Irony
The United Nations recently released a report which shows the year 2006 as among the bloodiest in Iraq. It considers the deaths in Iraq, during the course of last year, to be more than 34 400, more than three times the Iraqi government's estimate.

At the same time, George W Bush; who is clearly not concerned about the view of the people in the lands he instructed his forces to occupy; who openly declares that he does not go on the opinion polls, thereby rejecting the position of the people he claims to represent; who now even opposes
the stance of the lawmakers in the country he stands as President; decided
to send 21 500 more troops to Iraq, after having stated his decision to begin proceedings for withdrawal of troops.

Polls show that Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy with Bush's Iraq
policy. Seventy percent oppose sending more troops to Iraq, as he intends
to do, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll last week. Bush said if a pollster asked for his opinion about Iraq, "I would be one of those that said, 'No, I don't approve of what's taking place in Iraq.'" (So, Bush disapproves of
his own Iraq policy). He said that keeping his old policies in place in the war would lead to "a slow failure," but withdrawing from Iraq, as some critics suggest, would result in an "expedited failure." "I am frustrated with the progress," the president said. "No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq."
Bush, who supported and lauded the ‘execution’ of Saddam and the same verdicts for Saddam’s aides, now states that he "was disappointed and felt
like they (the Iraqis) fumbled, particularly the Saddam Hussein execution." He further stated that the unruly execution of Saddam Hussein "looked like it
was kind of a revenge killing," making it harder to persuade a skeptical U.S. public that Iraq's government will keep promises central to Bush's plan for a troop increase. He then went on to criticize the circumstances of Saddam's hanging last month, as well as Monday's execution of two top aides, including Saddam's half brother.

When is racism, racism?
During the 4th day of a cricket match between South Africa and Pakistan, Herschelle Gibbs erupted into a scene using obscenities and expletives, concluding in a racist statement.

Notwithstanding the fact that,
• The Pakistani supporter’s actions must be questioned, and the report that the Muslim supporter was drunk must be considered as a wake-up call for all Muslims,

Certain questions must still be asked:
• Is a person paid by Cricket South Africa to represent his country not a
public figure whose actions are subject to scrutiny - especially actions on the same cricket field he is representing South Africa - since he would be considered a role-model for South African youth?
• Is it really an issue whether the stump-mike was on or not? If a person
makes a racist comment to his friend, does it still qualify as a racist comment or is there a difference because it was not said publicly?
• Is it not ‘professional’ for a person paid (large sums of money) to represent South Africa, to take the heckling and teasing that ‘comes with the territory’ of being a professional sportsman, and enjoys the benefits of this position?
• Does Gibb’s comments not extend beyond racism into the realm of denigration of humanity, since he referred to humans and animals?
• How would one consider a person who responds to the actions of his antagonist, in a manner that exceeds the antagonist in the action of his antagonism?

UNICEF Report on HIV/AIDS
UNICEF recently released a report on the impact of HIV and AIDS on children, on Monday. Among the statements made in the reports are:

• The world's response to the need to protect and support HIV-infected and affected children remained insufficient.
• 15 million children under the age of 18 in the world were Aids orphans. Almost half of them were themselves HIV-positive and living in orphanages or with families chronically ill from the virus.
• An estimated 530,000 children under the age of 15 were newly infected with HIV in 2006,
• South Africa has the most Aids orphans in the world because of its denial of the pandemic, a United Nations Children's Fund report has found.

Somalia peacekeeping force
Following on the Ethiopian and US-led assault on forces of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, there has been major international debate concerning the best way to solve the current crisis. Although the actions of Ethiopia and the United States should be condemned, it has emerged that an African Union led peacekeeping force will become a reality in the not too distant future. The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia, backed by Ethiopia and US forces has taken control of Mogadishu after years of it being unable to bring peace and stability to the country. It is important not to underestimate the necessity of engaging in negotiations that include the TFG, the Union of
Islamic Courts, and other role-players in Somali politics. The President of the TFG has indicated that he is not interested in negotiating with the UIC. To
the contrary it should be noted that the TFG will ignore the UIC to its own peril, and that countries such as South Africa can play a constructive role in the peacekeeping operation if it ensures that sufficient pressure is put on
the Somali TFG, as well as other regional powers such as Ethiopia, to allow
the UIC to participate in negotiations.

<Go to Top>

Summarized Jumu’ah Bayaan: