Steve Hayes
2013-05-02 06:45:38 UTC
So Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott doesnt like South Africa, or South
Africans. In an otherwise hilarious interview with the Guardian, Scott flouted
the rules of diplomacy to launch a full-fronted assault on our foreign policy,
our president and our general disposition (arrogant and overbearing,
apparently). Should we be insulted? Absolutely but only because, like all
the best insults, Scotts are very close to the bone. By SIMON ALLISON
Interviewing politicians is, as a rule, not particularly exciting for
journalists. Interviews can be a nightmare to schedule, and when they finally
happen its hard to get politicians singing from anything other than their
tightly-scripted song sheet. At times, the whole exercise feels like a
glorified press release, and we have to work really hard to fill in the gaps
and find an interesting angle.
Every now and then, however, someone will come along who wanders so far
off-script that the headlines practically write themselves. Right now, that
someone is Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott.
In an astonishingly frank and frequently hilarious interview with the
Guardians David Smith (worth reading in full), Scott dispensed with all
diplomatic niceties to offer his opinion on Robert Mugabe, gay rights, his
governments human rights record and most interestingly for us South
Africa and South Africans.
Hes not very impressed with us.
Try this for starters:
The South Africans are very backward in terms of historical development, he
told Smith. I hate South Africans. That's not a fair thing to say because I
like a lot of South Africans but they really think they're the bees' knees and
actually they've been the cause of so much trouble in this part of the world I
have a suspicion the blacks model themselves on the whites now that they're in
power. 'Don't you know who we are, man?
He continued in this vein: I dislike South Africa for the same reason that
Latin Americans dislike the United States, I think. It's just too big and too
unsubtle.
Ouch. Arrogant, unsubtle trouble-makers who havent quite got over apartheid
surely hes got us all wrong? Doesnt he know were the rainbow nation?
But much as I want to be offended, my inclination to argue with Scott is
tempered by the fact that Ive said nearly the exact same thing myself. The
rest of Africa doesnt like us very much, I wrote in an analysis last year.
Being a South African in Africa is like being an American in the rest of the
world. Were looked upon with a mix of envy and resentment, our wealth and
power relative to the rest of the continent ensuring that most of the time we
get our way.
Alright Scott, well cede this point to you we can be a little overbearing
when it comes to our interactions with Africa. And yes, our current leaders
may have learned a few tricks from their apartheid-era predecessors,
specifically the one about running an entire country for the benefit of a
privileged minority (for whites insert Guptas).
But Scotts not yet finished with his South Africa-bashing, going on to
question the holy grail of South African foreign policy: our BRICS membership.
They think in Brics that the 's' actually stands for South Africa whereas it
stands for Africa. Nobody would want to go in for a partnership with Brazil,
China, India and South Africa for Christ's sake.
Again, we must reluctantly concede that Scott has a point. South Africas
addition to BRICS has always been contentious, precisely because we do not
wield anything near the kind of economic or political power of the other
nations in the group (including Russia, which Scott failed to mention). As the
Economist explained in March, our primary qualification was geographic.
There was just one problem with the BRICs: no African countries were
included. This was a little embarrassing. Overlooking Africa suggested that
the continent was an economic irrelevance, good only for providing raw
materials to the rest. It also cast doubt on the groups claim to speak for
the emerging world. Two African countries might have been candidates, Nigeria
and South Africa. But only one would keep the acronym intact. And so, in 2010,
the club of BRICs became the BRICS.
Scotts final attack was even more personal, and wont make him any friends in
the Union Building. He compared President Jacob Zuma to another South African
president and no, it wasnt Mandela.
He's very like De Klerk, Scott said. He tells us, You just leave Zimbabwe
to me. Excuse me, who the hell liberated you anyway, was it not us? I mean, I
quite like him, he seems a rather genial character but I pity him his
advisers.
Again, this taps into a gnawing resentment from other African countries about
South Africas at times bull-headed foreign policy. The mediation efforts in
Zimbabwe may formally be under the SADC banner, but Pretoria is setting the
agenda, and has been since Mbekis time in office. This is clearly beginning
to rankle with our regional neighbours. And the barb about Zumas advisers is
disingenuous, and is the only nod to diplomatic courtesy in the entire
interview. For Zuma, ultimately, is responsible for appointing his pitiable
advisors; to criticize them is to criticize him.
But perhaps Scotts most telling point is his position on who liberated South
Africa. A number of factors went into the dismantling of the apartheid state
in 1994, and a major one was the support of other African states for the
anti-apartheid movement. Zambia in particular played a hugely significant
role, hosting the ANCs head office-in-exile where, for a time, a certain
Jacob Zuma found a home.
For this, South Africa owes Zambia a debt of gratitude, but its a debt that
Zambias vice-president clearly feels has not been paid. This might be the
underlying cause of his resentment, with our sometimes brash behaviour only
making things worse.
Either way, its clear that the South African government has a few bridges it
needs to build with its Zambian counterpart, and it will be interesting to see
how our top politicians react to Scotts frank, if insulting, assessment
which, like all the best insults, is just a little too close to the bone for
comfort. DM
Zambian vice-president: South Africans are backward on the Guardian
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-05-02-why-zambias-vice-president-doesnt-like-south-africa-and-why-he-might-have-a-point
Africans. In an otherwise hilarious interview with the Guardian, Scott flouted
the rules of diplomacy to launch a full-fronted assault on our foreign policy,
our president and our general disposition (arrogant and overbearing,
apparently). Should we be insulted? Absolutely but only because, like all
the best insults, Scotts are very close to the bone. By SIMON ALLISON
Interviewing politicians is, as a rule, not particularly exciting for
journalists. Interviews can be a nightmare to schedule, and when they finally
happen its hard to get politicians singing from anything other than their
tightly-scripted song sheet. At times, the whole exercise feels like a
glorified press release, and we have to work really hard to fill in the gaps
and find an interesting angle.
Every now and then, however, someone will come along who wanders so far
off-script that the headlines practically write themselves. Right now, that
someone is Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott.
In an astonishingly frank and frequently hilarious interview with the
Guardians David Smith (worth reading in full), Scott dispensed with all
diplomatic niceties to offer his opinion on Robert Mugabe, gay rights, his
governments human rights record and most interestingly for us South
Africa and South Africans.
Hes not very impressed with us.
Try this for starters:
The South Africans are very backward in terms of historical development, he
told Smith. I hate South Africans. That's not a fair thing to say because I
like a lot of South Africans but they really think they're the bees' knees and
actually they've been the cause of so much trouble in this part of the world I
have a suspicion the blacks model themselves on the whites now that they're in
power. 'Don't you know who we are, man?
He continued in this vein: I dislike South Africa for the same reason that
Latin Americans dislike the United States, I think. It's just too big and too
unsubtle.
Ouch. Arrogant, unsubtle trouble-makers who havent quite got over apartheid
surely hes got us all wrong? Doesnt he know were the rainbow nation?
But much as I want to be offended, my inclination to argue with Scott is
tempered by the fact that Ive said nearly the exact same thing myself. The
rest of Africa doesnt like us very much, I wrote in an analysis last year.
Being a South African in Africa is like being an American in the rest of the
world. Were looked upon with a mix of envy and resentment, our wealth and
power relative to the rest of the continent ensuring that most of the time we
get our way.
Alright Scott, well cede this point to you we can be a little overbearing
when it comes to our interactions with Africa. And yes, our current leaders
may have learned a few tricks from their apartheid-era predecessors,
specifically the one about running an entire country for the benefit of a
privileged minority (for whites insert Guptas).
But Scotts not yet finished with his South Africa-bashing, going on to
question the holy grail of South African foreign policy: our BRICS membership.
They think in Brics that the 's' actually stands for South Africa whereas it
stands for Africa. Nobody would want to go in for a partnership with Brazil,
China, India and South Africa for Christ's sake.
Again, we must reluctantly concede that Scott has a point. South Africas
addition to BRICS has always been contentious, precisely because we do not
wield anything near the kind of economic or political power of the other
nations in the group (including Russia, which Scott failed to mention). As the
Economist explained in March, our primary qualification was geographic.
There was just one problem with the BRICs: no African countries were
included. This was a little embarrassing. Overlooking Africa suggested that
the continent was an economic irrelevance, good only for providing raw
materials to the rest. It also cast doubt on the groups claim to speak for
the emerging world. Two African countries might have been candidates, Nigeria
and South Africa. But only one would keep the acronym intact. And so, in 2010,
the club of BRICs became the BRICS.
Scotts final attack was even more personal, and wont make him any friends in
the Union Building. He compared President Jacob Zuma to another South African
president and no, it wasnt Mandela.
He's very like De Klerk, Scott said. He tells us, You just leave Zimbabwe
to me. Excuse me, who the hell liberated you anyway, was it not us? I mean, I
quite like him, he seems a rather genial character but I pity him his
advisers.
Again, this taps into a gnawing resentment from other African countries about
South Africas at times bull-headed foreign policy. The mediation efforts in
Zimbabwe may formally be under the SADC banner, but Pretoria is setting the
agenda, and has been since Mbekis time in office. This is clearly beginning
to rankle with our regional neighbours. And the barb about Zumas advisers is
disingenuous, and is the only nod to diplomatic courtesy in the entire
interview. For Zuma, ultimately, is responsible for appointing his pitiable
advisors; to criticize them is to criticize him.
But perhaps Scotts most telling point is his position on who liberated South
Africa. A number of factors went into the dismantling of the apartheid state
in 1994, and a major one was the support of other African states for the
anti-apartheid movement. Zambia in particular played a hugely significant
role, hosting the ANCs head office-in-exile where, for a time, a certain
Jacob Zuma found a home.
For this, South Africa owes Zambia a debt of gratitude, but its a debt that
Zambias vice-president clearly feels has not been paid. This might be the
underlying cause of his resentment, with our sometimes brash behaviour only
making things worse.
Either way, its clear that the South African government has a few bridges it
needs to build with its Zambian counterpart, and it will be interesting to see
how our top politicians react to Scotts frank, if insulting, assessment
which, like all the best insults, is just a little too close to the bone for
comfort. DM
Zambian vice-president: South Africans are backward on the Guardian
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-05-02-why-zambias-vice-president-doesnt-like-south-africa-and-why-he-might-have-a-point
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk