Foreign Policy Passport blog has a quotation from George Perkovich, the nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in which he says that “ElBaradei and Iran have won this round.”

The conjunction of the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency with a regime that stands accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons strikes me as curious, to say the least. Here’s the quotation in full:

ElBaradei and Iran have won this round. In August the IAEA Director General accepted what were essentially Iranian terms for answering the IAEA’s outstanding questions about Iran’s suspicious nuclear activities. This agreement seemed to surrender the IAEA’s rights and responsibilities to conduct follow-up investigations and pursue new leads. The agreement also neglected the U.N. Security Council’s legally binding demands that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities as long as the IAEA is unable to satisfy itself that Iran’s nuclear activities have been entirely peaceful. Yet Iran and Mr. ElBaradei hailed it as a breakthrough. ElBaradei and others who are convinced the U.S. plans to go to war against Iran felt the agreement would spare the world another catastrophe.

The P5+2 statement reveals that the Iran/IAEA deal effectively neutralized the U.S., French, U.K. effort to tighten sanctions on Iran in response to Iran’s ongoing refusal to accede to U.N. Security Council resolutions. The statement basically says the world should wait and hope that Iran gives the IAEA full answers and that somehow all the outstanding issues are indeed resolved. (If this were so easy, why has Iran waited more than four years to provide such answers and suffered U.N. sanctions for failing to cooperate?) Then, in November the P5+2 will reconvene and, if Iran has not satisfied the IAEA, they will huff and puff some more.

When President Ahmadinejad said last week that the Iran case is closed in the Security Council and the matter is with the IAEA where it belongs, he was absolutely wrong from a legal standpoint. The U.N. Security Council Resolutions remain active and binding. But now some members of the Security Council, following the lead of Director General ElBaradei, are showing that President Ahmadinejad is having his way, at least for now.

This puts me in mind of another article, in which the main exiled Iranian opposition group reports that a new underground facility is being built for enriching weapons-grade uranium:

“Information we have from inside the regime indicates the site is destined for military nuclear activity, mainly for the further enrichment of uranium,” Mehdi Abrichamtchi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said in Paris.

The new site in central Iran consists of a “vast underground area beneath the Karkass mountains linked to the surface by two tunnels and connecting with a third tunnel” to the Natanz nuclear complex 5km away, Mr Abrichamtchi said.

“The site is protected against aerial attack. If Natanz is bombed, it won’t be touched,” he said. “To maintain secrecy, the area has been declared a military zone, and the regime has bought up all the local land.”

All of which raises a serious question. Let’s assume such a facility did exist, and the regime denies it, and its location is secret, and its connection to the main Natanz facility is disguised, and the few Iranians who can confirm its existence or location are under orders, on pain of death, to keep silent. Let’s assume that ElBaradei’s inspectors were permitted unrestricted access to Iran, and they weren’t on side of the Iranian regime. How could they possibly know that it’s there?

Watching the news reports about Burma (now called Myanmar by the military junta) in the last couple of days made me ashamed to be a citizen of a country that voted, six months ago, against a UN Security Council resolution that would have:

…urged the Government of Myanmar to release all political prisoners and make tangible progress towards national reconciliation, leading to genuine democratic transition; It called on the Government of Myanmar to cease military attacks against civilian in ethnic minority regions and in particular to put an end to the associated human rights and humanitarian law violations against persons belonging to ethnic nationalities, including widespread rape and other forms of sexual violence carried out by members of the armed forces.

Why did South Africa do this? Because of some procedural rubbish about which of the damn Useless Natterers committees could “better handle” the matter. Here you go, folks. Here’s how the matter is “better handled”:

Ask this chap, he’ll tell you:

I wonder, sometimes, why on earth South Africans rose up against an oppressive regime. Why they faced ostracism, teargas, bullets or torture in their demand for freedom and democracy. Have we forgotten so soon what it was all about? How can South Africa, of all countries, hide behind procedural technicalities in their craven demurral from even token pressure on the violent oppressors of Burma?

These are stains not on the pavement, but on our national character:

It makes me sick.

(Images courtesy of Ko Htike, a Burmese blogger who deserves a medal.)

There’s a fascinating article over at The American Thinker, by Ray Robison. He analyses and places in context some events that have barely made headlines, but which suggest significant progress in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the fight against the Jihadists. Though the operations have been kept pretty quiet, the location will be familiar: Tora Bora.

Just one quotation from a long piece:

This cannot be overstated: it is the most crucial development since the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Cutting al Qaeda’s support in Pakistan has been a massive coup, of which our media has no clue of (sic) right now. It is the exact sort of thing that the Democrats and their media accomplices always complain that we are not doing and then completely ignore when we do it.

If what Robison writes is true, this has implications for the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and on terror in general, as well as for the hunt for Bin Laden himself. The outcome could be momentous.

The Brett Kebble saga is getting uglier by the day. It appears that the unexplained and controversial suspension by South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki of the head of the National Prosecution Authority (NPA), Vusi Pikoli, may be linked to an arrest warrant he obtained for SA’s police commissioner (and the chairman of Interpol) Jackie Selebi, in connection with an ongoing investigation into his links with crime syndicate boss Glenn Agliotti, who has in turn been arrested for suspected involvement in the death last year of prominent businessman Brett Kebble. Earlier, the president, who is away at the UN meeting in New York, said that the suspension was a result of unreconcilable conflict between Pikoli and the Minister of Justice, Brigitte Mabandla. Pikoli curiously reports to both her and to Minister of Safety and Security Charles Nqakula.

Reports the SABC:

SABC News has reliably learnt that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has obtained a warrant for the arrest of the chief of SA Police Service, Jackie Selebi. Sources say the warrant was secured on Thursday last week by NPA head, Vusi Pikoli, before his suspension.

Sources close to SABC News have also revealed that the warrant is accompanied by a search and seizure document obtained from the Pretoria High Court.

The BBC, however, reports that the police would not confirm whether such a warrant had been issued. Speculation has long been brewing over Selebi’s casual admission of his “friendship” with Agliotti. The “Scorpions”, a special investigations unit independent from the police, which reports to the NPA, have been digging away at the Brett Kebble case as well as to charges of corruption involving the arms deal against former deputy president Jacob Zuma, who is a high-profile left-wing contender to succeed Mbeki in 2009. The unit has asked for search and seizure of documents Selebi’s police deparment holds. The repeated links to Selebi, and now Mbeki’s direct involvement in the ongoing conflict between the prosecution authority and the police, raise a lot more questions than they answer.

One of which is who is going to carry out the arrest? “Hey, boss, you have the right to remain silent.” “No, constable. You have the right to remain silent!”

Update 29/09 09:00: Madam & Eve cartoonists thought alike (at least, they didn’t differ):

Update 27/09 20:00: The opposition Democratic Alliance is in such a froth that it “reax” with the following “three points”:

First, a warrant of arrest is only issued if the prosecuting authority — the state — believes there is a prima facie case against the person for who the warrant has been issued. In other words if a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Jacki Selebi the NPA believes there is sufficient evidence against him to prosecute him in a court of law.

Second, subsequent to President Mbeki’s decision to suspend Vusi Pikoli, both the NPA and government have given explicit and express assurances that the move will not affect the performance or function of the NPA and for all accounts and purposes it will be “business as usual”. If this is indeed the case and the reports are accurate then the public will expect
the NPA to both arrest the commissioner and pursue a case against him in a court of law.

Third, if this doesn’t happen and the warrant is suspended or withdrawn, then it will become quite clear that Advocate Pikoli’s suspension was as a direct result of his decision to pursue and prosecute the commissioner.

Fourth, if a warrant has been issued two things need to happen. One, Commissioner Selebi should step down from his position with immediate effect, and two, President Mbeki needs to personally explain why he did not disclose this information to the public when he justified his decision.

Update 28/09 9:00: There’s an excellent (albeit disturbing) take on the legal validity (or, more likely, otherwise) of Thabo Mbeki’s suspension of Vusi Pikoli, by Pierre de Vos over at ThoughtLeader, the Mail & Guardian Online’s opinion pages. He correctly points out the gravity of this situation for our democracy.

Update 28/09 9:00: A thorough and detailed analysis of the events leading up to the arrest warrant for Selebi and suspension of Pikoli, including the political background, by Stefaans Brümmer of the M&G, is here.

Update 28/09 11:00: A far more detailed, considered and well-written response has been issued by Helen Zille, leader of the main opposition. She calls the implications for our democracy “profound”, and says it “constitutes a potential constitutional crisis”. Since the party’s website has not yet been updated with this response, I’ll post the full text at the end of this entry.

Update 29/09 9:30: Waghied Misbach wrote an interesting column in the Sowetan: ANC in the grip of fear.
Read the rest of this entry »

Sokwanele has some stark pictures of the wages of price controls. Look what you’ve done, Bush and Blair!

Soweto sports a glitzy new mall. Here’s how the Sowetan describes it:

Situated on the Old Potchefstroom Road near Nancefield , the 65 000 square–metre upmarket and trendy mall has proven to be a major drawcard for retailers eager to claim a share of the estimated R4,3 billion Soweto consumer market.

The R650 million mega-shopping complex, with lots of shopping to die for, will house haute couture’s Mertique as one of the “Soweto firsts”.

The huge township south-west of Johannesburg (its name is an acronym), is rising, to quote the cover of an issue of Maverick¹from a few months ago. (Its single-minded focus on print is worth it, if you get it in print, but its website suffers for it.)

The Sowetan must be very out of touch with Soweto. The place has hardly been opened, when Business Report lamented the fact that consumers will now no longer choose small-scale retailers, because the mall will trump them in quality, service, convenience, or price:

Today’s opening of the multimillion-rand Maponya mall in Soweto is grim for business people operating in its environs, who fear for their daily takings and future prospects.

A friend e-mailed a line from the Associated Press report on the opening, in which Richard Maponya, the entrepreneur behind the scheme, declares: “I was convinced that the people really needed a mall.”

“It tells you everything about the modern state of humanity,” this friend wrote. “All everyone needs is a mall, Facebook and a Lotto ticket — and they have friends, a place to shop and some false hope.”

Only people who do have malls can pretend to sneer at them. Choice, economic activity, convenience, those are things that people do want. That’s why malls are popular. To me, it reflects positively on the state of humanity.

People frequent malls because it improves their lives. They’ve done so since the first village markets were established. They make shopping faster and more convenient. They offer more choice in one place. They offer security for shoppers and shopkeepers alike. They create competition which drives prices down. In the end, customers — the ordinary people of Soweto — can have more time on their hands and more money to spare, should they so choose. The Maponya Mall will improve the real quality of life in Soweto, and as all trade does, will create spinoff benefits and growth.

Yes, it also improves the perceived quality of life of the residents. Haute couture is neither a necessity in life nor a panacea for unhappiness. However, it is short-sighted, patronising and hypocritical for rich liberals to sneer at the poor when they too get to enjoy some of the convenience, efficiency, choice and luxury that wealthier people take for granted.

Sometimes I think the rich don’t deserve their lifestyles. Then I think, “Slippery slope!” Before I know it I’ll be wearing a brand-name Che Geuvara t-shirt. No. Let some liberal hypocrite wear it. I know one or two Business Report journalists who do. It suits them.

1. Disclosure: I write for Maverick as a freelance columnist and occasional journalist. [↩]

A few weeks ago, this letter to the editor featured in a local conservative tabloid, The Citizen, referring to last month’s exposé about the South African health minister in the Sunday Times:

Whisky and Waters

THE DA should relax. Because of them, Cabinet Minister Babalaas-Msimang has had to issue a few statements recently.

“Although I was Absynthe from office for several months, I wish to remind you I Amstel the Minister of Health, am not a dictator but I Amarula and I will continue to Rum the department of health,” she stated, announcing her return to office.

When quizzed on her health, she mentioned she had recovered well. “Of course I am well,” she retorted “I am more than well – I am OKWV! Ask a stupid question, get a stupid Hansa.”

Despite being asked about her new liver, she made no reference to the Morgan transplant.

President Mbeki has rallied around his friend: “She has my Absolut support. That is why I wiped that silly Smirnoff her former deputy’s face!

“The opposition will not be able Tequila career.”

Let’s face it – no matter how many times the DA has stirred she appears unshaken, and despite her career seemingly being on the rocks, the Minister is still a Mainstay of the ANC government.

GREG DE VILLIERS
Edenvale

The author is pretty chuffed that his writing has found such wide appeal. He shouldn’t be surprised. It’s both funny and right on target.

“Gates war funding request increases by a third”, reads a CNN headline. The figure in question, for both Iraq and Afghanistan, is $190 billion. Another third, and Microsoft’s entire market capitalisation is on the line. Despite a huge private aircraft they keep at a federal airport near their office, Messrs. Page and Brin have a ways to go to match that kind of capital.

Every time a scientist enters a laboratory, or a statistician crunches a dataset, or a researcher takes a sample, we get yet another glimpse of how fragile the scientific orthodoxy of the consensus crowd is. Here is another example. Plants, it now appears, are chatty things that talk to each other via a sort of internet thing. No really! Check out the illustrations on this university website. See the keyboards the plants use?

And all our lives we’ve been told plants need us to talk to them to keep them happy. As if we really matter to the rest of the planet. This finally explains why my lone office pot plant looks so down: it’s pining for vegetable company.

(Hat tip: ArsGeek.)

PS. I know I’ve probably posted too often today, but I received some very vicious vitriol from a disgruntled fan who wanted just one more post. So here it is. One more. Suggestions from regular readers on posting frequency and other improvements I could make for your reading pleasure are, of course, always welcome.

So the European Science Foundation holds a conference on research integrity, to “foster responsible research”. And guess who’s not invited?

Granted, he’s Canadian, but since their research found he is British and his work to foster responsible research did get a mention, you’d have thought he’d crack an invite too. As a commenter at the ClimateAudit site writes: “How can you trust the integrity of a conference that lacks the integrity to include the person who discovered the very errors they are discussing?”

A statistical researcher who worked on the same issue, might have had some contribution to make on the subject of research disputes, and is really British, didn’t get a nod either. Neither did this Danish statistician, of whom the organisers of a conference on research integrity must at least have heard.

Omitting some of the most visible and public critics of research integrity — on whatever grounds — does nothing to allay suspicions that it was just a one-sided public relations exercise for the status quo, does it?

I think this piece is an exceptionally funny take on politics and the media in South Africa.

Yesterday, I noted the rhetorical style of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. Here’s another technique: “I officially announce that in our opinion the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed.” Did someone compare him to Hitler?

Now where have I heard the technique of unilaterally declaring victory in a debate before? Oh wait. Here. And here.