Re: [A-List] Nongovernmental organizations with financing from theWest

["Patrick Bond" <pbond@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> For information on the Center for Civil Society, go to:
> http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/default.asp?10,24,8,55
> Henry C.K. Liu
> PS: I was shocked to see the Bond is white, all this time I had the wrong
> impression that he was black. For a white South African to talk about
> Chinese brutality in Africa is truly amazing.

Delighted you found our website, Henry, but relax man, you're sounding
apoplectic (and if you continue your research, you will also be interested
to learn I was not trained in Britain, but instead just down I-95 from you
in Philly and Bal'mer, and that I'm not South African either, I was born in
Belfast and raised in Alabama).

First, if when I wrote about 'fascist capitalists' (referring to Chinese
arms dealers providing weaponry to Robert Mugabe and - I could have added -
superexploitative Chinese sweatshops in wretched Southern Africa export
processing zones), you - and Sabri - were offended, I apologise: yes, I
could have found a better adjective for those firms. If you want a recent
critique of Zimbabwe that make the case in more details, the December 2005
Monthly Review has a coauthored article of mine (along with *another* white
Western academic, egads), and I can also send a long December 2005 Review of
African Poli Econ article on Harare's relationship to the IMF that clears up
any residual confusion about Mugabe's alleged anti-imperial economics. The
Zimbabwean left is very concerned about the China connection, as are
comrades in Jubilee Angola about Beijing's $2 billion in credits to corrupt
Luanda elites, and activists associated with the Darfur solidarity movement.
I'll say no more, but simply pledge not to use the word fascist loosely any
more.

But if you're now wanting dirt to attack the Centre for Civil Society (with
which I've been affiliated since October 2004, long after the name and
funders were chosen), you'll have to join the queue:

***

21 January 2006
Sunday Independent

Our academic freedom must be safeguarded
By Jane Duncan

What exactly is going on at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN)? Is
academic freedom really under threat, as has been argued recently?

At the heart of the problems brewing at the university is a looming
contradiction between the university as an organ of state and its
stated objectives of being "critically engaged with society"
and "[supporting] social transformation and redress".

This contradiction has found concrete expression in conflict between an
increasingly embattled eThekwini municipality and a number of radical-
activist scholars located in the university's sociology department and
the Centre for Civil Society (CCS).

While much public attention has been focused on the exclusion from the
university of Ashwin Desai, a CCS honorary research fellow and
political activist, others such as Richard Pithouse and Fazel Khan have
been under pressure as well. What one infers from a close reading of
recent events, as well as several on-the-record statements, is that
these scholars are under attack for challenging power both inside and
outside the university.

The person ultimately responsible for managing this contradiction is
Malegapuru William Makgoba, the vice-chancellor. If recent events are
anything to go by, he is not managing this contradiction very well.

In December Desai was prevented by Makgoba from taking up a position,
on dubious grounds. The problem dates back to 1996 when, on the eve of
the university's merger with the University of Natal to become the
UKZN, he led a bitter struggle unifying staff, students and workers at
the university against retrenchments and fee increases.

Desai apparently agreed to an out-of-court settlement at the time with
the then vice-chancellor, excluding him from the University of Durban-
Westville campus in return for charges relating to his activities being
withdrawn against him.

The next vice-chancellor, Saths Cooper, overrode the settlement and
reinstated Desai, as he apparently did not want to deny the university
an academic of Desai's calibre. After the merger, Desai worked at the
CCS.

On applying for the new position, Makgoba ruled Desai out of the
running on the basis that the ban was still in place, but that the
council could rescind the ban if Desai made written representations to
it.

Makgoba has portrayed himself as the neutral upholder of a ban that he
has no power to contest (which he is clearly not doing). He has used
the supposed existence of the ban as a poor excuse to prevent the CCS
from exercising its freedom to employ the best candidate purely on the
basis of academic merit.

So why does he not take a stand on the matter?

Could it be that Makgoba has brushed the dust off the ban now because
the university is heading for a strike over pending budget cuts
totalling R27 million? Discontent is also rising in the student body
over exorbitant fees. Desai clearly has the experience to lead worker
and student resistance to these problems - a prospect that management
must find daunting.

As the dream of "massification" of the post-apartheid tertiary
education system founders on the rocks of the government's fiscal
austerity drive, the management is challenged with containing the
threat of instability.

One method - learnt so well from the past - is to root out the
potential "instigators", the third force.

There is also mounting evidence of official concern over the role of
this academic third force in neighbouring community struggles.

Desai and the others have become involved in various ways in social-
movement struggles against poor service delivery, the most significant
being Abahlali Base Mjondolo, the shack-dwellers' movement.

Pithouse has written extensively about the movement, while Khan is
undertaking research documenting the impact of service delivery in the
settlements. They were also present when clashes took place between the
authorities and the movement, exposing to international audiences some
extremely embarrassing blunders by the municipality (such as a march in
Foreman Road that was banned on truly ridiculous grounds).

In the process, they have attracted the ire of the authorities. On the
day of the Foreman Road march, the police reportedly told Pithouse that
if they saw him again in the informal settlements, they would beat him
up. He claims that they accused him of inciting the informal-settlement
dwellers, and cited an intelligence report relating to his activities.
The CCS has also reportedly been accused of being behind the "unrest".

Obed Mhlaba, the mayor of Durban, has accused unnamed NGOs
of "fomenting and pushing certain agendas" to attract funding.

Khan has also been intimidated. Makgoba has told him that Mhlaba is
angry with him; Makgoba has also been quoted in a local newspaper as
saying he had heard that Khan and Pithouse "are not doing research, but
they set themselves [up] as councillors in the area". When Khan asked
him for his opinion on the matter, Makgoba stated that he did not have
an opinion at the time, but would wait for information from Mhlaba to
be presented to the council.

Mhlaba has accused the academics directly of being "determined to pull
down our movement [the African National Congress] ahead of the
elections" and "interfering with the council's plans".

Khan has been questioned by the crime intelligence unit about his and
Pithouse's roles in the informal settlement marches. Reportedly, the
municipality and intelligence services have asked repeated questions
about where the resources are coming from for the mass demonstrations,
with one key question being, "Where is the money coming from for the
red t-shirts"?

The rooi gevaar has reared its head at a time when local government
elections are pending and the shackdwellers' movement has threatened to
withhold its votes from the ANC for poor service delivery.

Municipal officials must be deeply concerned about their futures.
Therefore it is not surprising that official fingers are pointing at
the university for "instigating unrest" and that Makgoba has been put
on the spot.

Whether Makgoba has been approached by the mayor's office to act on
these problems is unclear, but his professed "neutrality" in the face
of pressure on the freedom of the university's academics suggests that
he does not want to upset the status quo.

The Desai matter merely reinforces the pro-status-quo impression. To
the extent that he has created this impression, it is important that
Makgoba pronounces publicly on this matter.

Two more inferences can also be drawn from these events. The status quo
outside the university is uncomfortable with socially engaged research,
and the status quo inside will not take a position.

Yet similar complaints are not heard about a growing body of research
in academic institutions that is engaged, quite instrumentally, in
supporting the state's drive towards global competitiveness.

Is it because such research is so richly rewarded by the state in a
climate of crippling budget cuts? If the university reinforces the
hegemony of the status quo, then its "independence" and freedom are not
compromised.

But if the university threatens its class interests, then this freedom
will be thrown into crisis. State resources must not be used to
embarrass the state.

It should surprise no one when politicians challenge academic freedom,
but it is the duty of academics to resist these attempts rather than
feign neutrality. If the erosion of this freedom is allowed to take
place unchallenged, then academics will have truly failed South Africa.

Academics must not be allowed to give this freedom away. After all,
this freedom is not theirs to give. In terms of the constitution, it
belongs to us all.


Jane Duncan is the executive director of the Freedom of Expression
Institute

***

www.mg.co.za

Chomsky opposes Desai's ban

David Macfarlane

13 January 2006 12:00

A national and international brouhaha has rapidly developed following the
University of KwaZulu-Natal's (UKZN) decision to bar renowned academic and
activist Dr Ashwin Desai from seeking a position at the university.

The decision has elicited letters of strong protest to UKZN vice- chancellor
Malegapuru Makgoba from Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein -- among other well
known figures from abroad -- and several South African academics.

The Committee for Academic Freedom in Africa has also written to Makgoba,
asking him to reconsider the decision. And by this week an online petition
in support of Desai had recorded more than 400 signatories worldwide.

All the protests refer to the decision as an attack on hard-won academic
freedom in South Africa. But Makgoba this week told the Mail & Guardian that
the issue is "not about academic freedom", and that he is merely adhering to
an agreement reached in 1996 between Desai and the then University of
Durban-Westville (UDW) council.

At the time, Desai was a sociology lecturer and leading unionist at UDW, and
centrally involved in protests against worker retrenchments and outsourcing
then wracking the university. Under then vice- chancellor Mapule Ramashala,
the university brought disciplinary charges against Desai. An agreement was
reached during disciplinary hearings, and involved terminating Desai's
employment and preventing him from entering the campus without the
vice-chancellor's permission.

In 2003, Desai was appointed honorary research fellow in the Centre for
Civil Society (CCS) at the then University of Natal. In the same year, the
new UDW vice-chancellor, Saths Cooper, lifted the ban on Desai. And in 2004,
UDW merged with the University of Natal to form UKZN, with Makgoba as
vice-chancellor.

Desai remained in his unpaid position at the CCS in the newly merged
institution until late last year, when he obtained funding from the Human
Sciences Research Council for a research project on the history of black
cricket. "Unusually," says the CCS's Richard Pithouse, "the university
insisted that this contract work be advertised. [Desai] was the sole
applicant. He was instructed to resign as honorary research fellow in order
to be able to apply for the contract. He duly did so.

"The selection committee shortlisted [Desai] and was then informed by
[Makgoba] that he was instructing them not to consider [Desai's] application
... The CCS then asked for him to be reinstated as honorary research fellow.
This was denied."

Makgoba told the M&G that "Cooper did not lift the ban, he just allowed
Desai to come back to campus". There is also "no written document or minuted
record that testifies to this lifting of the ban". As a result, "the issue
is beyond the authority of a vice-chancellor, because when Desai's job [at
UDW] was terminated the matter had been debated by the [UDW] council, after
Ramashala had reported to the full council".

Asked why Desai could not be reinstated as honorary fellow, Makgoba said:
"The more we employ him the more we create the impression that we're
undermining the original settlement agreement. My position was to go back to
basics, and that the matter must therefore go to the [UKZN] council."

Makgoba also said "Desai had never actually been banned -- there was a
severance of the employment contract that was council-approved. A
vice-chancellor has no power to overturn that."

But Desai says the UDW clearly approved Cooper's revoking of the agreement,
"since they knew about it and did nothing to repudiate it". It is also
"semantic nonsense" that "my not being permitted to be seriously considered
for a post does not constitute a ban on my 'applying'". Makgoba has revealed
"a personal and ideological opposition" to Desai and his work, he said, and
that is the real reason for Makgoba's decision.