Left Foot Forward
27 April 2011
Invite to royal wedding should be withdrawn for Swaziland’s king
Mark Beacon is campaigns manager for Action for Southern Africa, the successor organisation to the Anti Apartheid Movement
Yesterday evening (26 April 2011) more than 60 protesters gathered outside London’s Dorchester Hotel, anticipating the arrival of one of the most controversial guests at the royal wedding – Africa’s only absolute monarch, king Mswati III of Swaziland.
Swaziland has endured the restrictions of a state of emergency since 1973. It has the highest rate of HIV in the world, one of the lowest life expectancies and almost two thirds of the population live in absolute poverty, whilst the king and his friends live in luxury. Political parties are banned, trade unions are massively restricted and the country scores lower than Zimbabwe for its political rights.
As the protesters assembled yesterday evening, news emerged that the king and his entourage had moved to another equally luxurious hotel, in a bid to avoid the critical voices. However, in dealing with protesters in Swaziland, the government has gained a reputation for using more aggressive tactics, including force and repressive legislation to crush dissent.
On April 12-13 hundreds of people in the southern African state were arrested for attempting to protest for democracy, rights and against massive cuts to services. Ahead of the demonstrations the kingdom’s security forces rounded up and detained trade union and pro-democracy leaders. Trade union offices were surrounded by police to prevent anyone from leaving and those who managed to protest were met with batons and tear gas, arrested and then dropped off in forests, left to find their own way home.
Whilst King Mswati and his entourage of 50 stay in one of London’s most luxurious hotels, the people of Swaziland are being plunged deeper into poverty. Financial mismanagement, the global recession and recent reforms to the Southern African Customs Union have left a massive black hole in the Swazi economy, which until recently has been ignored. Unfortunately the government has responded with massive cuts to public services and over 7,000 redundancies, in a country where 40 per cent are already unemployed.
In the last few days power companies have turned off the lights in government departments for failing to pay their bills, while the government continues to invest huge sums in the already massive security sector, vanity projects including a new airport and the king’s personal budget, which has increased by over 60 per cent in the last two years.
It is astounding that in a climate of increasing repression and human rights violations that king Mswati should be invited to the royal wedding. ACTSA is calling for the invitation to be reconsidered and preferably revoked. At the very least the British government should speak out about the worsening situation in Swaziland and express concern to the highest levels of its government. ACTSA is asking its supporters to email Foreign Secretary William Hague and echo these concerns.
You can take action on the ACTSA website.
Will British arms be sold to Swaziland?
By Mark Beacon
Progress online
1 March 2011
Last week it emerged that in 2008 the British government refused a $60 million licence for assault rifles, heavy machine guns, armoured personnel carriers and helicopters to be exported to Swaziland.
This disclosure, among the latest tranche of US diplomatic cables exposed by Wikileaks, will come as no surprise to many in the southern African kingdom.
Swaziland is the only absolute monarchy in sub-Saharan Africa. It has endured the restrictions of a state of emergency since 1973, has the highest rate of HIV in the world, and almost 70 per cent of the population live in absolute poverty. Political parties are banned and the country scores lower than Zimbabwe for its political rights on the respected Mo Ibrahim Index.
While investing in major vanity projects such as the $1 billion Sikhuphe International Airport and propping up the lavish lifestyles of an ever increasing royal entourage, the Swazi government is responding to the country's worsening economic crisis by increasing the tax burden on the poorest and through mass redundancies in public services.
The population of Swaziland, while being plunged deeper into poverty have rapidly seen their few remaining rights eroded with a raft of repressive legislation, designed to crush dissent. Most controversial of all is the Suppression of Terrorism Act, which is used liberally to declare anyone or anything opposed to the regime as terrorist, including the main opposition party, PUDEMO. Arbitrary arrests and torture are common place as the government responds to the growing momentum of dissenting voices with a stronger and more brutal security force.
Despite its major economic crisis the government is proposing to spend almost 10 per cent of its 2011-12 budget on the army and police. On 23 February the minister of finance Majozi Sithole said ‘Yes, we are spending a lot on the army but we are not anticipating what is happening in North Africa to come here...However, the army is there to avoid such situations'.
The arms involved in the failed 2008 deal were, according to the Swazi government, intended to be used by African peacekeeping missions for the UN, but according to the cable may have been intended ‘to build up domestic capability to deal with unrest, or was possibly acting as an intermediary for a third party such as Zimbabwe or a Middle Eastern country that had cash, diamonds or goods to trade'. In recent days it has emerged that the Swazi government remains resolute in their determination to obtain arms from Britain. According to the Swazi News John Kunene, the principal secretary in the ministry of defence, who signed the original deal in 2008, said "We have been in constant discussion with Unionlet [a UK based arms agency] in buying arms for peacekeeping exercises in other countries, and have never abandoned the idea."
Yesterday (28 February 2011) defence secretary Liam Fox said that the UK's arms sales policy was under review, in order to strike the 'right balance' between the right of countries to protect themselves and a duty to ensure 'that what we do supply is not being used for internal repression'. In the case of Swaziland we hope that the right balance is one that ensures that the regime is denied the weapons it so desperately wants to repress its own people.
