School saga is a dangerous narrative we’re feeding our kids
Sudan, the West’s bad guy, isn’t so bad
THE GAUTENG Department of Education and parents at Roodepoort Primary School have been at each other’s throats for a while now.
Some parents are allegedly unhappy with the appointment of the black principal in a predominately “coloured” school.
MEC Panyaza Lesufi has temporarily closed the school following the disruption of classes by parents. My biggest concern is that some of the children are in their last year of primary school and learning is being disrupted, which could sabotage their chances of progressing to high school.
I wonder whether all the adults involved have taken the time to think about how all of this is affecting the children. What good can come of this violence – parents throwing stones and police using tear gas and rubber bullets?
Parents claim that the appointment of the principal was irregular. An investigation was conducted and yet nothing untoward was uncovered.
Surely the school governing body and officials should be able to sit down and resolve the matter amicably?
Surely the interests of the children should be a priority?
How does throwing stones solve the problem? Have we exhausted all avenues at our disposal to resolve such matters? Indeed the parents should be concerned if something suspect happens. But a confrontation with the police is a recipe for disaster. We are showing our children that should they lose an argument or disagree with someone, violence is a viable option. We’re telling them that if they don’t want something in life, they shouldn’t bother with negotiations; they should resort to violence. This is a dangerous narrative we are feeding our children. Chief operations officer, Kagiso Trust
WRITE TO US
IN HER column headlined “Russia strengthening ties with Africa” (The Star, Opinion and Analysis, August 21), Shannon Ebrahim claims Sudan used Russian jet fighters to bomb civilian villages.
“Sudan is a good example, where Russian jet fighters and helicopters have been used to bomb civilian villages in South Sudan, and more recently in Blue Nile and South Kordofan,” Ebrahim wrote. Though there were other recipients, the writer stopped short of naming them.
To make sense of her claims, she was careful to detail Russian military supplies to Sudan while, in other cases, she evaded further details.
The writer should be reminded that Sudan was one of the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity and one of the founding members of the Confederation of African Football. It supported almost all independent movements in Africa, including South Africa’s fight against apartheid.
During his visit to Sudan on February 1, President Jacob Zuma said: “This is a country (Sudan) under whose passport our leader, former president Nelson Mandela, travelled the world, a testament to the historic ties that bind our two nations.”
Sudan hosted as many as 800 000 refugees. Far from the writer’s claims, about 100 000 of them were from South Sudan – people who fled their state’s brutal civil war, in addition to more than 300 000 who preferred to continue their residence in Sudan refraining from risking the unknown awaiting them in their homeland – a testament that Sudan is far from the tarnished image portrayed by some Western and pro-Western circles. It’s hard to believe a safe haven for refugees can turn to bombing its own citizens.
During the last two decades, Sudan signed more than five peace agreements, including the one which finally led to the Republic of South Sudan, sacrificing about a third of its territories including the oil-rich areas, to ensure a sustainable peace.
Rejecting the Western code of conduct and prescriptions, Sudan chose to become the master of its own destiny. Since then, it has been branded as recalcitrant.
Sudan has its own unique crisis, though it is not unique in having crises. Rebellion and rebel groups are not peculiar to Sudan. To promote their causes and gain international sympathy, rebel groups move under various banners. Within the divideand-rule strategy, their objectives may coincide, somehow, with other foreign agendas to pile pressure on their nations. And for rebels, the easiest approach is to circulate accusations of human rights violations, such as “waging war against civilians”.
While rebel groups in many regions are classified as terrorists, it’s a label that denies them any sort of recognition. Ironically, Sudanese ones are met with official reception in the West and unlimited support.
Let us remind the writer that when Colonel John Garang defected from the Sudan army and formed his rebel group, the Sudan People Liberation Army, in 1983, the old Soviet Union was its sole supporter supplying the rebels with whatever was necessary, from uniforms to tanks.
Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Garang moved to the West. While seeking support, he spared no effort to damage his former country’s reputation through a plethora of false accusations including slavery, racial and religious discrimination. Various Western circles swallowed these claims and have peddled them ever since.
Current rebels inherited the same slogans as well as the foreign support, motivated as they are by a desire to dismantle the national will and sovereignty of the state.
Sudan recently declared amnesty for armed rebels to participate in the national dialogue, and to implement a two-month ceasefire in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile states.
With the help of the AU and the AU High-level Implementation Panel headed by Thabo Mbeki, Sudan is committed to achieving peace. As a reliable mediator, Mbeki is exerting honest efforts to ensure the success of the peace process. Information attaché of the Sudanese Embassy, Pretoria