Black Advancement - A couple of points to consider

'Black Advancement Hinges on White Handouts?’

Mr. Zamani Xaba, this opinion piece is a reply to your statement that white 'racist attitudes' towards blacks are what have largely resulted in a floundering black African society that has lost its way.

You seem to be implying that people who are reluctant to give up their land, jobs or property are racist? This is unreasonable. Please don't fall into that trap. Just because they are trying to preserve their standard of living & property, does not make them racist, even if you feel they 'had it easy' under apartheid.

What is very misguided is our people believing that 'taking' what the minorities have will correct the imbalances long term.

A couple of points to consider:

1) The whites and other minorities are taking their assets overseas at an unprecedented rate, along with their support structure of investors...time is pretty much gone to 'take' their majority assets, and even then there is not enough to sustain our people.

2) Why do we want their assets anyway - it is only a temporary thing. Our clear objective should be for acquiring knowledge & education - something we can build into our society, and perpetuate. This will truly help us sustain and grow long term. Remember, there is no colour to knowledge, so why do we seem reluctant to acquire it unless we are somehow prejudice?

3) Why are we not putting more focus on increasing levels of education for mission critical career sectors? We need a revamped educational program that creates a well balanced society of not only academics, but engineers, scientists, data entry clerks, artisans, technicians, construction workers etc This will contribute directly to our knowledge base, and build our qualifications as a workforce with breadth & depth, and a technology leader. Where is the construction of our own robust institutions - we are doing some of this, but the vacuum the ANC has created in institutional-support for Our People is horrifyingly absent. Of course the ANC are an institution themselves, serving ONLY themselves at the expense of the millions of disadvantaged people. And they do this without losing any sleep, while expectant mothers die daily in disgusting hospitals, and the quality of our care for the aged is bordering on a crime on humanity. And you are worried about white attitudes? How is this going to help our hospitals?

Where is the plan for the re-emergence of South Africa as a center of inspired innovation? The ANC would rather focus on creating racial issues than tackling real challenges like this.

Taking land, or taking jobs, or taking taxes from a diminishing minority is short-sighted, and destined for failure.

It's funny when you look at the excessive wealth of the black elite, and how we DO NOT focus on taking their fair share of the taxes to help rebuild our country. We let them get away with hoarding millions of rands of ill-gotten wealth.

Also VERY SAD is how the black elite revel at deepening the class divide. They PLAN to keep the impoverished uneducated, and in debt, and prolong their pain so that they can keep capitalizing on it, all whilst they divert the resentment towards minorities & foreign entities.

Can the minorities help us more than they currently are? Of course. But many of them are simply trying to figure out how to get out of this country, or at least how to get their children out. They essentially are focusing on survival for themselves, and creating an exit plan for their next generations. The People who want to stay (like farmers) - we turn a blind eye to the farm murders, hoping the problem just goes away. The unfettered crime rates that are skyrocketing, that the ANC just 'shrugs off'. What label would you place on these complacent attitudes?

We seem obsessed with 'them' and 'others', while ignoring the building blocks necessary to ensure our productive futures are guaranteed, and not spent in refugee camps.

Is leveraging wealth from these fleeing minorities key to our long term advancement as a majority country? Of course not!

The fifty million (and growing) Africans in South Africa must dig out of this hole ourselves, in our own way, if we are to be a successful, self-sustaining and a healthy nation long into the future.

Let's insist that our leaders show us a specific plan on how this will be accomplished. If our leaders can't articulate this, we must find leaders who can.

Menzi Solomon Shange

====================================

[Join Mr. Shange at the FNB Joburg Art Fair, Sandton Convention Centre, 6 - 9 September 2018. Mr. Shange is an Afrocentric blogger, artist, activist, and business owner. He currently lives in Gauteng, and known as a fiercely outspoken advocate for the disadvantaged & marginalized citizens of Mzansi]

#MenziSolomonShange

Farm attacks – an evil within

Farm attacks – an evil within
Nov 02, 2017

Claims of kingpins in charge of well-planned crime operations with connections in government, highly trained hit squads using children to secure intelligence in farm attacks, occasional acts of intimidation to force land owners off their property and inhuman physical trauma inflicted on victims of such heinous crimes speak of the evil that characterises incidents committed against inhabitants of some of the remotest locations in South Africa.

Limpopo is no exception and when embarking on research into farm attacks University of Limpopo (UL) research assistant Cristopher Gumbi couldn’t possibly have been prepared for unearthing the sorrow bottled up in recollections of physical trauma shared by victims of such crimes. Shedding tears with survivors as they revisited the horrors of the past, he got a glimpse of a form of crime that threatens food security and, in turn, the economy of the country.

His findings were consolidated in a 117-page thesis for a Master of Arts degree from the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at UL, which he obtained in September this year. Gumbi’s investigation of the motivational factors for farm attacks and its consequential injurious phenomena looks into such crimes committed in parts of Limpopo and Mpumalanga between 2005 and 2015, bringing him into contact with 23 individuals and groupings who have all been survivors.

Before getting started with the interview Gumbi pointed at his predominantly monotone outfit in solidarity with scores of South Africans commemorating Black Monday, the countrywide action commemorating lives lost in farm attacks and survivors thereof.

From the study the reader gets varying perspectives of the situation as Gumbi delves into a decade of attacks through conversations with survivors from both genders, who varied in age from 38 to 88 years.

Harrowing accounts made him question, among others, the need for inflicting physical trauma upon victims during the orchestration of attacks, he remarked during the interview. “The violent nature of attacks is amply demonstrated by such actions as beatings, tying victims down with cable ties, threats of burning victims with hot water or poisoning them and shooting at first sight,” he notes in his study.

Without exception all respondents stated that attacks which occurred on their farms were well-planned, mentions Gumbi. “There is a clear indication that attackers conduct thorough surveillance of their target and surroundings before they pounce. This shows the high amount of intelligence and patience they put in, in making sure their plan succeeds.” He quotes a victim who stated that the assailants were picked-up by a vehicle after the attack. “This confirms the idea of a hit squad and a getaway car as a form of organised attack,” he states.

He further writes that all of the surviving victims mentioned that the attacks against them were linked to a crime syndicate, with the chief aim of robbing farmers of their money, valuables and weapons in order to fund their operations. In one instance he quotes a victim saying “One of the attackers informed my son that he is part of a crime syndicate and that they cannot remain in custody… These cell groups have kingpins in every town who use kids for stealing because the kids cannot be prosecuted… This is a well-planned operation involving Police, public prosecutors, judges, magistrates to high ranking officials of the government…”

Attackers with military training
Some of the victims maintained the belief that their attackers were a mix of South African and Zimbabwean with military training, according to the information contained in the study. In one incident a victim recalled that the attackers collected all spent cartridges on the scene. In another attack the assailants allegedly ran more than 4 km while carrying rifles to their getaway vehicle and changed clothes in order for them not to be recognised. Gumbi reaches the conclusion that an attack on a farmstead from four sides during one such incident, which resulted in the farmer being shot in the head, indicated a form of formal training on the part of the assailants.

In 47% of the cases money and jewellery were not targeted while 65% of the respondents stated that their attackers were not very interested in other items but their weapons. What the researcher had established though, was that attackers always knew the arrangement of the targeted farmsteads, where the safes were and the weapons kept. It led to the inference that the attacks should have been orchestrated with the help of insiders, who allegedly included teens living on farms.

Attacks believed to be form of intimidation
According to Gumbi’s research 78% of the respondents who reported farm attacks related a form of intimidation, aimed at driving farmers off their land. A female victim informed him that she had believed the attack on her farm was a form of intimidation, because the attackers never stole anything but just started firing through the windows of the house without prior warning. “More than 60 shots were fired. My husband shot back with a .38 revolver. He (name withheld) tossed (the) phone to me to call for help. They shot him (name withheld) in the head. They never came inside. The attackers shouted that they will kill all…”

A farmer who reported that he was attacked by twelve men informed the researcher that one drew a gun and started shooting. “When asked what their primary objective of attacking the farm was, they responded that it was not about cattle, money, guns or jewellery, but about taking control of the farm.”

Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents stated that they knew the attackers. A respondent who was attacked twice, in 2007 and 2014, said his wife knew one of the attackers because she recognised his voice during the initial attack.
Gumbi quoted survivors who were asked whether farms with poor security were singled out for attacks as saying “Poor security is not a contributing factor; it is all about brutal revenge and financial purposes” and “I don’t think poor security is the point here. These attacks are orchestrated by some leader somewhere who wants to drive farmers off their land.”

Gumbi further remarks that farmers do not feel that they are receiving the necessary service delivery from the South African Police Service. From the responses it is clear that the Police are not doing enough to assist the farmers during and after an attack, he writes. “Negligence and dereliction of duties are evident from the responses of respondents. Serious allegations concerning negligence with firearms raise concerns.”

Farm attacks need to be addressed holistically hence, the researcher concedes, more role players such as all government departments and non-profit organisations need to play a more active role in improving security on farms to protect food security.

Gumbi points out that unless security on farms is made a national priority, farm attacks will continue to increase. He recommends that it gets prioritised and discussed as part of South Africa’s national agenda, particularly in Parliament. He also recommends that racial stereotypes in farming urgently get addressed. “The South African justice system needs to recognise farm attacks as a criminal charge of its own with a strict mandatory minimum sentence applied; this will serve as a form of deterrence to attackers.”

Gumbi expresses great concern over farm attacks in South Africa not being given the necessary attention by the government, considering the effects such crimes have on the economy and the well-being of victims, families and communities.

According to him South Africa has the responsibility to view farm attacks as a violation of human rights and a threat to the country’s economy and food security. “The rural farming community contributes substantially to the growth and development of the South African economy.”

Land expropriation is anti-black

Sihle Ngobese

Much to my disappointment, the South African Parliament passed a motion by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to endorse the expropriation of land without compensation.

Essentially, all political parties, except for the Democratic Alliance (DA) and one or two smaller others, voted in favour of a policy that gives government the power to seize land and property rights from individuals and families.

The argument put forward by the supporters of this policy is, of course, centred on the historical dispossession of many black South Africans of their property rights and land; first under colonial rule, then through racist apartheid legislation.

Let me be clear from the outset: the act of redressing this legacy by implementing a rational and legal process of land restitution is wholly justified. Indeed, I am in full support of a rational and moral process, founded on the rule-of-law and due process, for assessing valid land claims.

If the claim is proven to be valid through an evidence-driven process, then the beneficiary must have the option of reclaiming the land or accepting financial compensation for their loss. In the same breath, the individual set to give back the land should also be compensated for their loss, provided they didn't use any measure of force to illegally claim that land.

Ultimately, it was the State, whether through the guise of colonialism or apartheid that was responsible for the dispossession of citizens in the first place. It is that same State today (albeit governed by a democratically elected party) which must act to redress its past mistakes and actions.

My approach is a just and sound policy, as where all parties find mediation and resolution.

This is why I cannot bring myself to agree with the EFF approach of land expropriation, which disturbingly calls for complete state ownership of all land.

Julius Malema is a forked-tongue politician. At Parliament's podium and at his public rallies he shouts that the land "must be returned to our people". He does not, however, tell the public, and specifically the black people he claims to trade for, that his approach entails dispossessing them too of whatever meagre property they have.

On this matter the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: the State owning something on behalf of the people does not translate to the people owning or enjoying the utility of that good.

It is this intellectual dishonesty and effort to undermine the intent and spirit of section 25 of the Constitution which makes the EFF very dangerous. While Malema talks of targeting "white land thieves" to "benefit landless blacks", in reality the EFF is giving government the power to steal property from families, rich and poor.

I've yet to get an answer from Malema and his acolytes on how it is "pro-black" to demand that blacks become landless and permanent renters of land from the State, as is proposed in Point 2 of the EFF Land Policy.

It would seem that land expropriation without compensation and the State owning all land is a crude attempt by socialists to take away land from everybody, including black people. This policy is nothing short of theft and is the stuff of the economically illiterate.

A government owning land on behalf of blacks (or any citizen really), as is EFF policy, is immoral and patronising. It is anti-black and anti-poor!

Sadly, we've seen this show before on the continent, from Julius Nyerere's disastrous Ujamaa policy in the 1960s, to Idi Amin's expropriation without compensation of mostly Indian merchants land and businesses in 1972, to the collapse of our Zimbabwean neighbours after the wave of land grabs unleashed by Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF in the early 2000s.

Land Expropriation without compensation and the socialism which underpins it has been the killer of African aspirations for prosperity and development.

Most depressingly, and what the politicians don't tell you, is that these measures kill the aspirations of black families looking to OWN land and have property rights, just as the colonialist and apartheid systems did.

There is nothing to celebrate here. Troubled times lay ahead for us South Africans, as our liberty is at stake. For far too long South Africans of all races have had to give up one freedom and liberty after another, at the hands of statist and socialist politicians.

Government should be a tool for empowering families and communities and enhancing their liberty, not making them dependents. I don't see how taking our land without compensation and making us renters of the land of our birth is pro-South Africa, do you?

- Ngobese is spokesperson for the Western Cape department of social development. He writes in his personal capacity. Follow him on Twitter: @BigDaddyLiberty

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

Why The Poor Should be Worried ~ Expropriation of Land

Why The Poor Should be Worried ~ Expropriation of Land 🦃🐖🐃🏞🏜

Expropriation without compensation represents a profound danger for South Africa's immediate and long-term economic future


~ The "necessity of the state being a custodian of all South African land". This is a "state" that has proven to not having any skill; is very clumsy and incompetent. Consisting of an 'employment programme' based on "nepotism", patronage, cronyism" of employing select families and friends.

This 'state' doesn't have a clue on the meaning of the words "merit" and "professionalism" and "qualifications". This 'state' is just managed by the most bungling, blundering, bumbling, and unproductive,unsuccessful, ineffectual,
inadequate, inferior, wanting and not up to scratch. They just fumble on.

This resolution is sponsored by one of the most corrupt, immoral, uncaring and unprincipled young so-called leader, who
was ever produced by South Africa.

He became a +R200 multi-millionaire at
age 32, from money he defrauded from the Limpopo government. His career is marked by a string of corrupt activities in the ANCYL, the NYDA and the EFF. There is a deep irony here.

The resolution is quite correct to refer to South Africa's history and the abuse of black people's property rights. He is a champion of just doing that and I have written extensively on his corrupt escapades.

His saving grace is "rubble rousing", at which he is a 'master' ~ trashing, vandalising, looting, burning government and private property
are his speciality. The question is, how does
he manage to achieve all of these things so puplicly and brazenly?

The answer is simple, he had protection from high up in government, from non other than Ubaba ka Duduzane. They created this elaborate 'perception' of being at war with
each other, but nothing is further from the truth.

He enjoyed the same protection U Baba got from #Abrams_NPA_783_charges. How is his new reform policy going to improve the lives of its beneficiaries, and enhances the economy as whole.

Well, it is not. The young man already has 2 farms and a number of properties under his belt. He is not interested in how it is going to improve the lives of the poor, but only his own life, that of his family and cronies. He only says "the poor" in public.

This resolution rests on a flawed diagnosis of the problems facing South Africa's land reform efforts, and proposes reckless and counterproductive responses.

First, its evidence is questionable. While there is consensus that the land reform programme is not performing well, the figures it purports to draw from the land audit – 'black people own less than 2% of rural land, and less that 7% of urban land' with 'black' referring to African' ~ are incorrect.

These numbers refer only to registered and titled properties held by individual owners.
The audit was unable to assign racial identity to around two thirds of the country's land.

This was held by companies and trusts, and a large portion belonged to the 'state' or is
'state trust land'.

Much 'state' land is in fact land in the former homelands, or land acquired for 'beneficiaries', but whose title has not been transferred to them. Lunch Bar! That wasn't the plan of government officials, Juju himself got his lands through this process.

Current land redistribution policy is to retain state ownership of land and to lease it to tenants. Remember, the 'state' is now 'black'. Small wonder that 'black' ownership of land remains modest, they claim. The 'state' doesn't include itself in this category of 'owners'.

Truth be told, some 46% of agricultural potential ~ land with fertile soil and good water sources, for example, mostly in the eastern parts of the country ~ is in the hands of government and historically disadvantaged individuals.

"other constraints, including increasing evidence of corruption by officials, the diversion of the land reform budget to elites, lack of political will, and lack of training and capacity have proved more serious stumbling blocks to land reform" says the audit report.

The Constitution in fact affords the state considerable latitude in achieving such goals. As the eminent agricultural economist, the late Dr Hans Binswanger-Mkhize, once wrote:

"This constitutional and policy framework is one of the most favourable in the world for successfully and rapidly implementing land reform."

The cheapening of South Africa's founding
law for populist political ends should greatly concern the country's constitutionalists.

Attacking Section 25 would undermine the very concept of property rights ~ not just those in land. It would render all property, or all people, vulnerable to an intrusive state and its officials: mines, factories, houses, artworks.

It should be borne in mind that the poor could be especially hard hit ~ there are numerous examples across the world of poor people with weak property rights being deprived of their property, land, livestock, houses and so on, by their governments in the name of development.

Beyond enabling the state to seize property without compensation, it suggests what amounts to wholesale nationalisation of South Africa's land resources. For the state to take 'custodianship' of all land would effectively be to end private ownership in land.

It should be understood that no one ~ land baron or smallholder, black or white ~ would really own anything. All would be at the mercy of the state. Do you think Juju would allow his 2 farms to be included in this situation?

Probably the most important problem with this resolution. It avoids any reference to economic considerations. Even Cyril Ramaphosa's assurances that expropriation without compensation will not compromise agricultural output and food security are absent.

Expropriation without compensation ~ as officials in the banking industry have warned ~ will undermine the capital base of agriculture. The risks associated with large volumes of credit to enable production are likely to make financial institutions exit the sector.

Government cannot match these financing requirements, farm debt stands at over
R160 billion at present.

This implies a predictable decline in production. The damage would not be limited to job losses, declining taxes and export receipts, and the disruption of value chains.

It would likely prove destabilising to the country as shortages become the norm and food price inflation takes off. Venezuela and Sudan have recently provided vivid illustrations of the dire consequences of compromised food security.

It is unlikely that South Africa would be able to avoid further downgrades or be able to attract much investment. Interactions with business people ~ foreign and domestic ~ has shown a deep concern about the possibility of this becoming official policy.

To reiterate: that the success of land reform policy should be measured by the extent to which it improves the lives of its beneficiaries, and enhances the economy as whole.

The EFF's reported resolution would do the just the opposit, and the country might end up being owned by the likes of foreigners like,

Lord Robin Renwick and his London cronies.

#asblif_rules

(Source : Terence Corrigan ~ Project Manager at the SA Institute of Race Relations (IRR) / News24)

Black lies about land settlement in South Africa

Here is the article link ...

https://sa-news.com/the-4-black-lies-about-land-in-south-africa-bantu-black-africans-do-not-have-default-right-to-land/comment-page-1/

In fact, there were stable White communities in the South African interior before the founding of most of the Latin American republics. The first West European arrivals at the Cape antedated the colonization of Australia (1788) and New Zealand (1790) by 136 and 138 years respectively. The white community was also economically settled on unoccupied or negotiated land before the most and major black tribes even crossed the modern day borders of South Africa.

Majority of black South Africans have little interest in land reform

Some facts behind the land issue ...

President Cyril Ramaphosa has recently claimed the ruling party must move ahead with land expropriation without compensation because of a 'pressing' and 'urgent' hunger for farming land among South Africans.

However, comprehensive opinion polls commissioned by the IRR from 2015 to 2017 have repeatedly shown that the great majority of black South Africans have little interest in land reform.

In the IRR's 2016 field survey, for instance, only 1% of black respondents (down from 2% the previous year) said that 'more land reform' was the 'best way to improve lives'. By contrast, 73% of black people saw 'more jobs and better education' as the 'best way' for them to get ahead.

In similar vein, in the IRR's 2017 field survey, only 1% of black respondents identified 'speeding up land reform' as a top priority for the government.

Even among people who were dispossessed of land under apartheid laws – and were most likely to have a strong wish to see their land restored to them – there has been little interest in land as opposed to cash compensation.

When the land restitution process began in 1994, some 79 700 valid land claims were submitted by December 1998. By 2013, as the then minister of rural development and land reform, Gugile Nkwinti, pointed out, roughly 76 000 successful claims had been disposed of. However, only about 5 800 of these successful claimants (roughly 8%) chose to have their land restored to them. The remaining 92% preferred to receive cash compensation instead.

Said Nkwinti: "We thought everybody when they got a chance to get land, they would jump for it. Now only 5 856 have opted for land restoration." People wanted money because of poverty and unemployment, but they had also become urbanised and 'de-culturised' in terms of tilling land. "We no longer have a peasantry; we have wage earners now," he said.

The 76 000 successful claimants who could have chosen land rather than money could be seen as respondents in a particularly large opinion poll. That most of them – faced with a real-life choice – opted for cash, rather than land, is telling.

Opinion polls also show that ordinary people would far prefer to have rapid growth and many more jobs than the massive land distribution that the ANC is now portraying as the key antidote to poverty.

In the IRR's 2016 survey, for instance, respondents were asked whether they preferred "a political party which focuses on faster growth and more jobs", or one which "focuses on land expropriation to redress past wrongs". Given this choice, 84% of black respondents opted for growth and jobs, whereas only 7% wanted major land redistribution as redress for apartheid injustices.

Similar results have emerged from a comprehensive opinion survey commissioned by eNCA and carried out by MarkData in September 2017 among a representative sample of some 5 000 people, including about 2 700 self-declared ANC voters. (The results of this survey, as analysed by renowned political analyst and author R W Johnson, were first released by eNCA during the December race for the ANC presidency at the Nasrec conference.)

Even among ANC voters, it was clear that most people wanted the ruling party to embark on "more pro-business policies", rather than to pursue "radical policies/redistribution".

This was also the case in KwaZulu-Natal, the home base of the then president, Jacob Zuma, with his repeated calls for "radical economic transformation". There, 57.2% of ANC voters said they wanted the ruling party to "adopt more pro-business policies in the hope that business would invest more and create more jobs". By contrast, only 19.5% wanted the ANC to "push on with radical policies aimed at the complete redistribution of all wealth and income".

Support among ANC voters for "more pro-business policies" was frequently still stronger, standing at 75.9% in North West, 66.8% in the Eastern Cape, 57.1% in the Northern Cape, 55.9% in Limpopo, and 49.9% in Gauteng. In all these provinces, support for "more radical policies/redistribution" was low, coming in at 6.6% in North West, 8.7% in Limpopo, 10.6% in the Eastern Cape, 12.8% in the Northern Cape, and 16.2% in Gauteng.

These survey outcomes confirm that the great majority of ordinary ANC voters want more business-friendly policies – not the land "expropriation without compensation" option which the Nasrec conference endorsed and the ANC and EFF now seem determined to push through Parliament.

Claims by Ramaphosa and other senior figures in the ANC that ordinary South Africans are agog for land expropriation without compensation should be taken with a bucketful of salt. Far closer to the truth is Johnson's telling comment on what the eNCA survey results reveal.

These results (says Johnson) show that "much of the ANC leadership has completely lost contact with what most ANC voters think – and may not even be conscious of the huge divide that separates their assumptions from those of their electorate".

- Dr Anthea Jeffery is head of Policy Research at the Institute for Race Relations. The IRR is a think tank which promotes political and economic freedom.

https://www.news24.com/Columnists/GuestColumn/pressing-hunger-for-land-the-stats-show-something-different-20180301

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

A BRITISH LEGAL EXPERT'S OPINION ON EXPROPRIATION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPENSATION

2018/03/01

Response written by Mark Philip Malcolm Horn - London Barrister. * No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

"You can not have land expropriation without compensation. It is illegal in international law. It is contrary to a dozen treaties that South Africa has signed and ratified. As such, it is a principle that is also enshrined in South African domestic law. You can not change the Constitution therefore to make it legal - Treaty law is superior law, it always applies.

The proposal, if directed at land held by the white community, would also contravene half a dozen international treaties, notably those condemning apartheid, that South Africa since the ANC took power, has signed and ratified.

The same argument applies above, but now with the ironic twist that any such initiative would result in the ANC being condemned under international law for actions that the world would condemn as being racist.

So no, it can not be done. When Mugabe tried this, the point was litigated. These were the legal conclusions. Now, Mugabe pushed ahead, so what happened?

Well, the claims for illegal expropriation still are valid in law - at some point the Zimbabwean Government will need to pay them.

The consequence of their illegal policy is not forgotten with time. If they ever want to be re-integrated into the global community, they will need to pay.

As to the consequences of such a policy - Zimbabwe is a good example. There are no sanction on Zimbabwe. That is a myth. The only sanctions are those targeted on Mugabe and a few of his associates, and they are in place because of human rights abuses.

The economy has crashed, there is a 90% unemployment rate, for the very simple fact that Zimbabwe has shown itself to be a thief. No one does business with a thief, and no one extends credit to a thief.

You can not run a modern economy without access to the international market, and for that you need credit. The Zimbabwean economy has declined by 70% from what it was at independence simply because no one does business with a thief.

So what would be the consequence of a policy of expropriation without compensation in South Africa? Well, as noted, such a policy would be illegal.

The international community will immediately take note that South Africa has become a rogue state. That is not too much to worry, about, its just political. There are plenty of rogue states around the world.

What would happen, however, in terms of South Africa's access to the international markets is of far more concern. South Africa would have signaled that property rights are insecure. That will mean that international investment in South Africa would come to a screeching halt.

This has been happening for many years in any event - that is why South Africa is now ranked no. 7 in gold mining, when it used to be no. 1.

It is why South Africa has a 27% unemployment rate, and a 50% youth unemployment rate. So the response could well be: "who cares, we do not need their investment". That may well indeed be true.

But, that is not where the real crisis occurs. South Africa needs access to international financial markets because it has a trade and budget deficit. It needs access to international financial markets to pay for its bloated public sector, and to pay social grants to all those unemployed people.

To raise that money, it needs the banks. Now this is where the consequences of a policy of expropriation without compensation hits home.

Banks have, as is the nature of banking, highly leveraged Balance Sheets. They lend as multiples of the assets they actually have. They need to conform with the Basel ratio's. If they have a rise in bad debt, they can easily wipe out their Balance Sheets - they then become bankrupt, and they collapse.

So what do you think will happen if land is expropriated without compensation to the Banks? The answer is, they will see a rise in bad debt, and they will collapse.

That is not the end of the story. South Africa has seen its black population rise from approximately 2.5 m in the mid 19th century, to its current level of 50 m. The 2.5 m may be taken as the sustainable level of the black population without the benefits of colonialism, and of modern agriculture.

That 2.5 m number is important, because only 13% of South Africa is suited for agriculture, and only 3% is high quality agricultural land. The vast majority of South African agricultural land requires the application of modern technology.

Farming in South Africa is highly capital intensive. Farmers depend on bank lending not only to buy their farms, but also to provide essential working capital.

So, what happens if the land is expropriated without compensation, if the banks then collapse? Well it means no one is able to provide the essential working capital. If the farms then collapse, then up to 95% of the existing black population is at risk of starvation.
The banks can not access international markets, international lenders will not lend, South Africa then descends into chaos. At point, the international community would probably intervene military to restore order. As such, South Africa would have become yet another Failed State in the traditional African mold."