Shahid Bolsen, Allan Boesak Discussion: South Africa's Government of Neoliberal Unity

We welcome you once again on this Wednesday evening in conversation with myself, right here on Tela Media. Now tonight promises to be quite an interesting discussion, and we are talking about South Africa. We're talking about the government of national unity. My guest tonight, and we're honored to have, Shahid Bolson, who is the creator of, Middle Nation. Many of you are familiar with Shahid Bolson.

We've seen it over and over again, his videos on social media, that have been doing a lot of rounds of late as well. And, also, the pleasure that I had sharing the stage was doctor Alan Busak, anti apartheid activist last week in Cape Town with Yimna Al Saeed. Brother Shaheed, welcome.

Thank you so much.

Yes. And to you as well, doctor Alin Bussak. Wonderful for you that you're able to join us.

Good evening. It's good to see you, and good to see you again, brother Bolson.

And then it's absolutely my honor. I'm humbled to be on the same, platform as you, doctor.

My privilege. My privilege. So I know

As we mentioned as I spoke to you just before we got on live, brother Chead, you've had, you know, a few things to say about this government of national unity at the time of the elections and particularly looking at, some of the history in terms of governments and how governments have changed, regime changes as well. And, in this one video clip, you cited examples like Venezuela. You spoke about Peru and, how directly and indirectly some of these regimes actually change. And, you also made mention that South Africa could possibly be a target of this, and we're seeing it now. And doctor Bussak spoke about this ideological nightmare that exists within this government of national unity.

Just your thoughts and looking at this government, and we are talking of major ideological differences amongst the various political players in government.

Yes. Well, first first, let me just acknowledge that I'm obviously a complete outsider to the situation in South Africa, and I and I can't in any way whatsoever speak as an expert about the situation in South Africa. But what I do know about is my own country, The United States, and how they operate in the world, and how they have operated in the world, and what their priorities might be, and what their motives might be, and their modus operandi, what it has been over the years. The United States has interfered in over 88 elections elections since 1945. We just saw them doing that well, you can you can look at as I say, there there's different methods that they use, and I've talked about that before.

There's different methods that they use in order to get the results that they want. So for example, you saw in Pakistan the removal of Imran Khan. You see the what can be, I think properly understood as a so called color revolution in Bangladesh, the overthrowing of the government in Bangladesh. You see now the CIA is providing the vote counting machines and technology and software to Brazil to potentially, control the outcome of their next election. And I believe that what happened in South Africa, was exactly what I warned about, which is basically, excuse me, the infiltration of the government of South Africa by The United States, by specifically the neocons in The United States, to infiltrate the government of South Africa in the form of the DA.

So I understand talking about ideological differences, but I would argue that it's not so much an ideological conflict as a conflict of loyalties. The DA represents a party that is affiliated with and aligned with neoliberalism, hardcore fanatical neoliberalism, and it represents in my mind, again, as a as a as an outsider, but as a westerner, who has some knowledge and experience of how the West operates, the DA represents a western agent, in South Africa, a neoliberal agent, a colonizing, class representing the colonizing class, in South Africa. And I don't see that I see I see it as a conflict of loyalties more than ideologies because anyway, the ANC has been neoliberal for decades. They have themselves pursued neoliberalist policies even if they've been a bit sheepish about it because they have their own preexisting sort of anti colonialist, anti imperialist, anti apartheid credentials. But nevertheless, they have pursued neoliberal policies.

I think that getting the democratic alliance into the government was specifically a move to shore up the the the the neoliberal faction where the the ANC because of the this is the nature of neoliberalism by the way. It it makes you unpopular when you pursue neoliberal policies because inevitably it's a disaster for your country, and that inevitably causes you to become unpopular. And so I think that that when you saw the the in the last election, this wasn't suddenly that the population realized that the ANC was not able to confront the various challenges that South Africa is facing. They've been knowing that, but they've been in a state of denial about that. And I think that what happened in the election was then coming to terms with the fact that the ANC isn't actually capable of grappling with the challenges because anyway, what they have done ever since being in power through a a great deal of their tenure is only to increase the problems in South Africa.

So The United States realized that the ANC was going to was was losing popularity, was becoming weaker, and there was a danger that other parties might take the government, parties that were not neoliberal. Because anyway, the weakness of the of the ANC is based on their policies. It's based on their neoliberal policies that have created nothing but more problems in South Africa. So the The United States, I think, understood that there was there is a danger that other parties that were anti neoliberal could potentially take the government. So they funded and supported through logistics and through finance the democratic alliance to to see to it that they would get in power so that they could make sure that they wouldn't lose wouldn't lose their influence in South Africa.

Not only that, we now know, of course, that period between 1985 and 1989, the period of the secret talks between the elites of the African National Congress and the elites of the old white apartheid capitalist establishment, where the ANC had bound themselves to the new liberal path that they would implement even though in the policies that they had on paper and the policies that I, alongside mister Mandela, went around the country in 1993, 1994 to convince the people that that ready to govern document is exactly where the ANC's truth and the ANC's heart was lying. But, I mean, that was never that was never the intention. So that was one. Then came 2019 when miss Helen Ziller made that that con had that conversation with her supporters and in which she precisely predicted what would happen in the twenty twenty four elections, even to the numbers that the ANC would get around 40% and the DA would get around 20%. Now no election works out that precisely.

Nobody can foresee that far how the numbers would work out. You can work on trends, and you can work on what you see may be developing issues, but you cannot be as precise as that. So that says to me that the situation that we found ourselves in after the elections in 2024 was not just by accident or was not just the innocent income of of an election. Your, idea, brother Bolson, that you say The United States had everything to do with this is absolutely true, I think. And and the DA was very well, they were not very open, but we discovered how the DA were in was in touch with this with the with the, the United States government, how they asked for support, financially and otherwise, how the ANC actually saw this happen and did nothing about it because the ANC knew that was the way in which they were going to go.

I'm talking about what mister Zumwe used to say, the ANC of Ramaphosa, not the ANC of the people. And when you look at that but also the other thing, of course, that caught them a bit of god is is they were they were thinking ANC over against the economic freedom fighters. What happened is that Zuma and the MK came in, and that was a completely unexpected development, which pushed them into the point that they could no longer hide the fact that the ANC and the DA were actually ideologically working one with one another, actually in in bed in one bed as you as as you described. So that is absolutely true. The situation now, of course, is what what is beginning to be clear is that the pretense of the ANC to be a party of the people for the people with policies that would actually be in the interest of the people, that pretends that mask is by is being ripped off.

The DA, as a racist party, fundamentally, that mask has been ripped off. And in two specific instances in the appointments, we can actually see that. And so for for me, brother, chairperson, that makes the whole existence of this GNU far more difficult, and far more open all of the cracks that are coming out. And I do not think that with all of these pressures from inside and from outside, they will be able to exist as one sort of face towards the nation for much, much, much longer. I see that these pressures will force upon them a move that might make them fall apart sooner than we might have thought or they might have thought.

Well, doctor Allan Busak, you've actually taken the words out of my mouth because it was going to be a lead question to you with regards to whether this JNU had actually just come about by accident or by design. And I think that confirms, what, brother Shahid is also talking about in terms of regime change and also the whole question surrounding Helen Zeller and her remarks in 2019. And that alone actually speaks volumes. Now, brother Shahid, you know, regime change, I think, is and and as you spoke about, you said a conflict of loyalties more than conflict of ideologies. And it is clear in a country like South Africa where we've got this huge gap between rich and poor.

We're one of the most unequal societies in the world and, obviously, infested with social economic issues as well. And here you have a government of national unity where on the one side, you've got the DA, and even we've seen it with regard to funding in the elections as well. The people behind the funding, some of these political parties that are now part and parcel of this government of national unity, how well they will fund it, and, again, representing a certain class of people. Where on the other hand, the masses have been calling out. They've been crying out to the ANC, where do we stand?

Why are we not represented? Why our interest? Why is our lot not improving in this country? And since democracy, and I'm sure doctor Alan Boutak will also agree, this country has actually gone backwards, and it hasn't made any difference in the lives of the millions right across the country.

I think that that as I said, it's you know, I I I've talked about the the the last time I was on the same platform as doctor Bosek, I said that the the GNU shouldn't shouldn't be called the government of national unity. It should be called the government of neoliberal unity because the ANC and and the DA are together on that. But but the the difference is that no one expects differently from the DA. Doctor talked about that their mask has been ripped off. Well, it was a very thin mask to begin with.

But but the the ANC has has how can I say this? People have been voting for the ANC, in my opinion, based on their history, not on their present. Based on their memory of the ANC, not on their experience of the ANC. So there's they're they're willing to give a benefit of the doubt to the ANC that it has has very for a very long time not deserved. I I think that that he's doctor Pozak is absolutely right that the that the mask has been ripped off.

Now if you if you want to make a difference between the ANC and Ramaphosa's ANC, don't know. But I think that you need a different party altogether because the ANC is the ANC as it exists today. And and it has it has deteriorated morally. It has deteriorated in terms of its actual connection to the population and its concern for the population and its loyalty to the population. And I think that that the the the very reason This is this is the the the almost a paradox or an or an irony that the very reason that the ANC has lost or was losing its popularity and has become weaker and causing mistrust among the population, is because of their pursuit of these neoliberal policies, their alignment with western capital, their either fear or for whatever other motivation, their cooperation with the West, their cooperation if you wanna call it that, you could call it a subordination to the West and to The United States.

This is what was causing their decline in popularity and the mistrust by the population, which is why they ended up not being able to why they lost their dominance. And it was epitomized by their selection of of the DA. That's who they would make a coalition with.

Yeah.

You have other people you could you have other parties you you could have made a coalition with, but you chose the DA. Meaning that this this rot is very deep in in the party. It's a very bad instinct on the part of the ANC. It's the same instinct that has led to their downfall, and yet they are still choosing to, follow that instinct when they decided to align themselves with the DA. They they didn't they're they're they're choosing not to side with their own with their own people.

They're choosing not to side with their own population. And it it's it's very clear, sort of whose side they're on. But the but the the only sort of potential leverage that the population has, with regards to the ANC is the fact that they do have a history. They have they do have, noble credentials from back in the day, and they did at one point have articulated morals, articulated principles, articulated values that they can be called to account for. The DA doesn't have that, but you can still potentially call the ANC to account, for their values.

If they if you require them to rearticulate their values and declare their values, then you can potentially call them to account for that.

True. True. But the the

Doctor Bushard?

The the you know you know, I hear you speaking, brother Bolson and I, as I as I look back over the many, many years of involvement and first with the ANC and then outside of the ANC, but always in the political situation of our people, I've come to realize that people of my generation and many of the activists that I worked with for so long, there is a there is a trauma that we have experienced, and the trauma is this, that the ANC that we had had in our heads and in our hearts as we heard about them. Look. People like me, have have not seen Nelson Mandela since we were born. I mean, so and our and our involvement, we haven't heard him. We heard of all these legendary figures.

We met some of them. I mean, I'm I'm I met Oliver Tombo outside, and he was immensely impressive. But the ANC that we had in here and in here was not the ANC that came back from exile. And there was a traumatic thing for us as as that realization dawned upon us. And over the last thirty years, that realization has become such a reality.

In my conversations once with one of the top people of the African National Congress, he said to me I said to him, you know what? I think it's better for the African National Congress to simply implode or explode, just fall apart so that we can have an opportunity to build on the ashes of that thing a new movement that our people can have faith and trust and confidence in. Because the love that the people had for the ANC has been so viciously betrayed that is no longer good for us. His response to me was that, remember, if the ANC falls apart, our people because the ANC is so intricately involved in the lives and the history and the dreams and the hope and the aspirations of our people, our people will not be able to deal with that trauma was his response. I was saying, team, you might be talking about an older generation because the younger generation this was now a conversation in 2012, 2013.

Because the younger generation do not feel the same way about the African National Conversation already. I changed one young person at a university conversation that I had said to me, the problem with the older generation is that they have the politics of sentiment. So my father and my mother and my grandparents, they vote for the ANC because it's Mandela's ANC. It's Tumbos ANC. We, young people, we don't think like that.

My question is, she says to me, what has Mandela done for me? How has the ANC helped to secure my future? And the response that I feel is totally different from that of my parents, and that's where we are now. So that even some of the older generation are now realizing that ANC that I had in my heart and in my mind, that's not the ANC. That's why Zuma was so successful in his distinction between the ANC as the movement of the people that he grew up in as an 80 year old person, as somebody who had the at at his age of 16 devoted himself to MK and the ANC that he now calls the ANC of Ramaphosa, which is the ANC that as it involved in the last thirty years since the deals that they made with the old apartment establishment.

So that is why that thing resonates. And my feeling is, as I as I listen to people, that that distinction is going to be more meaningful and politically impactful as we go along as from this moment onward.

If if I if I may

Also, Alan Busak, I think

okay. Go ahead. Sorry. I I I I'm sorry. I I know you wanna move on with other with other topics and other questions, but I just wanted to to comment.

To give to give ANC some kind of, I I guess, benefit of the doubt or or understanding, if not pardon. Thirty years ago, the world was very different. True. The the world itself was tremendously different thirty years ago. It was a unipolar world.

The Soviet Union had collapsed. America was the last man standing at the end of the Cold War. Neoliberalism was almost not a choice that you could make. And I think that that older generations, are still stuck in the mindset of the way the world was when they were young. And they think of their idols and their heroes the same way even when they get older, even when those heroes deteriorate and their values deteriorate.

You still have in your mind the way they were when they were young and you still think of the world the same way it was when you were young. But young people today are living in an incredibly different world, in a tremendously different world. And their and their expectations and their aspirations and their realistic plans or realistic strategies for a way forward for South Africa is is something that probably wasn't even conceivable thirty years ago. For example, multipolarity. For example, bricks.

These are things that were unthinkable thirty years ago. So the the South Africa or or the ANC rather, fell into the trap of neoliberalism to a certain extent because there was no other game in town. But today there is. Now there are choices. Now there are other ways to go.

There's other ways to develop your country. And in fact, I think I I I let I let us move on to something else. But I think that the the real reason why, America, infiltrated the government of South Africa and supported the the, the DA and did what they did and why they're, doing what they're doing all around the world is precisely because they want to undermine the BRICS project. Oh, that's good. And I don't think I don't think that there's any way that you can look at the domestic situation in South Africa without putting it within the context of the entire BRICS project and America's animosity to that.

Absolutely. Absolutely. I I agree with you except when I talk with young people, and I'm taking that forward in all the ways that I can, that we are saying that by the beginning of the nineteen sixties, thinking of somebody like Kwame Nkrumah. Kwame Nkrumah already then said to African countries, look. This independence that we are chasing and that some of us are having right now, look very closely because there is such a thing as new colonialism.

When this phase is over, this is what they will try. And he wrote eminently sensible things about that. So young people who go back to Nkrumah now and who quote him now in their debates about coloniality, decoloniality, anticolonialism as we are now seeing and what is happening in West Africa right now, they are saying to me, how come that generation did not listen more closely to somebody like Nkrumah because we were forewarned about these things. Now you are right. What Nkrumah saw and I don't think that Nkrumah even foresaw what you were talking about right now.

These tectonic shifts in geopolitics and geoeconomic realities and bricks and and the multipolar world that may be coming into being, he did not foresee that, but he did foresee the way in which western imperialism would adapt itself to the new situation and try and hold on to its colonialist policies and and and and and and the benefits that that brought. And he tried to warn Africans, and what the young people are saying is we should have listened more closely. But that's is a a different conversation that you and I can have at some other time. But I was just thinking about that as you were as you were explaining how the world has been changing.

I think we we were I'm not too sure. I'm not convinced that, we're going to see this government lost.

No. I mean, I no. I agree with you. I agree with you. It's not as if the DA was not very clear from the very beginning what it stood for.

Everybody knew that. And and and what we were talking about earlier, brother Bolson, is that the ANC made a deliberate choice. They could have gone the other way.

You know, South Africa basking in the glory, taking the case to the ICJ, but we're still not doing enough. And recently, we've actually heard rumblings coming out of Israel, going to The United States Of America, putting South Africa under pressure regarding the ICJ case and withdrawal as well. You've got that pressure coming from that side as well. And, on the other side, it does appear. And from what doctor Alan Busak is saying, he mentioned Glencoe.

He spoke about coal exports. It's business as usual.

Yes. Well, I would I I I agree completely. And I would say that that, this is why it's important to understand the nature of your government, the nature of the GNU as a as a a government of neoliberal unity and the DA as a, as an agent of The United States and understand what actually took place so that you have a realistic expectations about your government. And which means that leadership has to come from the people. You can't expect leadership to come from this government.

Leadership has to come from the people and whatever pressure, South Africa may be under from outside, whatever external pressure, South Africa may be under, the, the people themselves have to exert more pressure. Their pressure has to match and surpass whatever pressure, the government is receiving from, from The United States or from Israel or what have you. I won't I won't even talk about the pressure from Israel. They don't have the power to pressure anyone. The The United States has the power.

But I would also say that, it's important to also understand and realize, like what we were talking about before, that the the power dynamics in the world have changed dramatically over the last thirty years. They've changed dramatically just over the last decade. In fact, they've changed dramatically just over the last three years. So even when you talk about America putting pressure on South Africa, for example, threatening sanctions or what have you against South Africa, which never happened and won't happen. America is is bluffing because they don't have that kind of power left and they don't have those kind of options.

They don't have the power to exert that they don't have the option to exert that kind of power anymore because it's not a unipolar world anymore, and because, South Africa is part of BRICS and the the the very reason that they're interested in trying to, interfere with South Africa is because South Africa actually has options now. They have options that they didn't have thirty years ago. They have options that they didn't have a decade ago. And this is why it's very important for them to try to control it. This is why they want to put a Zionist or a pro imperialist, pro colonizing party in the government because they know that they can potentially lose South Africa and they can potentially lose, as a result of, the BRICS project, they can lose their hegemony globally.

So this is extremely important to them to try to maintain. And the the the government, you have to understand whether you whether you want to believe that the, that the ANC, is a hostage to American pressure or if they are themselves, morally deteriorated to the point that they're, basically the same ideologically as the DA and and and simply don't want to be exposed completely as neoliberal colonizing collaborators. Whether you wanna believe that they're hostages or they are willingly participating in this, The point the the point is that you have to support their ability to refuse, western pressure. In other words, you have to increase your own pressure as a population from the grassroots. You have to increase your pressure.

And I'm not saying, just match the pressure that they're getting from outside. Just I'm not saying just match the pressure that they're getting from the West. You have to surpass it. You have to pressure your government to to to the point just like, brother was saying. You have to you have to push them to where it's impossible for them to take a a pro Zionist stance, where it's impossible.

Because at the end of the day, you can't, it's not a dictatorship. You do have elections, and even if the The US can interfere with those elections, even if they want to rig the election, still, the outcome of that election has to be plausible. Even if it's a fake election, the the outcome still has to be plausible in some way because you want to still maintain the, the appearance of a democratic system. So you can't have a government that is completely in denial or or in defiance of overwhelming public pressure on any particular issue. And I would say that that, for example, on this particular issue, the issue of of Palestine, the issue of Gaza, the issue of the genocide, I think that the people of South Africa should support the article six campaign that we're supporting, which is to invoke the, article six of the UN Charter against The United States to have them expelled from the United Nations, for their persistent violations of the principles of the UN Charter.

This is how you, surpass the pressure. You don't just match it. You go you go for, what is, you double down and you, escalate, in terms of the pressure that they're applying, then you, return the pressure. Okay. You have the ICJ case, that's some pressure.

Now let's say, well, let's actually see whether or not The United States, which is actually the one responsible for the genocide in Gaza, let's see if The United States, can stand the scrutiny, of their use of the veto power, for example. Can they stand the scrutiny of, whether or not they have, upheld their commitments to international law or whether they have persistently violated the terms of the UN Charter. And if they have persistently violated the terms of the UN Charter, well, then the UN Charter has a provision for expelling them on that basis. So this is how you can escalate, the pressure, rather than giving them the you you know, you you as they say, you you, shoot for the stars so you can land on the moon. And I think that that you you you you simply cannot expect for your government to take a moral position.

You can't expect for your government to take, the the the principled position when you know who they work for. So you have to apply more pressure than the pressure that they're under, from their, western, managers.

Yeah. Well, you you are absolutely right. I mean, it it's a bit of a dilemma that there are many people now, in light of the inaction of the United Nations, to act against a country like The United States that have for the last, what is it, seventy years or so, consistently broke what they call the rule of law and the charter of the United Nations by their interventions, by the chaos that they bring, by the assassination of leaders, all of those things. That is very clear. But it looks as if the United Nations is totally still in the grip of of of of The US and now every now and then of The UK and so and its European allies.

But that situation is changing. I was privileged to be part of an international commission between 1991 and 1993 that worked on the United Nations and the reforms that we would like to see. And and it it amuses me to see how what we identified in that commission and our final report then, no more than thirty years ago, are exactly the issues that have surfaced now. And it's because with all of these mistakes and difficulties and failings, The US the UN, excuse me, is the only international platform that we have. It is a charter that is agreed to to every single member.

So brother Bolton is right. If they had agreed to it, if they had undersigned it, then it means we can hold them accountable to the things that they have accounted themselves for. So it seems to me that it is now with Gaza, and your friend from The United States is absolutely right. I mean, Gaza has changed the way we think about the world and the rule of law and the politics and the morality of politics and the politics of morality and all of those. Fundamentally, never not even South African apartheid with Sharpeville and Soweto with the killing of our children in that way has been able to be such a dynamic force as Gaza.

It's also have said to people that you may have heard me say that, I do not think that ever since 1919 the nineteen eighties, our people in South Africa have been brought together in a united fashion, in a strength, and in a purposeful way, in the way that Gaza has brought us together. Now all of these things are very meaningful if you can translate that into international politics. The solidarity you have seen from across the world, especially from young people on the campuses in The United States. You heard me quote that young woman from Columbia University when they asked her, look what they are doing to you. Your career might be in danger.

Your life might be in danger. All of that. And her words will forever stay with me. It is beyond me to remain silent on these issues. Now that is an international solidarity resolve that we are embracing almost instinctively now.

I mean, in Germany, they have to make solidarity with Palestine a criminal act, which is what they have done. In the in The United Kingdom right now, there are no less than six journalists that have been detained without trial, that have been raided their homes, their their phones, their computers, their their their their their their way of making a living for themselves totally taken away by Kyuss Talmud, Labour Party government. So the the the the person who called the West or post democratic societies may be absolutely right. I mean and and and so the more they expose themselves for their disdain of the international rule of law that they have upheld or seem to have upheld for so long, and the more we can put them on that thing with the article 16 from brother Bolton, that is brilliant. And we we should come together and rally on those particular points to put pressure not just on The US, but on The UK and all those countries in Europe who have no regard whatsoever for this international rule of law that they have bragged about for so much, and that is an opening.

And that's all because of Gaza. And it seems to me that that is one of the pressure points that we can add to the list of things that we have to do and to our responsibility. So, yeah, I agree with that, but I would like to say that we must not, because of our frustration and anger at the inaction of the UN, let go of the UN as a platform that they can once occupy only for themselves where we think we have no say because they have determined that they have their only say. Challenge them on every single issue that is the domain of global solidarity now that we have awakened to the issue and now that Gaza has awakened in us the kind of commitment that we might have thought at some point, global commitment that we might have thought we have lost.

Thank you for that, brother Chaid. Doctor Alan Busak speaks about the inaction of the United Nations. And could this inaction be as a result of the inaction of individual nations, individual countries, collective organizations? As we've spoken about, you know, South Africa, the government of national unity, and, again, in how South Africa has reacted to the Palestinian struggle. And, yeah, I'd just like your thoughts on the Arab world, in particular, the immediate neighbors of Palestine, and also at the same time looking at their response to this genocide, their inaction because we've seen the Arab nations repeatedly calling on the United Nations, which has proven to be ineffective.

And I just needed your thoughts on the Muslim world and what the Muslim world's response to this Gaza genocide should be.

Well, first, I would say you you began by talking about the inaction of the United Nations. And I think that that, and the the idea that the United Nations has become an impotent organization and I just want to reiterate that the United Nations is not by any stretch of the imagination an impotent organization. If it was an impotent organization, America would have no interest in dominating it. They would have no interest in controlling it if it wasn't potentially powerful. So the United Nations is, undermined and sabotaged by American domination.

It would otherwise be an effective and extremely important organization. It is as doctor Bosek said, it is the only international body with the mandate for the enforcement of international law. This is an absolutely crucial organization. The charter is beautiful. There are many incredibly important and useful programs and other wings of the United Nations like Ottawa, WHO and so forth.

So it's a it's a very powerful organization which is the only reason why America wants to control it, because it is the mechanism for accountability and that's the main thing that has enabled America to be to act as a rogue state for these eight decades, nearly eight decades, is because of their domination of the United Nations which guaranteed them impunity, which is why we are, seeking for the, invocation of article six to expel The US from the UN, to, thereby remove the impunity from them and they can potentially be held accountable. Now with regards to the, Arab states, and the perception of their, inaction, I would say first of all that you have to remember where they are and what their history is. They have very deep scars, and fresh memories, of American aggression and American violence. You had Iraq was attacked, in two Gulf Wars, occupied for over twenty years, those, imperial, western imperial forces are still there now until today even though they have been told to leave. We've had war in Syria, we've had war in Lebanon, we've had war even in the fifties in Egypt, war in Libya, invasions of all of these places.

Not to mention the fact that the the the first, head of state who was ever there was ever an attempted assassination by the CIA of a head of state, it was in Syria in the in the early nineteen fifties. And then of course there was the, overthrow of Mossaddegh in Iran. So this region, is intimately aware, of of what America does and how they operate. And they also understand that, Israel itself, the the the historical function of Israel or at least one of the primary functions of Israel has been specifically to disrupt and destabilize, the Arab region. So they're coming from a position that's quite unique compared to any other countries with regards to how those countries respond to the situation in Gaza.

In that they have felt the the vengeance of The United States firsthand many many times. The reality is that they are in a very sensitive position. Number one, given their history and given their, location. And number two, you have to actually understand what they have done. You have to you have to, try to follow what they have actually done.

It's not just the relief that they've provided, the the the relief packages, the aid and so and and so forth that they have provided to Gaza, is more than anyone else. Qatar and Egypt are the ones who are negotiating and mediating in the negotiations between Hamas and Israel. Those are Arab countries. The UAE was the first country to even raise a ceasefire resolution at the UN that America shut down. Algeria was the was the country that brought the the case to the UN in response to the ICJ emergency provisions to to call upon the security council to to to act upon that.

Now I know again that's that's trying to make an appeal to the United Nations, but what else do they have? There there are many things that that that that these countries have done in terms of for example, Mohammed bin Salman is using America's desire for normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel as an opportunity or as leverage rather to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state saying that this it's contingent upon a Palestinian state establishing that along the lines of the Out of Peace Plan of 2002, the Out of Peace Initiative. Saudi Arabia has organized conferences and and basically recruiting drives across Europe to try to recruit European countries to support Palestinian membership at the United Nations, and they raised that issue at the United Nations. They had the OIC Arab Summit in which they called for this was what? Back in December, I believe, in which they called for an arms embargo.

They called at that time for the ICJ case, they called for an ICC case, they called for an international peace conference which was which was echoed by China, an international peace conference to take the the entire negotiation out of the hands of The US, and and that the that the peace process should be that the international peace conference rather should be focused upon a framework again according to the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, twenty years ago, which is the global consensus and the position of the United Nations, the withdrawal to the nineteenth June 1967 borders by Israel, dismantling of settlements, the recognition of Jerusalem, the rights of, returning of refugees and so forth, Meaning a long term solution, along the the framework that is that's recognized by the international community, the two state solution. So it's not that they have done nothing. We have to be honest about that and say we may be dissatisfied with what they have done. We may be dissatisfied about what they may be able to do, but it's, simply dishonest to say that they've done nothing. The same with South Africa.

The ICJ case isn't nothing. The ICJ case was unthinkable ten years ago. And I think that it's also important to point out that the ICJ case itself only took place because bricks exists. Because bricks exists as an economic and political entity in the world. Without that, without those those economies that are in BRICS.

Now BRICS has a greater percentage of global GDP than the g seven. So when BRICS or or a member of BRICS is involved in something like the ICJ case, that's not nothing. Yes. It's it's incredibly offensive when when a country continues to have its trade relations with Israel, but we can't dis be be dismissive in any way about the things that they have done.

Just to get final thoughts from both of you, starting with you, brother Chait. Just some final thoughts, and then we'll get some from doctor Helen Boutzak.

Okay. Well, again, with regards to with with with regards to South Africa, I can only look at it from from the outside, from the perspective of middle nation is concerned about the organization that we've started or the the the community community that we've started. We're concerned primarily about the economic sovereignty, political independence, and psychological decolonization. First of the Muslim world and then of the global South more broadly. So I look at South Africa within that context or within that framework.

And this is why I see the the the intention or the motive of The United States in South Africa is to keep it within its sphere of influence or its hegemonic power. And specifically their objective is to undermine and sabotage and if they possibly can destroy bricks. And if they can't destroy bricks then they want to infiltrate bricks and so they can commandeer bricks. This is from especially from the neocons in Washington. You can see from, the the founding members of Briggs, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

America has targeted every single one of these countries individually. Like I said, even the the color revolution or the overthrow of the government in Bangladesh was was a targeted attempt and a move made by The United States against both India and China. They're making moves against India. They're making moves, as I said, to try to control the outcome of elections in Brazil. Obviously, both China and Russia are under relentless campaign of demonization and isolation.

There's a cold war being waged by The United States against the BRICS project, which is to say it's a it's a cold war being waged by The United States against the possibility of multipolarity or against the reality of multipolarity because the reality is that it does already exist. And the way that they want to do that is by trying to undermine each individual country that either is in BRICS or may be joining BRICS so that they can head off the possibility of their being an alternative to them. So they're very interested in undermining that. And I look at what is happening in South Africa from that framework and through that lens and in that context. And I believe that again, you can't in South Africa, expect leadership, certainly not moral leadership, and certainly not leadership that reflects loyalty to the population.