FALSE FLAG – NO LETTER FROM FIVE COUNTRIES
THE report that appeared in the Sunday Times about the statement supposedly sent to the president is at best ill-timed and out of context.
The story suggests that five countries – the UK, US, Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany – have warned in their discussion document about the consequences of corruption for possible investment in South Africa.
The report went as far as to situate the discussion document in the context of the Zondo Commission, giving it a sense of presence and immediacy. This linkage was meant to dupe the public into thinking that the said ambassadors are aggrieved by the revelations in the Zondo Commission and have been instructed by their respective countries to issue such a document to the Presidency.
This feeds into political tensions and becomes cheap political fodder for opposition parties. Here are the facts that the report failed to appreciate.
Last year when the president took a decision to convene the investment summit he appointed investment envoys to meet various countries to solicit investment. The envoys met the ambassadors from the five countries in June 2018, with a view to share ideas and to prepare for their visit to the respective countries.
The five ambassadors then prepared discussion notes which raised issues and questions that the investment envoys would face on arrival in their respective countries.
These included perceptions of corruption, problems relating to the rule of law, political instability and uncertainty. These were summarised as notes in a document that had neither a letterhead nor a signature. In other words, this document was a non-paper shared as notes with the investment envoys. A non-paper has no diplomatic standing and had no sanction of any of the five countries, but at best represented the personal views of the ambassadors and their observations.
To even suggest that such a nonpaper, with no author, no signature and no letterhead, was sent to the Presidency by five countries is an injustice.
Do these countries take us that cheap to communicate with the president in that manner? These ambassadors know very well that they are accredited by the Department of International Relations and Co-operation (Dirco) and it, and only it, is their conduit to the Presidency.
In international relations, countries act in pursuit of their own national interests and detest being seen as displaying gangsterish acts or succumbing to mob influences.
This misreporting or misrepresenting could have been avoided if sufficient responses were sought.
The Sunday Times report was far from the truth. It was mischievous as it sought to sensationalise a non-issue and graduate it to alarmist levels.
The report could have been based on some gossip or idle chat that the reporter felt agitated by, and thought it amounted to a discovery of some newsworthy treasure-trove. Had there been a deeper search of facts we would have been spared the heat of falsehood and the follow-up statements by the ANC and the SA Communist Party.
All this was a genuine reaction to what amounted to a frontal attack on the suzerainty of the South. Truth is that this is much ado about nothing.
Responsible journalism is fundamental to any democracy, and pursuit of facts is all the more critical in this regard. The five embassies, Dirco and the presidency were put in a bad light. A fact that is regrettable.
To even suggest that such a non-paper, with no author, no signature and no letterhead, was sent to the Presidency by the five countries is an injustice.