‘Plot underway to assassinate Swaziland absolute monarch’, international defence journal reports

Mercenaries from Israel and Lebanon are plotting to assassinate King Mswati III, the absolute monarch of Swaziland (eSwatini), the Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy journal reported.

The journal published by the International Strategic Studies Association said the plot was supported by the African National Congress (ANC) which is the governing party in South African, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the Government of the United Kingdom.

The journal reported (Vol. 47, No. 11/12, 2019) the mercenaries entered Swaziland in November 2019 but were unable immediately to get to the King because he was in seclusion as part of the annual Incwala ceremonies.

Swaziland is not a democracy and political parties are barred from taking part in elections. Groups that advocate for democracy are banned under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. The King chooses the Prime Minister and cabinet and top judges. 

Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy journal reported the plot was backed by the UK because it ‘had reportedly been promised concessions to exploit eSwatini reserves of diamonds and natural gas, among other things, in a “post-Mswati” eSwatini. Sensitive UK Government documents confirm that understanding.’

It added, ‘Significant external financial and political support for the revolutionaries has not brought about a national groundswell against the King. The Umbutfo eSwatini Defence Force (UEDF) and the Swati chiefs and peoples reaching into South Africa (including the Johannesburg region, traditionally Swati territory) remain passionately loyal to the King.’

The journal offered no evidence to support its reporting. It gave this analysis of why eSwatini was important globally.

‘Presently, despite its size, it is a pillar of stability relative to South Africa itself, given that collapse of the South African state is a possibility, even as soon as 2020. And Southern Africa is key to monitoring and control of the Cape of Good Hope sea route. South Africa is presently a key component of the PRC’s strategy to control sea lanes and ports globally. 

‘Moreover, eSwatini is the only country in Africa which still recognizes the Republic of China (ROC: Taiwan), rather than the PRC. If South Africa falls apart and an independent KwaZulu-Natal returned eSwatini's access to the Indian Ocean, this would significantly affect maritime strategies in the region. As well, the Zulu Kingdom itself may not necessarily recognize Beijing.’ 

The International Strategic Studies Association founded in 1982 and based in Washington DC describes itself as a worldwide membership Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) of professionals involved in national management, particularly in national and international security and strategic policy.

See also

‘Attempted coup in Swaziland’

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/07/attempted-coup-in-swaziland.html

ANC WANTS SADC SWAZI RIGHTS PROBE

South Africa’s African National Congress has called for Swaziland to be investigated by SADC for abuse of human rights.

King Mswati III rules Swaziland as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch. Political parties are banned from taking part in elections and political dissent is crushed by the Suppression of Terrorism Act (STA), even though the Swazi High Court has declared it unconstitutional.

Reporting on the outcomes of the international relations commission at the ANC national policy conference, chairperson Miriam Segabutla said the people of Swaziland were suffering “gross human rights violation”.

The African News Agency reported Segabutla saying, “The commission reflected on the nature of the Swazi monarchy, where the King wields executive, judicial and legislative power.”

The commission recommended that the ANC explore mechanisms of strengthening its solidarity campaign on Swaziland and formalise the party-to-party relations with the People’s United Democratic Movement (Pudemo), Swaziland’s best-known political party.

Segabutla added the commission also supported the call by the people of Swaziland for the unbanning of political parties and the release of all political prisoners, and that the issue of Swaziland be placed before the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) for intervention.

In 2014 the United States withdrew trading privileges from Swaziland under the Africa Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) because the kingdom had not fulfilled all the requirements of the programme, including respect for human rights.

The US wanted Swaziland to implement the full passage of amendments to the Industrial Relations Act; full passage of amendments to the STA; full passage of amendments to the Public Order Act; full passage of amendments to sections 40 and 97 of the Industrial Relations Act relating to civil and criminal liability to union leaders during protest actions; and establishing a code of conduct for the police during public protests. 

Amnesty International in April 2015 renewed its criticism of Swaziland for the ‘continued persecution of peaceful political opponents and critics’ by the King and his authorities. 

The human rights organisation called for both the STA and the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act (SSAA) to be scrapped or drastically rewritten.

It said the Swazi authorities were using the Acts, ‘to intimidate activists, further entrench political exclusion and to restrict the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.’

See also

TERROR ACT CHANGES STALL AT SENATE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2017/03/terror-act-changes-stall-at-senate.html

 

COURT: SWAZI TERROR ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/09/court-terror-act-unconstitutional.html

SWAZI TERROR DECISION TO BE APPEALED

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/09/swazi-terror-decision-to-be-appealed.html

ANC: RELEASE POLITICAL PRISONERS

Kenworthy News Media

SOURCE 

May 8, 2013

ANC calls for the release of political prisoners in Swaziland

In a statement from Chairperson of the African National Congress NEC Sub-Committee on International Relations Obed Bapela on May 7, the ANC called for the release of all political prisoners in Swaziland.

“The democratization of Swaziland must preoccupy the work of the African National Congress and all progressive forces as we call for the release of political prisoners, return of exiles and free political activities in that country.”

The ANC has previously called for the unbanning of political parties of Swaziland without any apparent success. In October 2012, ANC Chairperson  Baleka Mbete said that “we need to make sure Swaziland is liberated including the unbanning of political parties,” and in June 2012 President Zuma’s foreign policy advisor Lindiwe Zulu said that South Africa must press Swaziland to unban political parties.

South African President Jacob Zuma is married to Mswati’s niece and has therefore seemingly been unwilling to criticize Swaziland’s absolute monarch Mswati III publicly. But Zuma’s son, Edward Zuma, has been more critically outspoken about Swaziland.

“We have spearheaded democratic change all over Africa,” said Edward Zuma in an interview with the South African Sunday Tribune in 2011, “and yet our neighbour is the one in need of democratic change. People complain about Mugabe and yet he has a more legitimate country because there is a democratic process. Mugabe is far better than Mswati.”

South Africa is Swaziland’s most important trading partner. Over 90% of Swaziland’s imports and 60% of exports are with South Africa. The ANC itself have investments in Swaziland, including an antracit mine (high quality coal).

SHOULD SWAZILAND BE COLONISED?

Moneyweb, South Africa

16 August 2011

SOURCE

Should Swaziland be “colonised”?

Gordhan is already half-way towards “colonisation.”

By Stanley Uys

Angry over South Africa’s R2.5 bn bailout of Swaziland? Aghast that King Mswati III (Africa’s last remaining absolute monarch, crowned in 1986 and “looting the state coffers” ever since) now will have an even more “lavish and indulgent lifestyle” for himself and his 12 (approximately) wives?

Join the club – the northern Eurozone one. The northerners themselves are furious over bailouts: Greece and Cyprus, maybe Ireland. Who’s next?

Mswati has an estimated personal fortune of $200 million. SA’s Finance minister Pravin Gordhan (furious, too, that Mswati jumped the gun to announce the bailout, minus the conditions attached by Gordhan), will not confirm that Mswati first asked the IMF in vain for R10m.

Mswati’s critics range across the whole Left-to-Right spectrum. Ill-feeling runs high in SA against Mswati, seen as running his landlocked nation as his personal fiefdom for more than two decades. Swaziland’s pro-democracy activists threaten to march on the Union Buildings in Pretoria, and SA’s trade unions threaten to cross the border. How far will either get?

The Democratic Alliance calls on King Mswati to unban all political parties and release opposition party members and civil society activists who have been detained without trial. Who will hearken to it?

Cosatu, scornful of the “very vague conditions” attached by Gordhan to the bailout, says: "This is not a natural disaster, but one made in Lobamba (the country's traditional and legislative capital) by a few royal elites who have milked the country dry from years of extravagance, corruption, parasitism and poor management.”

King Mswati’s unelected administration has run through his country’s central bank reserves to pay public sector wages. The IMF says the crux is a civil service wage bill that consumes 18% of GDP. Mswati’s government owes at least $180m in unpaid bills. Repayments of the bailout will be via debits recovered from Swaziland's share of the Southern African Customs Union duties (60% of the kingdom’s total state revenue).

Gordhan says: “Swaziland is a sovereign country; we can only go so far.” It is in SA’s interests to have a stable country. “It’s not our place to dictate to them.” “Sovereign country” is the mantra most African states chant - afraid that outside interference in one profligate “sovereign” African country will lead to interference in the next? Sovereignty is the bulwark behind which ex-President Thabo Mbeki and the African Union resisted “interference.”

The DA makes the point that more than 90% of Swazi imports come from SA and SA buys about two-thirds of Swazi exports. Put these and other points together and the Mswati regime emerges as “utterly reliant” on SA’s goodwill. SA, says the DA, “should not miss this opportunity to contribute to the democratisation of our neighbour by using our economic leverage…without delay.”

By asking Swaziland to implement only economic, not political, reforms, Gordhan invites political restiveness among impatient SA trade unionists and in tiny Swaziland’s 1.4m population. The ANC Youth League, frustrated over its recent failed move to overthrow the Botswana government, sees Swaziland as a sitting duck.

When Zimbabwe was in its worst mess, did the thought flit through the ANC’s collective mind (it has one?) that Zimbabwe would soon be up for grabs?

The DA calls for “democratisation,” but wouldn’t “colonisation” be an option? A joint endeavour by say the UN or some other internationally-endorsed foreign institution or think-tank? (forget about the African Union).

Let’s get this straight. Colonialism as Africa has known it, is past its sell-by date. In any case, who would want a colony now, especially a run-down one like Swaziland? But what about a benign consortium, with hard-headed assistance in mind, and international backing?

Already, Gordhan wants a team of South African experts with unlimited access to “assist Swaziland with its fiscal and budgetary plans”; Swaziland to undertake "confidence-building measures" to attract foreign direct investment; to align its fiscal policy to International Monetary Fund standards; and to co-operate with "multilateral engagements" to stabilise Swaziland’s tiny economy. Gordhan is already half-way towards “colonisation.”

Hopefully, the critical political reforms Swaziland needs will arrive when they are propelled there by the momentum of economic change. If not, who would administer Swaziland if it went into political rehab? To judge by King Mswati’s record, politically it should be taken into protective custody or placed under a curator bonis. Its own trade unions, encouraged by Cosatu and other SA unions, could lend support, even if under warning not to rock the financial boat.

The problem is this: If the ANC cannot democratise itself, how can it democratise Swaziland?

WHEN MSWATI COMES BEGGING AGAIN

Business Day, South Africa

12 August 2011

Source

ANDILE MAZWAI: Ask for more when Mswati comes begging again

‘We must be acutely aware of the danger in the logic that opens SA as an underwriter to Mswati’s spending whims’

THERE has been an outcry following SA’s R2,4bn part in bailing out Swaziland. The people of Swaziland, as spoken for by the trade unions, believe the bail-out afforded King Mswati a stay of execution. His tenure has become increasingly unpopular, not least because most of his 1,2 million subjects live in poverty and suffer political repression while he has sacrificed none of his luxuries.

South African opposition parties and the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) own alliance partners have also criticised the bail-out. The Mail & Guardian reported that the ANC’s investment company, Chancellor House, stood to benefit from the bail-out as it has co-investments with Mswati. Despite these valid criticisms, I wish to consider how the bail-out might result in an optimal outcome for SA.

Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations recognises a people’s right to self- determination, and the Swazi people have accepted Mswati as their rightful and legitimate monarch. This entitlement puts a moral duty on him to govern an orderly state in which the people can enjoy their chosen way of life in dignity. Allowing the state to fall into bankruptcy is a gross dereliction of that duty. The very essence of a sovereignty is that it has independent authority in its affairs. Being bankrupt and in need of bail-out subverts this authority. If this should become the undoing of Mswati, then so be it.

Are the people of Swaziland right in calling for a regime change and reform from monarchy to democracy? The answer is yes, they have the right to self-determination. If they wish to effect a change of regime, they are within their rights to demand it. An outsider, such as myself, cannot opine on regime change in another sovereign state. SA is ill- advised to take sides on the internal politics of another state. As a neighbour, however, SA also cannot stand idly by while those politics cause people to suffer.

We must accept that if Swaziland is allowed to fail by way of bankruptcy, then it is its people who will suffer the consequences much more so than their ruler. If the state cannot fund its institutions and pay its public servants, then it can be expected that those institutions will fall into chaos and lawlessness will prevail.

One can easily imagine the human suffering that would ensue in a failed state. Even if a democracy were to be formed out of such turmoil, experience has shown that people suffer when regimes change rapidly after succumbing to pressure to do so.

Given this outlook, SA must take a position that sides with human rights. In this way, it will know that its actions are both morally and politically correct. It follows then that if the R2,4bn bail-out will avert a humanitarian crisis, then we were correct to grant it. We must, however, be acutely aware of the danger in the logic that opens SA as a de facto underwriter to Mswati’s spending whims. Even though SA has self-interest in not having a failed state on another one of its borders; it cannot write blank cheques to avert it.

SA can channel the funds only through the recognised regime. This should not be mistaken as showing support for the monarch, as it is not. It is the only way sovereign states can relate to one another — to do otherwise could be seen as an attempt to undermine the government of Swaziland. SA has rightly imposed conditions on the loan, including reform to the governance of the kingdom, which must be led by the Swazi people.

While the loan has a mechanism for repayment, these very terms are likely to lead to a subsequent default for Swaziland — the problem is not cured, only deferred while being enlarged. This crisis has demonstrated that the Swazi monarch is incapable of running an administration.

If SA is serious about conditions that will cure the problem, it may wish to consider demanding the cession of Swaziland’s administration to itself when the king comes begging again. This will ensure the protection of both Swaziland and SA. (Historians will note that Swaziland fell under the administrative control of SA in 1890.)

I wish I could stop here, but Chancellor House cannot be ignored.

If the ANC’s investment vehicle will indeed benefit from the bail-out, then the decision was compromised. It is then only lucky that the positions of Chancellor House and SA happened to coincide. It would be disappointing to accept that our policy formation serves two masters, because at the point where they are not in agreement is where our luck will run out.

• Mazwai is group CEO of Barnard Jacobs Mellet.

See also

LOAN COULD LEAD TO GENUINE CHANGE

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2011/08/loan-could-lead-to-genuine-change.html