[millie_(A)TCK]

I knew there had to be reason why he was smeared by the western media and now its becoming clearer...he isn't like Mbeki, so willing to bend over for western capitalists.

Published on Sunday, September 6, 2009 by The Irish Times
S Africa Backs Action in US on Firms Linked to Apartheid

by Bill Corcoran in Cape Town

South African victims of apartheid seeking compensation from foreign multinationals which supported the racist regime have been boosted by their newly elected government's decision to support their class action in the US courts.

[President Jacob Zuma; unlike his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, Mr. Zuma is supporting the class action in the US courts]President Jacob Zuma; unlike his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, Mr. Zuma is supporting the class action in the US courts
The position being taken by President Jacob Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) administration is the polar opposite of the one taken by his elected predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, whose government refused to support its citizens' case.

Mr Mbeki was against South Africans suing the multinationals, which include, IBM, Daimler, Ford and General Motors, because the action could ultimately harm the country, which still has strong economic ties with many of the companies and wants them to increase investment.

The presiding judge of the US District Court where the case will be heard has received written confirmation regarding Mr Zuma's decision to take a different stance to that of his predecessor.

The South African government has also said it believes an out-of-court settlement would be the best way forward for all concerned.

The plaintiffs in the legal action, which is being taken in the US using the Alien Tort Claims Act, say the firms directly supported the apartheid system by selling vehicles, computers, weapons and other items to the regime that were used against the people.

In recent years the Alien Torts Claims Act has been used by non-US citizens against US-based companies which they say have been complicit in crimes overseas.

Khulumani, an apartheid victim's support group representing thousands of South Africans in the case, welcomed the government's about-turn. "This represents a very significant shift from the government's 2003 position that is not and will not be party to litigation against companies that did business with and in South Africa during the apartheid period," Khulumani said.

The apartheid victims' action was originally taken in 2002 against a large group of companies, but the US courts initially dismissed it.

However, the case was revived on appeal, though the number of companies being sued was greatly reduced.

International banks operating in South Africa during apartheid which were on the original target list were let off the hook because no direct link could be made between their business dealings and the regime's oppression.

However, the case against car manufacturers and computer companies has been allowed to proceed because their products could have been used to directly oppress the population

[Nandi]

I knew there had to be reason why he was smeared by the western media and now its becoming clearer...he isn't like Mbeki, so willing to bend over for western capitalists.

Pointless non sequitur. The West dislikes him for a multitude of reasons.

To be honest I don't get the purpose of these trials. It's a cheap shot at retribution for companies that carry little guilt for what happened. I can understand summoning weapon manufacturers but car manufacturers?

[millie_(A)TCK]

The West dislikes him for a multitude of reasons.

They haven't been clear about it. They've focused on racist cultural differences but not on policies they don't like. Mbeki's government didn't get as much scrutiny by the west as Zuma's corruption and rape charges did (the fact that he won those case is briefly noted in the western media as well)..which in itself is fishy.

To be honest I don't get the purpose of these trials. It's a cheap shot at retribution for companies that carry little guilt for what happened.

They profited from the exploitation allowed by apartheid. The purpose is to give justice to those abused by foreign companies in apartheid and it sets a precedent, that corporations learn that they will not get away with profiting from human rights vacuums. All companies that profited from the apartheid should be trialed and fined.

[soron]

They profited from the exploitation allowed by apartheid. The purpose is to give justice to those abused by foreign companies in apartheid and it sets a precedent, that corporations learn that they will not get away with profiting from human rights vacuums. All companies that profited from the apartheid should be trialed and fined.

I can travel to any country in the world and there will be cars and computers for sale. Trying to put a spin on events so that those things 'were used to exploit the people during apartheid' is just petty BS. This is about people trying to make some quick cash by smeering international corporations names and hoping they would pay the ransom to protect their image.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Are you saying that there weren't multinationals that profited from South Africa during apartheid?

[killim]

Hmmm i always thought that it is obvious why "we" don't like Zuma:

-Corruption
-Rape
-Interference into the judiciary
-Prosecution of the press
-His dealing with AIDS
-Suppression of the freedom of the press
-Support of some African dictators
-Heavy human rights violations during the Apartheid
......

[Okonkwo]

-Support of some African dictators
-Heavy human rights violations during the Apartheid

You are going to have to back up these claims with evidence.
Which African dictators is he supposed to support and how? He is actually the one who heavily criticises Mugabe and his goons, quite to the contrary of his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki.
What "human rights" did he violate during Apartheid? Apart from the fact that human rights are an empty, Western idea without much substance, with what particular action did he violate them? How is one supposed to conduct a revolutionary insurrection against an oppressive system in accordance with human rights?

[killim]

First of all any of the other points are good enough to dislike him. But i can elaborate my statements:

-Violation of human rights during the Apartheid
Afaik the Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that the ANC and especially his "secret service" violated human rights numerous times in a horrible way (torture on even innocent people) and now guess who was the head of this organization within the ANC? Rrright Jacob Zuma.

-Support of some African dictators
In interviews with the German press he constantly defends Mugabes policy and his statements this summer in Harare show clearly that he isn't even interested in supporting the MDC in Simbawe. Additionally he simply continues the policy he has already supported under his vice presidency.

[Okonkwo]

Afaik the Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated that the ANC and especially his "secret service" violated human rights numerous times in a horrible way (torture on even innocent people) and now guess who was the head of this organization within the ANC? Rrright Jacob Zuma.

It's absurd and quite unrealistic to assume that a revolutionary insurrection could succeed without the employ of violence.

In interviews with the German press he constantly defends Mugabes policy and his statements this summer in Harare show clearly that he isn't even interested in supporting the MDC in Simbawe. Additionally he simply continues the policy he has already supported under his vice presidency.

That is a misrepresentation. He is in fact the most vocal opponent of Mugabe's deeds in current South African politics. Zuma takes a very realistic stance on the whole matter.

[killim]

It's absurd and quite unrealistic to assume that a revolutionary insurrection could succeed without the employ of violence.

Which i won't doubt. But thats not the question. The question was why Zuma isn't the darling of "the West" and torturing innocent people of his own group is not really what the do-gooders in our modern western world like. Simply look at Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib etc.

That is a misrepresentation. He is in fact the most vocal opponent of Mugabe's deeds in current South African politics. Zuma takes a very realistic stance on the whole matter.

I agree with you that he takes a very realistic stance, but we disagree in the moral assessment of Zumas behavior over here. I would say that he is well aware of the fact that Mugabe is able to blackmail SA with potential refugees, who would destabilize the fragile situation in SA more then Zuma is willing to tolerate. Therefore he is simply sitting and waiting. This non-intervention strategy, which is -as i will gladly admit- a good guiding principle for international or bilateral relationships, leads to potential problems for SA in the long term and in the short term to bad PR over here.

But the other points are more important, because they create a picture of a South African Berlusconi over here and his statements after the Rape trial even made some news and that was a very shameful chapter