History lesson on annexation of land
Open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa Trump sure hogs the world stage
DEAR Cyril,
It was lovely to meet you at the Commonwealth Conference but I was distressed at your early departure to quell the violent protests in North West.
I had hoped to talk to you about land expropriation, as there are a few left-leaning members of my party calling for the annexation of land without compensation.
However, when it comes to English property, it is not going to be as easy as in South Africa where the Dutch and English took land from the original brown and black inhabitants by conquest.
The situation here is a tangled skein – caused by several invasions of England – that will be impossible to unravel.
The first was in AD43 when the Romans landed. Then, in AD150, the Romans invited settlers from Germany. In 436, when the Romans departed, we were invaded by
Picts, Scots, Angles, Saxons and other Germanic settlers.
Several kingdoms were established, including Northumbria, Wessex, Mercia, Essex, Middlesex and East Anglia until, in 828, King Egbert of
Wessex united them all in what was to become England.
Land ownership became further complicated when the Danes occupied Northumbria in 865 and made York the capital of their kingdom. In 1007, King Ethelred tried to stop a second Danish invasion by paying a bribe, but the Danes invaded anyway and Ethelred fled to France.
King Canute and his sons reigned from 1016 to 1042. Then, in 1066, the Norman (French)
King William defeated the English King Harold at Hastings and ruled until 1087.
English royalty is a complex problem too because the offspring of our French kings were later replaced by Scots, Welsh, Dutch and German royalty. Even Queen Victoria was of German extract.
After taking all this history into consideration, I feel sure that my leftist friends will abandon their silly plans for land seizure without compensation, for where would they begin?
That goes for you, too, Cyril. You’re also going to experience difficulties, because how can you possibly establish who legitimately owns land that has been purchased or is owned by right of conquest?
And if the current landowners go to court to save their investments, it’s going to cost your government millions of rand.
I would, therefore, advise you to abandon this lunatic policy. It will create uncertainty among your citizens and chase away every foreign investor contemplating the injection of millions of pounds into a faltering economy.
Theresa May
British Prime Minister
PS After you left London, several British financiers told me they would never invest in South Africa because of its instability and anarchy. AR JONES Howick AS WITH former president Jacob Zuma, there’s never a dull moment with US President Donald Trump. He’s always in the news for something. If it’s not his lecherous past coming back to haunt him, it’s the hiring and firing of White House staff, his controversial immigration policy, his trading of insults with his close ally, British Prime Minister Theresa May, his denial of Russian involvement in his election and his war of words with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un over the communist country’s nuclear weapons programme.
Trump called the North Korean leader a “little rocket man” and he hit back, saying Trump was “mentally deranged”.
Now they have extended a hand of friendship and are to meet in Singapore on June 12 to iron out their differences.
From the time Trump took office, he has confounded and astounded the world. Nobody knows for sure what he will do next.
The only thing consistent about his foreign policy is that he puts America first. For that, you can admire him – he is keeping his election promise. Very few politicians keep their promises.
His staunch allies, Britain and France, joined the US in bombing Syria for using chemical weapons on civilians.
As with Iraq, they did not wait for conclusive evidence that President Bashir al-assad had violated international law in using gas on civilians but rushed in and bombed the suspected chemical weapons plants.
A few weeks later, Trump astounded the world when he ditched his allies and pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal.
All along he had condemned Iran for its nuclear ambitions, but he has now made an about-turn, arguing that the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran was “defective at its core”. The world was outraged at
Trump’s treachery. Only Israel and Saudia Arabia were happy.
But as soon as Trump announced his decision to dump the Obama deal, the oil price spiked up and Iran and Israel went to war. Missiles rained down on the Golan Heights.
While the re-imposition of US sanctions against Iran could be a disaster for the Iranian economy and create more turmoil in the Middle East, it could boost US shale oil production. Is this game of brinkmanship to the economic advantage of the US?
Trump is an enigma, a modern Machiavelli. The only difference is that whatever policy he pursues, domestic or international, it is not for himself but America.
He is taking his country back to the old days of isolationism while also ensuring it remains a dominant world power. THYAGARAJ MARKANDAN
Silverglen