Financial Times (FT)
1 April 2007
Zimbabwe
ANC Leadership
Economy
China-Africa relationship
Zimbabwe
Racial prejudice
HIV and AIDS
Iran
FT: There was an important regional summit in Dar es Salaam and you have
been given a mandate to mediate on a solution to this crisis. How are you
intending to find a solution and how is your role different from four years ago
when you were given a similar role?
President Mbeki: Well, the first thing I would like to say is that the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) Summit said there are three major
areas of concern to the region about Zimbabwe. One of them is the political
situation; second is the economic situation; and the third is Zimbabwe's
international relations. It said that the region had to address all three
matters.
The Summit decided that with regard to the political issues, the critical
intervention that it needs to make is to encourage the ruling party and the
opposition to enter into the necessary dialogue to find a solution to those
political problems.
And secondly, with regard to the economic ones, it directed the Secretariat
of SADC to make a proper assessment of the economic challenges that Zimbabwe
faces, so that as the region we could then say what it is that we think needs
to be done with regard to the economy.
And thirdly, with regard to the matter of international relations, the
feeling of the region was that sanctions against Zimbabwe are not helping to
solve the problem and that it would be better that the rest of the world acted
in support of what the region would try to contribute to find a solution, in
the first instance to the political problems and secondly the economic
ones.
So, that is basically the framework. In that context they asked us to
continue to engage the Zimbabweans, the opposition and the ruling party, to
encourage them to engage in what was described as a dialogue to find these
political solutions.
Unfortunately the Summit met a day ahead of the meeting of the Central
Committee of Zanu PF. That matter was noted, because everybody knew that one of
the things that the Central Committee would address, would be: whether there
should be a reconciliation of the timing of the parliamentary and presidential
elections; and that if they confirmed that position then the next question
would be when those elections would be, whether the reconciliation is in 2008,
which is the year selected for the presidential elections, or in 2010, which is
the year for the parliamentary elections. So, that was something of a
limitation. I am sure that if the Summit knew this decision that was then taken
on Friday, that both elections are next year, perhaps the kind of political
intervention visualised by the region would have been more specific. Because,
obviously, those elections are very important. They are very critical to the
challenge of arriving at a solution to the political challenges.
But as I say, unfortunately we met a day before that Central Committee
meeting. So the charge we have is to facilitate this dialogue to find a
solution to the problems. We have never had any mandate from anybody to
intervene in this matter. It was entirely a matter of our being a neighbour and
not being able to stand aside when all these problems manifest themselves in
Zimbabwe. This is actually the first time that we have been mandated by anybody
to do anything like this. So this time we are acting for the region and, as I
say, we have engaged Zimbabwe over the years because that could not be
avoided.
Let me say first of all that we had already been in contact, as you would
expect, with both the opposition and Zanu PF. Last week Friday, the secretaries
general of the two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) had a
long discussion with our people about their own view as to what needs to happen
in Zimbabwe, in particular with regard to the resolution of the political
conflicts. At the end of that discussion they said they would go back to Harare
and then give us a document which would reflect the official, combined view of
both factions of the MDC, which would then open the way for us to interact with
Zanu PF, because that is what they wanted us to do. This was before the
Dar-es-Salaam Summit. They are in the process of finalising that document and
when it is finalised we will interact with Zanu PF, depending on what the MDC
says, that this is what they say.
That meeting was before this decision about elections in 2008. But they had
an expectation that this would be the decision and therefore that the principal
challenge that would face all Zimbabweans, all these political groups, would
be: what should be done between now and those elections to create a climate in
which you do, indeed, have free and fair elections whose outcome would not be
contested by anybody, because they would have been truly free and fair. This
would be a major challenge, because normally the Zimbabweans hold their
elections, whether parliamentary or presidential, in the month of March and if
they stick to that, we have 11 months before these combined elections take
place.
This climate that we are talking about, which we believe is correct, would
have to be created during that period. Quite what that would mean, we will
await the finalisation of this document. But I am quite certain from previous
interactions with the MDC that they will raise questions about certain
provisions in the Constitution about certain legislation like legislation
affecting the media, legislation affecting the holding of public meetings. I
would imagine that they would raise those sorts of things. And those are some
of the things that need to be addressed as part of the package of measures that
would be necessary to create that climate.
We will get that document during this week, finalised, and we will
immediately engage Zanu PF to say, it is necessary to respond to all of these
things. We may come to a stage later, I do not know, but we very well may come
to a stage later when they will have to sit together to agree on whatever needs
to be agreed. As I say, this would focus principally, given that there will be
those elections in 2008, on what do they do to create a climate conducive to
the holding of free and fair elections. So that is what we have got to
encourage them to do.
FT: Mr. President, at what point does Mr Mugabe and his actions begin to
actually cause damage to you as the principal leader of the region?
President Mbeki: No, you see, the region would not have said, there are
political problems in Zimbabwe, let us do something about that.
I mean, the region believes they have political problems and, indeed, even
in the course of the meeting people said, quite openly, they were very
disturbed to see these pictures of people beaten up, as this is a manifestation
of the problem. So, let us do something about it. That is why the region says,
let us deal with these political challenges. The region believes, in that
context, that the only way to deal with these problems, the only way that is
actually going to produce results, is if we encourage the Zimbabwean political
leadership to engage one another. That is the belief of the region and I think
the region is correct. And so that is what we must do now. Whether this
succeeds or not is up to the Zimbabwean leadership. It is they who have got to
agree about the future of Zimbabwe.
To the extent that they do not agree and therefore the conflict continues
and maybe violence escalates, which the region is very much against, that may
be damaging, but what can you do about it except to say that we do not like
it.
We have intervened officially, formally, as a region, because we do not like
it, and we think that this is the route to go. But none of us in the region has
got any power to force the Zimbabweans to agree. We will persuade them, insist,
whatever, but in the end, like all of these situations� you know the situation
the Northern Ireland; an enormous effort has gone into that process for a very
long time, but it is recently that we have got�
FT: That is very interesting that you should raise that matter, because the
difference was that in Northern Ireland, I mean it has been very, very
difficult. But there has been someone babysitting the process for more than 10
years. But there has not really anyone been babysitting the Zimbabweans.
President Mbeki: Maybe I should not have mentioned that, because to draw
parallels is going to get us into a lot of trouble. The British government has
certain constitutional responsibilities toward Northern Ireland, which none of
us have toward Zimbabwe. There are certain powers that the British government
would have towards Northern Ireland, which none of us in the region has. So you
would have a particular kind of leverage in that situation in Northern Ireland,
which we would not have here. To that extent, you cannot transpose the two
situations.
I should have cited our own situation here. Nobody could do anything about
the situation in South Africa, unless South Africans decided to resolve the
matter. That would be the situation in Zimbabwe. But it is quite clear from
what took place in Dar-es-Salaam at that SADC Summit, that the region is really
quite keen that this matter should be resolved. Such is the level of
interdependence in the region, that inevitably negative developments in one
country will affect the whole region, as would positive developments. So, I
think the best we could do is to hope that everything works.
FT: I do sometimes sense though that Mr Mugabe is a bit of a trial for
you?
President Mbeki: The situation in Zimbabwe is a very unhappy one. It is
really very unhappy. We have been engaged with the Zimbabweans for a very long
time. Historically, the first liberation movement to emerge in Zimbabwe was the
African National Congress. It is directly out of here and a lot of that
leadership came out of the South African National Congress. Robert Mugabe was a
student at the University of Fort Hare here, in his youth, and was involved in
the Youth League of the African National Congress.
We have got a long history with Zimbabwe. Part of what inspired the thinking
here with regard to our own situation was the position they took in 1980. A lot
of opinion in South Africa at the time, certainly reflected in the media then,
was that you were going to get a very negative approach to the white minority
in Zimbabwe at independence. A very strong view. And the first thing that they
said was: we want national reconciliation; yes, we have had a war, we have had
the Selous Scouts, and the Grey Scouts; all this war but we want national
reconciliation; we confirm General Walls as the continuing Commander of the
Zimbabwean Defence Force; we confirm Ken Flower as the chief of intelligence.
They were all Smith's people. I am saying that it had an impact here when our
turn came; it encouraged the adoption of a similar position.
We have got these relations with Zimbabwe, and so when things go wrong in
Zimbabwe, naturally, even from that point of view, we will feel that. I am not
talking now about refugees coming here and so on, just the sense of marching in
step.
FT: But that history is so interesting as you describe it and you know the
man very well, you know the history. Do you believe that President Mugabe will
ever peacefully renounce power?
President Mbeki: I think so, yes. President Mugabe and the leadership of
Zanu PF believe that they are running a democratic country, a democratic
system. That is why you have an elected opposition and have by-elections and
that is why it is possible for the MDC in local government elections to win
Harare and Bulawayo and the municipal governments in both of these big cities
are MDC. You know that, and that it is in the interest of Zimbabwe to maintain
a democratic system, which means that people must on a regular, prescribed
basis, subject themselves to elections. And, indeed, even in Dar-es-Salaam this
is one of the points that President Mugabe said, that since independence in
1980, we have without fail held elections as scheduled. This is what they would
say. And therefore, a notion that there could be an attempt to hold on to power
outside of the allowed political processes, I don't think they would do that.
You might question whether indeed, these elections are generally free and fair
and all of that.
So the position that we all took as a region is that therefore let us get
the Zimbabweans talking to make sure that they do indeed create those
circumstances so that you do have elections that are genuinely free and fair.
The matter of holding regular elections as scheduled is not in dispute. So,
with regard to giving up power, they will say, sure, we shall lose elections,
as we lost elections in municipal elections: the mayor of Harare is not Zanu
PF; the Mayor of Bulawayo is not Zanu PF. They are all MDC people. Members of
parliament in the bulk of Matabeleland are not Zanu PF, they are MDC, because
our candidates were defeated. That is what they will say. They would contest a
view that the Zanu PF continues in power through other than democratic
means.
FT: Well, I would like to turn to South Africa and your own position as
President and Head of the ANC. Are you going to run again?
President Mbeki: Let me tell you what the National Executive Committee (NEC)
of the ANC decided. The National Executive Committee of the ANC decided last
year that the principal task that faces us in this period up to when the ANC
holds its elective conference, which is in December this year, is to look at
the entirety of our policy framework to review it and see if it is correct in
all its elements, with regard to the economy, social issues and all that. So
that by the time we get to national conference, we are able to take correct
decisions.
This is partly based on the view that this conference at the end of
December, will be the last ANC national conference before the ANC celebrates
its centenary in January 2012. We must be able to say, as we celebrate that
centenary, that we have got our policies right, we have got our implementation
procedures right, we are making progress with regard to the pursuit of these
goals that the ANC has pursued for a hundred years.
These matters of policy, direction, instruments to implement, and so on, are
critically important. Therefore, let us not divert ourselves by discussing
these leadership things. That will be done. The ANC has got its normal
processes which will kick in sometime later this year, and those are normal for
nomination of people to leadership positions. Those processes are that the
branches of the ANC do the nominations and the nominations go up to the
provinces and the provinces pass them on to national, and national will present
them to the conference. It is a set procedure. We will come to that, then. But
if we engage in that issue now and people start campaigning, they are not going
to address the central question.
FT: It seems to me that some of them are campaigning already.
President Mbeki: Sure. I know some people are campaigning, but I think as
the leadership of the ANC, we really have to focus on the membership of the
ANC, critically on these matters. Many millions of people in this country
depend on what the government will do with regard to changing their lives for
the better. Government is a critical player - whether people get a house, go to
school, create openings for people to get a job, all of these things. Those are
the questions that the population asks. We carry out a programme here from
President downwards; it is called an Imbizo process. Imbizo means, what is an
Imbizo �in English?
Unknown speaker: Traditionally a meeting that would have been called at the
chief's kraal.
President Mbeki: Yes, it is a general meeting. The chief would call a
meeting of the village or the area of which he is the chief and say, let us all
come and talk. So we had carry out a programme like that, all the time, I am
saying from the President down. We interact with the people or the time. You
have thousands of people who come from a distance. We are doing that programme
now. It is focused on municipalities. You go to a particular municipality and
you stay for two days. You meet the municipal council, you meet the municipal
managers, you meet the people. What are the problems here? And what to do the
people want? What are the demands? You go there and listen.
At no point in the Imbizos that I do, nobody ever, ever says, who is going
to be the new president of the ANC. They don't. They say, President, our
children are matriculating from school and are sitting at home because they
have no money to go to university and they have no jobs. Do something. This
police station of ours here, they do not respond when we call them. When we
call them and say, there is a problem here, there is crime being committed
here, they do not come. Do something.
Those are the issues people would want us to address, and we have to
respond. The African National Congress has to respond. And it really cannot
allow itself to believe that what is of principal concern is who becomes the
ANC president. It cannot be. We are an old organisation. We are 95 years old.
And the ANC hasn't lived as long as it has because it has been preoccupied
about who becomes leader. That is not the reason and we cannot do it now. I am
President of the African National Congress and I have to be the first person to
respect decisions taken by the leadership. So what will happen to the
presidency of the ANC is something that will emerge in the course of the
processes in which the ANC will engage. But, I have to insist on that, because
I have to insist on it for other people too. I cannot say, this is what Thabo
Mbeki will do or not to, but others, the rest of you, please do not say
anything about this.
FT: But as a political scientist, what do you think of the idea of two
centres of power? Someone, who is the president of the ANC. Someone different
who is the President of South Africa.
President Mbeki: I do not think it is a problem. You know, we had this when
I was selected as president of the ANC in 1997, and Nelson Mandela was
president of the republic until 1999. That is the only period we had in the
last 13 years of our liberation, where you had that kind of phenomenon that I
am talking about and there was no problem.
And there could not have been a problem, because the manner in which we have
functioned since we came into government in 1994 is, for instance, in January
the ANC national executive committee holds a three day meeting to which it
invites its allies. That meeting discusses essentially what the government
ought to be doing for the year, what are the principal areas of focus. A week
or so later, the Cabinet has a similar three day meeting, and that is
government, at which then it will say, well, the ruling party has decided as
follows � it is called a Lekgotla. So the Cabinet will say, this is what NEC of
the ANC decided in terms of our programme for the year, so these are the
priorities we have got to translate into an actual programme. It must be
reflected in the budget on which the government will start working on in April.
And that is how it works. That would happen whether you had different
presidents, one for the ANC and one for the government. That is how the system
would work at and that is how it worked in this period between in 1997 and
1999.
FT: So, technically it is possible. Let me just explain some of the context
to this question, Mr President. I think many people outside, as well as inside
South Africa would say that one of the great successes, your successes and your
government's, has been a courageous commitment to macroeconomic stability. And
therefore, foreign investors, financial markets are concerned about this
succession. So that is why they want some reassurance about how this transition
will play out and your role.
President Mbeki: The thing that I think I have noticed is that there is
insufficient understanding of how the system works.
Before the 1994 elections we adopted a document that the ANC and its allies
called the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). That was our
campaign platform for 1994 and when we came into government it got translated
into a government White Paper, it was adopted by parliament and all that. Now
that RDP document, among other things, said we have got to address this issue
of very unhealthy macroeconomic balances in the economy: the budget deficit;
the growing public debt; high interest rates, you know, all of these things.
That has to be addressed.
When the government adopted what became known as the GEAR - growth,
employment and redistribution � that was an implementation of that decision
that we create the correct economic framework, which the government then
did.
There was quite a lot of debate about that within our own ranks and indeed a
lot of speculation when we were going into conference in 1997, that the
membership would reject this GEAR, because it meant belt tightening and because
of the demands that government must spend more, borrow more because to meet the
needs of the people you needed to do that and cannot take this route. We kept
saying no, unless the ANC turns its back on its own policy, this cannot be a
problem. And, indeed, the 1997 conference of the ANC confirmed that the
decision that we had taken with regard to this matter was correct. So the
controversy, the big fight that had been expected by some people at the 1997
National Conference of the ANC did not occur, because all that government was
doing was to implement a policy that had been decided, not only by the ANC but
by the trade unions and everybody as party to that.
I am saying that I get a sense that probably some of these things are not
properly understood. It is like, if I may say this for instance, some people
saying the policy of national reconciliation belongs uniquely to Nelson
Mandela. Each time Nelson Mandela has said: no, but, where do you get that from
- this is the policy of the ANC and all of us are obliged and must do this.
People do not listen - they said this was uniquely Mandela. It is not true.
So, I am certain that whatever happens this year, 2007, at the ANC
conference, or in 2009 at the general elections, this is fundamental. The ANC
will not change these fundamental positions. So I would not have any fear
myself that you would get a departure from these fundamental positions which
are critically important in terms of meeting the very objectives that the ANC
sets. I really would not have any fear about that.
FT: Given that confidence, are you ready to remove foreign exchange
controls?
President Mbeki: Well, I think that the position we have taken so far is
right. Yes, indeed, we must arrive at a point that foreign exchange controls
disappear. But we must take it step by step.
You see, there has been a phenomenon which has been observed even by some
businesspeople here - I am talking about the foreign businesspeople - some of
whom have said that one of the peculiarities that puzzle them is that of some
of the major companies holding large reserves of cash. Abnormally large, so
they say. I am not a businessperson but they speak of abnormally large reserves
of cash which they do not see in their own countries and elsewhere, and ask the
question: but why? Because it kind of suggests that you want to keep some nest
egg, which you can ferret out of the country quickly, if something goes wrong.
This may be a wrong conclusion, but I have heard foreign businesspeople raise
this thing.
So, we, as government certainly, remain concerned that perhaps the
transition out of the apartheid years is not in that sense finalised. So you
continue to have a situation where some people might still be somewhat
uncertain as to what might happen tomorrow and you might say that if tomorrow
you say, okay, all of these foreign exchange controls have gone, because of
that residue of uncertainty about the future they might say, okay, let us take
as much out of the country as we can. I must say it may very well be that we
are misreading the situation, that we are being too conservative. That is
possible. But I know that there is that kind of sense of uncertainty.
FT: It is an insurance policy.
President Mbeki: In short, I think that is the correct way to put it. But I
must say, though, that as opposed to that instinct towards an insurance policy,
in practice the corporate sector here has for a number of years been much
bigger investors in the South African economy than the public sector. In truth,
that is the fact of the matter, which in itself says, we are here to stay, we
are not going anywhere, that is why we are putting more money into the economy.
So, that would counterbalance that instinct towards some kind of insurance
policy. The reality has been saying that these private investors have all the
necessary confidence here. They have been putting more money into the economy,
as I say, for a number of years at a much higher rate than the state did. The
state is catching up now, the public sector. So, in the end, sure, we must get
to the point where these foreign exchange controls are gone. But I still think
it is correct to say, let's take it step by step.
FT: I have one more question and then I would like my colleague to go on.
The performance of the South African economy over the last ten years is
impressive, the growth and the macroeconomic stability. But if you look at some
of your emerging market competitors, five percent annual growth is not quite so
good. How do you get to 7, 8, 9 percent growth, which is actually necessary to
start making inroads into unemployment?
President Mbeki: What you are saying is correct. Of course one of the things
that we have to be aware of is that South Africa is not India, just in terms of
the size of the country, the population, the economy and so on, or China, or
even Brazil. So, we have to respond bearing in mind that issue of size.
You are quite right, we need to achieve these high rates rights of growth.
So that is why we decided that it is necessary to make certain interventions.
We have attended to the macroeconomic issues for many years and they have
produced a positive result.
We need a better focus, for instance, on industrial policy to say which
sectors of the South African economy we believe should give us these higher
rates of growth. One of those mentioned most often is, of course, tourism. All
right, if we say tourism is one of them, then we must answer the question: what
do we do to increase the size of that particular sector of the economy? Are
there enough airline seats between South Africa and Europe, and South Africa
and the Far East, and the US and what do we do to address that? What about the
rest of the tourism infrastructure, the hospitality infrastructure generally.
So you make the necessary interventions of whatever kind.
We have got to address these issues, which have shown up just because of the
rate of growth of the economy. As I was saying the other day, the ports cannot
cope, the railway system, the roads and so on, water, electricity. Those are
infrastructure things. So let us do something about that because they are
critical to achieving those high rates of growth.
So that is the process that we are engaged in now. We have got to increase
investment by the public sector, address problems like underspending in terms
of capital budgets by the state sector. We still have this phenomenon where
billions of Rands are returned to the national treasury at the end of the
financial year, because the government does not have capacity to build roads
and so on that are very necessary to achieve those high rates of growth.
So that is what we are doing, to have a microeconomic focus: industrial
policy questions, infrastructure development questions; this critically
important issue of skills of all sorts across the board. We have to do all of
these things which produce high rates of growth. Indeed, we must address
matters like the perception which arises from what is happening in the country,
that such are the levels of crime that it is unsafe to come to South Africa,
and so on. So we have got to address this totality of matters.
FT: That is important for tourism.
President Mbeki: It is important for tourism. You are absolutely
correct.
FT: In the sense that crime is high and that people talk about it on the
television.
President Mbeki: Sure. Yes. That has a negative impact.
It is a microeconomic focus, as it were, or a micro social focus that we are
trying to engage now, so that we do indeed create a possibility for these
higher rates of growth.
Telkom, the biggest telecommunications company, which is part owner of the
only undersea broadband cable that we have along the Atlantic coast, just
recently responded on this matter that we have been raising with them. We have
been saying: we are talking about call centres and business process outsourcing
and so on; we are on the time zone with Western Europe, more or less; and this
country is basically English-speaking and even the English accent that people
have here is in many respects easier to understand than the accent of somebody
else in the East. And yet, why are we not attracting these call centres? It is
the costs of telecommunications.
FT: I mean, the costs of telecommunications in South Africa are unbelievably
high.
President Mbeki: Absolutely.
FT: I mean, why, why have you not managed to crack this, because that will
give a tremendous fillip to growth.
President Mbeki: If you take that undersea cable, they are charging so many
hundreds percent more per unit of time than is being charged elsewhere in the
world. So we say to Telkom, we cannot be saying here is a sector of the economy
which can attract a lot of people, and indeed, many companies around the world,
in some instances led by South African companies which have developed big
operations outside. South Africa's Old Mutual, listed on the London Stock
Exchange, say we want to do this call centre here. This is their country, they
know the people, they know the language and so on, but the cost is so high. So
we say to Telkom: you have to do something about that. And, quite recently they
said, okay, now we understand. So, I mean, there are many interventions that
are�
FT: So you are putting, just to be clear, Mr President, you are putting some
serious pressure now, personally, on Telkom to reduce the astronomically
high�
President Mbeki: Yes, of course, we are doing that. Of course, there is now
a new telecoms company is expected sometime later this year to go operational
which would provide competition. We have also taken a decision to build a new
and much bigger fibre optic cable along the West Coast, much, much bigger than
the one that exists now with much, much greater capacity that would drastically
reduce costs. So there are a number of interventions that we are making,
including putting the pressure on Telkom to say, this is a level of
profiteering that is not right.
FT: Profiteering?
President Mbeki: It is, I mean, really, the charges are just phenomenal.
But, of course, it is also because it has got limited capacity. The planning,
when the cable was laid, did not take into account the rate of increase in
terms of the demand for traffic on the cable. So that puts this consortium that
owns the cable, which includes Telkom, in an advantage, it is a seller's
market.
FT 2: China is playing an increasingly important and dynamic role in Africa
at the moment and you have been an enthusiastic supporter of many of Beijing's
initiatives. But I believe, right at the end of last year, you warned that
there was a risk of a new colonial relationship. I wonder if you could explain
what you meant by that? And does that remain a risk now?
President Mbeki: The point I was making is that it is quite easy to
understand what China would need from the African continent with regard to its
own economy. It will be raw materials, oil, and a market for manufactured
goods. It is not difficult to understand that, and it is perfectly legitimate,
there is nothing wrong with that. The Chinese economy is growing, it requires
raw materials and so on, and so where do we get them in Africa? It is correct,
we need more fuel and there are a number of countries that produce oil and so
on, so we are going to get oil concessions and that is also understandable. And
Chinese industry is growing and we are all members of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), and it is a global market, so, we sell our goods in Africa
as elsewhere in the world. I am saying that all of that is obvious.
The challenge is that you could then, indeed, develop a relationship between
China and the African continent which in reality isn�t different from the
relationship that developed between Africa and the former colonising powers,
where, again, Africa remains an exporter of raw materials and an importer of
manufactured goods. So, the point that we have made is that we believe that it
really would be in China's interest to say that it needs to construct its
relationship with the African continent in a manner that addresses that. I am
sure it would not be in the long-term interest of China, which would continue
to depend on these African resources for a very long time, to see the emergence
of any sense of hostility, animosity, tension between itself and the African
continent.
Therefore, China has to say, sure, we will see what needs of the Chinese
economy can be met by us accessing raw materials, for instance, on the African
continent. That is fine but we must also say: we also want to participate in
the process of the development of the African continent, so that you do not
reproduce that colonial relationship. So ask the questions: are Chinese
companies investing in Africa? There is a huge Chinese market, a market already
demanding all sorts of things. Cannot you produce some of those things in
Africa and export them into China? Of course you can. So these are the things
that I believe that China would have to address. Is there anything that China
can do to assist in terms of the development project, as we define it ourselves
as the African continent?
You cannot just depend on the market, because the market will say: China
needs oil; China needs coal; China needs whatever, and Africa has got all these
things in abundance. And we go there and get them, and the more we develop the
Chinese economy, the larger the manufacturing is, the more we need global
markets - sell it to the Africans which indeed might very well destroy whatever
infant industries are trying to develop on the continent. That is what the
market would do. It is not because there are evil Chinese who are sitting in
Beijing plotting something bad. That is what objectively would happen.
China surely must be interested in a more stable, non-antagonistic
relationship with the African continent precisely because of its own needs �
and therefore has to say: in our own interest, as China, it is necessary that
we participate in the process of development of the African continent.
Now, the fortunate situation is that when we had this meeting, the
China-Africa Summit in Beijing, this matter was raised by the Chinese
themselves, officially, to say: it is in the common interest that there should
be balanced development between China and Africa, and therefore the Chinese
themselves must attend to these matters of Chinese investment, assistance with
regard to skills development, focus on agriculture, all sorts of things like
this consistent with our own development, a process like that defined in NEPAD.
So it is a matter that both China and ourselves have got to watch all the time,
so that you do not have a kind of slippage with regard ensuring that that
mobilises development.
FT 2: Can I just very quickly return to some Zimbabwe. President Mugabe,
this weekend I gather, claimed that you share the same stance as he did about
Britain's role on the continent. He was heard saying, I think something like,
President Mbeki believes as I do, that Britain has a neo-colonialist agenda, or
something. I mean, first is, what is your responses to that? He is very good at
playing this sort of game and he has done it before. And, as you get into your
role as mediator, it strikes me and possibly other people that the obvious
obstacle is going to be President Mugabe, because he of all the people
involved, would on paper be the least interested in, in reaching mediation and
having talks. Is there a stage that you have to go beyond walking softly? I
mean, we all know the famous Teddy Roosevelt saying about walking softly and
carrying a big stick. Forgive the long question -just your answer to his
charge. And, you know, what would you consider doing if walking softly
continues to go nowhere?
President Mbeki: You see, we have been dealing with this Zimbabwe question
for some time. So I think we are pretty familiar with these challenges.
I have said this thing before and unfortunately you get the wrong messages
from people in Zimbabwe. For instance, you know in the past when we engaged the
Zimbabweans, there was an agreement that there were certain constitutional
challenges the country faced in the context of ensuring that you have addressed
all the issues that were contentious with regard to a democratic system, and
therefore this matter of constitutional amendments had to be addressed.
So, we say fine, we agree. Then, how do we do that? So both the Zanu PF and
the MDC said, let us engage in what they insisted would be described as
informal talks rather than negotiations to address these constitutional
matters.
So we said, fine, and indeed they did for some time, and completed that
process, ahead of the 2005 parliamentary elections. Both the Zanu PF and the
MDC each gave me a copy of the completed draft of the constitution. I have
still got them, initialled on every page.
So, fine, now we have done this, what next? Unfortunately the parliamentary
elections then caught up with them. So they then got involved in the normal
campaigning and so on and that matter got put on the back burner.
I am mentioning this to say that because we have been dealing with the
Zimbabwean political leadership for some time, I think we have some sense of
what it is that even they, together, have thought needed to be done. You see,
even decisions like the establishment of a Senate, is in that draft
constitution, it is agreed. An amendment of the Constitution in order to set up
an independent electoral commission, which was done, it's in that draft
constitution. A number of things like that. Even this issue of the
harmonisation of the presidential and parliamentary elections, also there.
So, what I am trying to say is, we have a possibility to say, in our own
judgment, this particular player in Zimbabwe is obstructing the possibility of
finding a political settlement. And in this case, because we are now mandated
by SADC, we go back to SADC to say, we are not moving because these ones are
obstructing the process, many of whose elements we are familiar with. And then,
of course, the region must take a decision as to what to do in an instance like
that. So that is what would happen if, indeed, you had a situation where we
came to the determination that given our own understanding of what needs to
happen in Zimbabwe to create this situation and climate and all of that, this
one is acting in a way, or the other one is acting in a way, which is intended
to deny an outcome like that. We can say that we are not moving because these
ones are serving as an obstacle. And then, the region must take a decision as
to what to do in a situation of that kind.
[With regard to the question about British colonialism], the discussion was,
you have these political problems in Zimbabwe, how does the region respond to
that? And the point that was made that it was not about British colonialism
only, or colonialism mainly. The point that was made was that, as a region, we
would not ever support any proposition about regime change. That is not an
option for us whatever other people may think in the rest of the world. The
only option we have is to make sure that the Zimbabwean political leadership
agrees on the steps that it needs to take to get the country out of its
problems. That was the only point made with regard to that.
FT: About 11 years ago I sat with you and you said these words, which have
stuck with me: "the creation of a non-racial society is a painful process." - I
think this was 1996 - and something like "I say (very foolishly perhaps) things
I should not, then the debate begins about what is right and what is wrong, and
your nice deputy president ceases to be a nice deputy president." I was talking
about how everyone had been adoring you and then you had been getting some
criticism in the press because of issues you had been speaking about. In recent
months, people, in the South African media in particular, have been suggesting
that the nice president has been the nasty president, has been saying nasty
things and so on. And some people suggest that may be the role of the president
to be more all-embracing and less pointed than in some of his utterances. I
just wonder what you feel about that.
President Mbeki: Well, it is true that on occasion, not every day I raise
issues which I think that the country needs to discuss.
More recently I was saying that there is a serious problem of crime in the
country. That is not in dispute and we have to address this problem. The
government has got to do what it has to do with regard to this critically
important matter and engage the population in that process of crime combating
and crime prevention.
We have got to do that, but what then also happens is that you then have
particular public communication about this issue (which is serious and one is
not debating that issue) which actually is driven by a problem that we have had
in this country for a long time, of white fears, fear of the black majority. It
was the very reason for the establishment of the apartheid system. The people
who built the apartheid system were saying, we did all of this to try and build
a wall around ourselves. Because here we are sitting on this continent,
surrounded by black hordes and we do not know what they are going to do. So we
needed to protect ourselves, whether it is prohibiting sexual relations between
black and white, delineating residential areas, this is black, this is white.
This all had to do with the fear that one day we will be swamped: they will
just come and devour us.
So it would seem to me that some of the communication that you get around
this question of crime is driven still by this notion of fear. You have the
phenomenon in this country that was very specifically expressed in the past,
when you had quite a serious problem of the killing of farmers because of their
isolated homesteads. The criminals would go there, rob the people and then kill
people, farmers in the process. And the view was put out that these were the
black people revenging on the white people, because we did so many bad things
to them during the years of apartheid and before. It is that fear, therefore
this incidence of crime is not just crime; these black hordes are coming at
us.
So that was what I was saying, that we need to discuss that, focused on this
matter, and I may very well be a wrong about this. What I am quite sure of, as
of now, is a persisting manifestation of those white fears amongst some of our
population, which impacts on the way they think, given the specific example,
which I actually cited in that article in ANC Today.
A young black family moves into one of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg,
white suburbs, historically white. And on the street there is only one other
black family, which they find there living on that street. After a while this
other black family which had been there for some time come visiting the new
arrivals. We introduce ourselves, welcome to our street and all that. Fine. The
person who told me the story was actually the person involved. He did not tell
me whether they had a drink of whisky or gin or tea or whatever, but no doubt,
they had something of that kind�
[The visitor tells the new arrival that one of the white neighbours and his
family were very concerned and uneasy that he and his family have moved into
the neighbourhood, and had inquired from him:] "Do you know these new arrivals,
these other black people?"�"No, we do not know them."�"My family is feeling a
sense of unease at these new arrivals."�"Why?"�"How do we know they are kosher?
How do we know they are not criminals?"
So, this other one says, "This is what they say." So I say to them, "But why
such a question?"
It is this phenomenon which I am talking about. They are black. Until they
prove that they are not criminals it is safer to assume that they are
criminals. How do we know that they are kosher?
So in the end, fortunately, this fellow who was posing the question, then
goes visiting these people that he is not sure of whether they are kosher or
not. And then a discussion ensues. And then he says, but why do not you people
come home for dinner, because you need to talk to my wife and my children
because of the things that I have learned in this hour and a half of discussion
that I did not know about South Africa, about my setting, the white population
confined in our little spaces.
The point I am making is that you have this person who literally thinks, and
whose family thinks, that it is safer to assume that because they are black
they are likely to be criminals, until, like this other family that has lived
on the street with us for some time, they prove that they are not.
I am raising these questions to say that if South Africa wants to move
forward in this process of reconciliation and so on, we have got to address
those things. We have got to confront those issues, because you can then live
under this sort of benign delusion, simply because we all of us will celebrate
when the South African cricket has beaten Australia�We know we will all
celebrate nicely and there is a great feeling, like when the FIFA executive
said that 2010 will be in South Africa. There was a big celebration and the
country united behind the celebration.
I am saying that you can live under the delusion that that actually
manifests the totality of the reality in South Africa. It does not. It is a
difficult question to discuss. The issue of racism and racial prejudice is
very, very difficult to discuss. It is difficult to discuss the history of
apartheid - many people have made the observation that it is very, very
difficult to find anybody in South Africa who ever supported apartheid: because
everybody was opposed to that; it was against our will and so on. I am saying
that it is difficult to discuss history, and more difficult to talk about now,
today, even simple things.
I think in that same article I reported on something that is in the media.
One of our big banks is faced with serious problems about this. A young intern,
fresh out of university, a young black fellow, 22 years old, goes and works
there in some apprenticeship system. After a while he writes a letter to his
general manager to say that racism in the bank here is so prevalent: I cannot
proceed; I am not going to take this other fellow's job who is white, I have
really come for exposure, for experience, for training, then I leave; but there
is a big problem in the bank. Once he says this and the matter gets published,
you get a response from other young black professionals in the bank to say:
this has been happening for many years. Yet you can pretend that these things
are not there, and yet you have a level of dissatisfaction of the black
population which you cannot ignore.
I believe that it would be irresponsible for the President of the Republic
of South Africa not to raise these real issues. And, of course, part of the
response will be: no, no, that is not the task of the President. The task of
the President is to make sure that he is loved by everybody, and therefore he
cannot say this. I think it is incorrect.
I have said things about the way in which black people who have come into
government from 1994 buy into an old culture of corruption that was prevalent
during the apartheid years within the state machinery, come in comfortably and
buy into this. It is wrong. We were coming into government with a new value
system and yet you find this manifestation. Sure, I get accused from the black
side that this fellow is raising this thing for political purposes because I
want to chop some people up, sticking the label 'corrupt' on them. But I think
it will be quite incorrect for the President of South Africa not to raise
issues like that.
But then of course you must be ready to accept that it will not necessarily
make you popular with everybody. But, what do you do?
FT: There is, Mr President, another sensitive issue which you do, raise on
occasion on the connection to AIDS and you as the HIV virus. In the last couple
of years, there has been a marked shift in the government's position, spending,
the debate on AIDS. Are you responsible for that?
President Mbeki: Well, the current policy that the government is
implementing, in fact, quite old.
Already in the 90s, when we launched what led up to the South African
National AIDS Council, you can trace the formal comprehensive South African
government policy from then. And, as today, we decided then that the deputy
president would lead that campaign which I did when I was deputy president. So
it has continued like that ever since. Later, we decided that, rather than
determine that this is government policy and implement it, we needed to put out
a formal document. So, the 2000-2005 comprehensive policy on AIDS and sexually
transmitted diseases was issued. So it is actually old policy.
What happened is that I said: the reports from the scientific world are that
there is a very severe and escalating impact of HIV and AIDS in South Africa,
and from what I have read, it is assuming particular, distinct characteristics,
which, for instance, were atypical of how this phenomenon had developed in the
States. This meant that we must look at what it is that results in all of this,
specific to our country. Let us look at everything and respond to that, because
it would be irresponsible if it is said, as it was said, that you have this
rapidly worsening problem and we as the government and the political leadership
of this country do not respond in an appropriate manner to a rapidly worsening
problem.
So, we had a look at everything, because it is a serious problem. I spent
time trying to study it, to understand it. Your medical documents will say:
acquired immune deficiency syndrome, that is AIDS, which means that you have
got this challenge of immune deficiency. All right, what causes immune
deficiency? HIV? All right, is that all that causes immune deficiency? And your
medical textbooks would say no, there are other things that will cause acquired
immune deficiency. There is also a genetic immune deficiency, a different
phenomenon. There would be other things.
So, I say, all right, in which case let us respond comprehensively to
everything that will cause immune deficiency, including HIV. That is when you
get this story that I have denied the connection. And nobody has ever shown me
where I did deny it. They say it, but you say where? When? They cannot, because
it was never said, because I never did. But what I said, and I am sure it is in
the medical textbooks, there are many things that cause immune deficiency and
you will find therefore in the South African HIV and AIDS programme, that it
will say that part of what we have got to do is to make sure that our health
infrastructure, our health system is able to deal adequately with all of the
illnesses that are a consequence of AIDS. Whether it is TB or meningitis or
whatever, which are in the medical literature. The medical system must be able
to respond to those. The medical system, and not only the medical system but
the totality of government policy, must be able to address this matter of
immune deficiency from whatever it arises.
That is what you find in the policy, it derives from an understanding, it's
not a complicated thing. I am not a medical person, but it is not complicated.
If you read a textbook it will tell you, these are the things, for instance, on
the African continent that would contribute to immune deficiency: the various
tropical diseases, which because of poor health infrastructure, poor nutrition,
general levels of poverty, don't get treated; syphilis, untreated or not
properly treated (which as I hear is a big problem, when it is treated and the
symptoms disappear, but, in fact, it is not cured and incubates there) that
will impact on the immune system. So you have got to deal with these
things.
That is what I said. That is what I insist upon. We cannot, as a government,
say: ignore other health conditions and just attend to one. It cannot be right.
You have got to attend to the matter of HIV, absolutely, absolutely, but you
have got to attend to these other matters.
So that is all. But you know, I was listening to the radio yesterday and
somebody phones in on one of these telephone programmes: oh, we know the
President, we know he is a denialist, like he denied that there is a connection
between HIV and AIDS. What can I do? Because indeed, as I say, when you ask
them when people say that, well, when did he say it��?
FT: Well, you have set the record straight today.
President Mbeki: I have done it many times. But, you know, but I am
really�
FT: Do you think you are wilfully misunderstood?
President Mbeki: I don't know. I really don't know. It might have been bad
communication. It might have been that we were raising questions in a situation
when there was a particular understanding that had developed in society, and so
once you say something else, it looks like you are challenging the established
truth. It may be.
It is actually a very simple matter. I am sure you have the textbook that I
have got here. I must return it to the owner, I have had it now for a number of
years. I said to a doctor, give me a textbook that deals with this problem of
immune deficiency, I would like to understand it. It is a textbook written by
Professor Coovadia who teaches at the medical school of the University of
KwaZulu-Natal. It describes this phenomenon and what it is medically that would
cause acquired immune deficiency. That is where I learned about this other
immune deficiency, which is genetic. And he says these are the things that
would contribute to the weakening and destruction of the immune system, and so,
as a medical doctor, we have to respond to all of these. It makes sense. It
makes absolutely good sense to respond to all of these things.
It does not mean that, because Professor Coovadia says that there are other
things that cause immune deficiency, that he is saying that HIV doesn't cause
immune deficiency. It doesn't mean that at all. But I am saying that in the
instance that this is what people might have been taught, and then, suddenly,
you say, but there are other things, it may very well be that they conclude
that this constitutes a denial of what they believe is truthful knowledge that
they have.
FT: I would like just to ask you about South Africa's position on Iran,
where you have taken quite an interest in the position, which others in Britain
and the United States think is a very pressing one. Could you just perhaps
explain to us your point?
President Mbeki: South Africa is one of the permanent members of the board
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As a result we have like all
the other members had to deal with the issue of Iran.
The position that we have taken with regard to this is, one, that it is
critically important that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons. And that the
necessary interventions need to be made by the International Atomic Energy
Agency to ensure that, indeed, that does not happen, in the context of any
nuclear generation of power or research or whatever, in Iran. That the
non-proliferation objectives must be respected.
But secondly, we have said, that it is also important to respect the fact
that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which
Treaty spells out the rights and obligations of signatories to the Treaty, and
therefore that we cannot deny Iran the rights due to it as a signatory of the
NPT.
Therefore we have got to act on both of these, and critically important is
that Iran must co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency,
because this is the only body with all of the expertise and all of that, which
has the capacity to maintain the oversight that will ensure that the
non-proliferation regime is respected. And so, indeed, part of what we
discussed with the Iranians is that the director general of the IAEA continues
to say that, despite the fact that we have got no evidence that there has been
any diversion of enriched uranium to military purposes, nevertheless there are
certain questions that Iran has not answered. And we keep saying to them, you
have to answer that. You have got to co-operate fully with the IAEA
The third consideration, we have been saying, is that here you have an
extremely volatile region of the world, where Iran is: with problems in
Palestine and Israel; in Lebanon; in Iraq. Surely it should be in the interest
of everybody that everything should be done not to escalate conflict in this
region. Therefore, whatever the problems are, and the suspicions and beliefs
that attach to Iran's nuclear programme, we need to do everything possible to
make sure that that dispute does not further escalate conflict in the region.
Because, in truth we've discussed this thing with everybody, you do not want an
Iran that is in conflict with other countries of the world, that plays a
negative role with regard to the resolution of the Iraq problem. It will not
help. That would hold true of Lebanon, that would hold true of Palestine. So,
you cannot ring fence issues about nuclear power, nuclear technology in Iran
and isolate them from what else is happening in that region. You cannot think
that we can have almighty battles about these matters that have got to do with
nuclear technology, and really shout and scream and that it will not affect the
rest of the region. It cannot be true.
So, that is really basically the position that we have taken.
I must also say, our sense of Iran and the Iranians is that people have a
sense of national pride. Why do you want to take away our rights guaranteed by
the NPT? Why do you want to stop research on nuclear technology being done in
Iran on a scale no different from similar research done by US universities? It
is very easy for that to escalate into: "As a matter of national pride, we must
stand up to these people who want to deny us that progress."
So, in the end we are saying that we got these three matters that we believe
really are of fundamental importance: Non-proliferation; respect for
international law, by all of us; and doing something not to escalate this very,
very disastrous conflict.
FT: Do you think sanctions are escalating it?
President Mbeki: We have been party to the unanimous resolution of the
Security Council adopted recently, which indeed kind of strengthens that
sanctions regime, but we have got to be sensitive to the fact that you have got
to measure whether that produces the outcome that you want, not only with the
matter of non-proliferation but also with regard to these other matters in the
region, which you cannot disengage, isolate, ring fence, build a Chinese wall,
and believe that you can have a big fight about these things that won't have
implications for the rest.
I know there is a lot of concern about plans that Iran might have to develop
nuclear weapons which arises from positions that Iran took in the past when in
fact it did not disclose things to the IAEA. And therefore the conclusion that
the reason that they are refusing to do it is because they are hiding something
- I can understand that. Nevertheless I think that we still have an obligation
to move. I saw that Javier Solana said last week, I think, that he would resume
his discussions with Ali Larijani, the chief negotiator from the Iranian side
on these issues and I really do hope that they work. A solution must be
found.
FT: But that brings us back to where we started, but a different country.
Thank you very much Mr President.
Issued by: The Presidency
1 April 2007
