation to do so (such as the utterances by the Deputy General Secretary in Limpopo) they reign and conquer.

They veil the truth of //fractions// existing in the Party on this and that matter whilst perpetuating lies about the Party consisting of factions, precisely because they know that the truth travels slower than lies, they ensure that they spread as much propaganda as possible and as widely as possible.

The truth of the matter with the //Mail & Guardian// article is that there are individuals who are seeking election or re-election on completely different basis than that of the SACP programme and ideology. They do not have the courage to challenge the current programme of the SACP from within, and thus veil their opposition on the Zuma matter. These individuals therefore tell lies that they are being singled out because they support the President of the ANC over the Deputy President. They further tell lies that because the General Secretary of the SACP and myself supports the ANC Deputy President, they then suggest that we are behind a programme to oust them and that in the same vein there is a clique of honorable men and women committed to oust the General Secretary.

The eye of the //Mail & Guardian// have for some reasons being used to determine leadership, intimidate the organisation from taking certain decisions and ensuring that decisions of the organisations are either undermined or distorted. This was done through a series of systematic leaks, which were presented as accidental genius of some journalists.

Just before the Second National Congress of the YCLSA articles where written in the //City Press//, //Mail and Guardian// and //Sunday Times// that the then Deputy National Secretary of the YCLSA, Mazibuko Jara, was expelled from the YCLSA due to his stance on the Jacob Zuma matter. In a statement that we issued immediately after the Congress, we said that Jara was suspended and subsequently expelled by the Congress for //“bringing the organisation into disrepute”//. As to why Vicki Robinson and her sources still repeat the lie is no surprise, this is so that another lie should be build on the previous one.

Unfortunately, Jara himself has not done well in correcting this misconception, and may have actively perpetuated it through another interview with the //Mail & Guardian.// He was quoted as saying that “the Zumafication of the SACP is creating undesirable divisions and tension, and undermining pluralism in the party,”

He was further quoted as saying that “the league’s national executive committee did not want to debate vital issues raised by the Gauteng region, including the league’s backing of Zuma.”, and that “his suspension closed “an opportunity for debate”. “In the league we should have space to discuss issues such as the impact we have had in the [Jacob] Zuma matter,” he said. (Jara later explained through an email that he was not aware that he was speaking to a journalist, and actually thought that he was speaking to a branch member of the YCL.)

The lie that Jara has been singled out, together with some SACP leaders, as a result of their stance on the Zuma matter has been repeated so many times so as its repeaters now believe it.

The repeat of that lie comes again when Jara seeks to ascend and contest as Provincial Secretary of the SACP in the Western Cape, and probably when this proves to be impossible, his Zuma stance comes into play. The General Secretary of the SACP is drawn into this whole picture, together with leaders of the SACP (Themba Mthembu and Lindelwa Dunjwa) who are referred to as //Nzimande loyalists// (for obvious reasons). The two are implicated for having attended a meeting that discussed Jara and other matters relating to the leadership “squabbles” in the Western Cape. This information was given to the //Mail & Guardian//.

These lies where also previously reproduced in the form of an email between members of the National Committee celebrating what was referred to as a “purging of anti-JZ” members of the YCL. Again, in this email, it was suggested that Jara was suspended because of his stance on the Zuma matter. These where obviously lies meant to perpetuate divisions in the organisation, this time, again, in the form of an unnamed source. The email was given to various media institutions, including a //Mail & Guardian// journalist.

Again, an article that Jara wrote, which became a source of heated discussions and almost tore the YCL apart, titled //What is the Colour of our Flag? Red or JZ,// landed in various media institutions and the //Mail & Guardian//, even when the National Committee decided that the document should not be entertained any further through the media.

In ascending to power, one can command his audience with inept and in-depth information that they acquired in their other responsibilities so as to instruct them to fight against certain individuals. One can humble themselves in front of those whom they are making these accusations against so as to deceive them of their intentions. One can speak ill of those who are legitimately elected and choose to use unconstitutional and factional platforms to ensure that you are the preferred and better leader than them.

We refuse to believe that Jara had anything to do with these systematic leaks, but somehow, somewhat, someone is ensuring that Jara’s name is featured consistently in stories that has to do with divisions in organisations. Most times, politicians finds it easy to blame the media when there are divisions in organisations. We have to accept that there is a certain and important role that our own comrades, playing on the need by the media for sensationalism and news, use the media to misinform and create confusion. The //Mail & Guardian// articles are a classic example of that.

Leadership //Through the Eye of the Mail & Guardian// will not work, lest in the SACP. And as Mark Twain concluded, “many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising”, but unfortunately, this will become the worst form of advertising.

That’s the Bottomline, cos the YCL said so!

National Secretary**
 * Buti Manamela



=We Are For Burma!=


 * George Raphela**, National Organiser

On the 12th January 2007 the United National Security Council had an opportunity to pass a motion on the Burma Military Dictatorship and ultimately ensure that the world comes in on behalf of the people of that country and save them from violence and humanrights abuse. The primary objective of the motion was on the violation of Human Rights and a demand for the release of political prisoners in Burma by the dictatorship. The motion was tabled by the US, and was supported by five countries, with three abstentions and three against (with SA amongst the latter). The main purpose of the vote was to facilitate an intervention by the Security Council.


 * What did SA vote against?**

Burma has been ruled by an unelected Military dictatorship since 1990. The country was colonized by Britain in 1886 and later by Japan. In 1948 the country negotiated its independence from Britain and Japan after the pressure of armed forces by the people led by the Communist Party of Burma which was founded by Aung San. Aung San left the country for military training underground in the early 20’s. He facilitated the establishment of the party and became the first General Secretary of the Communist Party. Aung San was assassinated in 1947, a year earlier before the independence, during negotiations period.

After the process of negotiations there was a democratically elected government by the people of Burma led by U Nu for 10 years. In 1958 there was a coup led by Ne Win and a caretaker government was formed and elections undertaken in 1960.

The elections were again won by U Nu and later in 1962 Ne Win waged another coup and forcefully took over the government. The country deteriorated economically and as a result there were high levels of poverty. Young people and student, like in South Africa in 1976, rose against the dictatorship of the military government in 1988. The military responded by brutal killing, harassment and torturing of young people.

Most activists were forced to flee the country to neighboring countries. Ultimately Ne Win was pressured by the situation in the country and resigned. The interim government was put in place to run the country. The following year there was another coup by General Saw Maung, who also promised to hold elections. Due to internal and international pressure he was forced to hold elections in 1990. The National League for Democracy led Aung San Suu Kyi (Aung San’s daughter) won election by majority of 82% votes.

The military government refused to hand over administration to the elected government. The NLD was forced to go to exile as a result of harassment, torturing and killing of the leadership of NLD by government. The elected president Aung San Suu, has been in and out of jail and currently in house arrests for 10 years. There were a number of attempts to kill her by the Military Junta. Lately, the deputy President of the NLD has been in house arrest as well.

The communist Party of Burma is currently operating from China. and is mobilising all progressive forces behind the National Liberation Struggle, mobilize international support behind the struggle for freedom in Burma.


 * UN Security Council sitting**

On the 12th Janaury 2007 an opportunity was presented for the people of Burma to get intervention from the UN Security Council on the situation. The matter was put to the UN Security council meeting by the US. The motion could not pass because China, as a permanent member, raised an objection, and thus, no discussions could take place.

With the history of struggle for liberation in our country, the people of Burma hoped that we will support their course for national democracy.

One of the key demands raised in the resolution was for the release of political prisoners, which is central for any progress to be made in that country. There is continuous harassment of ordinary people by the military dictatorship. People are forced to emigrate to neighboring countries. With these conditions in Burma, clearly our country should have thought twice and made their priority to be against human rights violation anywhere in the world. One of the pillars of our struggle against Apartheid was around the mobilisation of international support and call on the apartheid government to release our leaders who were unjustly jailed.

Burma today is what SA was yesterday.

Clearly the whole drama that happened in the UN Security Council was about power between the US with Britain on the one hand and China with Russia on the other. The US has its motives on the matter beyond an open and participatory democratic process. It is motivated by their extension of power in that region.

The Chinese government is one of the major suppliers of arms of the current military regimes.


 * Are our reasons justifiable?**

Our government is justifying their support of China and Russia is that the issue should be dealt with by the UN Human Rights Council because it is a human rights issue. South Africa should have compromised, if this was the case, by abstaining from the entire voting process as a matter of principle as their vote signified support for the military dictatorship. The justification by Foreign Affairs and the Presidency that the sovereignty of some of the countries should be respected is way out of line, as some of the countries that supported our own democracy did not respect the sovereignty of an illegal and oppressive Apartheid regime.

Secondly matters of Human Rights violations were discussed and there are resolutions that were taken before by the UN Security Council. It would have never been for the first time.

We share the same struggle for national liberation and national democracy with the people of Burma, and in doing so, we should focus on the following actions:

1. The Young Communist League as the component of the Progressive Youth Alliance (PYA) should continue to condemn the government on its stance in the UN Security Council. 2. We should take the matter further in the movement to have solidarity activities in support of the Burmese people. 3. We should continue to engage our government through proper channels in the movement to call for South Africa to cut diplomatic ties with the military dictatorship, and call for the release of political prisoners. Lastly, we should demand handover of government administration to the mandated parties to govern in Burma.


 * CONCLUSION**

The Young Communist League will continuously engage and lobby support on the matter both in the country and internationally. Our task as internationalists is to take a direct political duty to engage and attempt to sway the balance in relation to the liberation of the people of Burma.

George Raphela is the National Organiser of the Young Communist League


 * From: http://www.ycl.org.za/**

3294 words