The South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) proudly calls itself ‘South Africa’s Leading Research and Policy Organisation’, so it is a little surprising that they ‘desisted from issuing a formal statement in the immediate aftermath of the killing of Terre Blanche’. They should have been in an excellent position to comment spontaneously on the issue.
Perhaps they thought that they would let the dust settle before saying anything – in which case why are they so quick to condemn the police for saying ‘that they will not consider a political motive or partial motive for the killing of Terre’Blanche’ as being evidence of an early effort to cover up the ANCs possible culpability?
SAIRR are the self acknowledged experts on the subject, not the police.
They now say that ‘racial tensions in the country appear to have increased significantly in recent weeks […] chiefly as a result of incitement by the ruling African National Congress to ‘shoot and kill’ the Afrikaner ethnic minority in the country.
An Institute of Race Relations that fails to bark when it perceives an increase – and a reason for that increase – in ‘recent weeks’ and waits until some days after the death of a prominent Afrikaner to speak out is neither use nor ornament.
Their new statement which speaks of a multitude of ‘shoulds’ and ‘coulds’ – those all encompassing terms which allows the writer to say ‘told you so’ at a later date, whilst not appearing to apportion blame before the occurrence:
Should any allegations of a political cover-up arise in the pending murder trial of the two young men accused of the Terre’Blanche murder the political consequences could be significant. Should evidence be led that the two young men acted with what they understood to be the tacit backing of the ANC, and a causal link between their actions and incitement by the ANC be established, then the possibility of charging the ANC’s senior leadership in connection to the murder arises. Equally plausible is that the Terre’Blanche family and the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging could bring a civil suit against the ANC and the Government.
The Institute is financed by subscriptions which range from around £2,500 a year to £500 a year, and appears to be more interested in giving detailed analysis to international companies and not for profit organisations that need to know ‘which way the wind is blowing’ in South Africa, rather than actually doing anything active to heal the breach in race relations.
A breach which by their own statement is serious.
They go on to say:
- That the Government has corrupted and debilitated many of the country’s internal democratic processes for political or civil expression that were established under the Constitution
- That cooperation with the current Government of South Africa is therefore fundamentally unfeasible and therefore futile
- That the Government is unable to restore law and order in the country
- That the Government is therefore unable protect its citizens
- That the Government has a hostile agenda against minority groups
However it is equally, if not most likely, that many minorities who subscribe to the five points above may simply get so fed up that those who can will pack up and go. Here they may take the advice of President Zuma to remain calm as they pack up their businesses and their families and calmly board aircraft for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, and Great Britain. With the exodus will leave much of the tax and expertise base of the country.
No doubt President Zuma will be forced to take up Gordon Brown’s habit of referring to ‘net migration’ to conceal this. I would suggest that we send some of our own ‘net migration’ to cover his deficit, but I doubt too many would be keen on going to a country that appears to be about to slide into parity with Zimbabwe.
Football fans intending to travel to the Soccer World Cup may well be fewer than expected.