Pindula
Register Login

SA President Says He Can't Support Operation Dudula

SA President Says He Can't Support Operation Dudula

South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa said the ruling African National Congress (ANC) cannot support Operation Dudula, describing the movement as a “vigilante-like force”.

Speaking during the ANC’s Mpumalanga conference over the weekend, Ramaphosa said Operation Dudula seeks to divide African people. He said:

We cannot support a vigilante-type-of move against a group of people and particularly targeting them as foreign nationals because what we are doing then is just to divide our people on the African continent.

Operation Dudula emerged in recent months and its members, led by Nhlanhla “Lux” Dlamini, have been moving door to door in parts of South Africa and kicking out undocumented foreigners.

Supporters of the movement accuse foreign nationals of “stealing our jobs” and selling illicit drugs in the country.

Lux was recently arrested and charged while members of the group have pledged their undying support for the movement.

Meanwhile, Fees Must Fall activist Bonginkosi Khanyile has voiced his support for Operation Dudula and urged the South African Government to address the group’s concerns.

Khanyile said Operation Dudula is not against foreign nationals, it is against illegal foreign nationals.

More: The South African


Share Article

Sponsored

More

11 Comments

Sekuru Bvondo 1 month ago

Yet he concurred with Zimbabwe after rigged ellections. South Africa is the reason why Zimbabweans are suffering. Their mediation was one sided. Take care of Zimbabweans that u destroyed their independence. If u had mediated professionally, u wldnt be facing this.


Jah🇿🇼Tsvarie-07 1 month ago

If Ramaphosa doesn't support dudula where was he when it all started? he is saying it only coz obvious he got advise elsewhere...


vicky 1 month ago

l rhamaphosa u have the guts to spit such fatal words on public denying any linkage with this mafia

its crystal clear that u are into Dudula whatsapp group sponsoring them indirectly by ushering SAPS
your SAPS & these murders are knocking doors uprooting foreighners
arent you a SAPS chief boss
why cant yourestrain these mafias
time will come when you will be voted out
the world is watching you
if u keep doing this sanction will be envoked against you

you are a human right abuser


Sponsored

More
THE STREET LAWYER 1 month ago

CYRIL YOU ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS EVILOUS MOVEMENT.WHY DID YOU IMPOSE PENALTIES ON COMPANIES THAT WILL BE FOUND HIRING FOREIGN NATIONALS.THE POLICE MOVE AROUNDNWITH THESE DUDULA GUYS WHICH MEANS THE STATE SPECIFICALLY YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS XENOPHOBIC ATTACK ON FOREIGNERS ESPECIALLY ZIMBABWEANS..DONT LIE TO THE WORLD.AS FOR US ZIMBABWEANS,WE SCRUTINISE ALL THATS SAID AND DONE BY THE BIG ONES..

YOU KNOW WHAT NHLANHLA IS DOING AND ITS NOT RIGHT.YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO CONDEMN HIS ACTIONS FROM THE START.ITS TOO LATE THE STREETS HAVE PASSED A JUDGEMENT.YOU SUPPORT THE MVMNT DON'T LIE.

YOU CAN FOOL SOME PEOPLE SOMETIMES BUT YOU CANT FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.

YOURS SINCERELY
CDE POT HOLE
[THE STREET LAWYER]


Tecla Kasonga 1 month ago

Zimbabweans are going to come to your country in millions if you turn a blind eye on Zimbabwean politics.

Sekuru Gudo 1 month ago

ZIMBABWEANS ARE BRAINLESS AND STUPID. SOUTH AFRICA IS FED UP WITH EXCESS BAGGAGE THE ECONOMY CANT ACCOMMODATE SOUTH AFRICANS AND FOREIGNERS. CHISINGA PERI CHINUSHURA. ZIMBABWE AT ONE TIME IN THE EARLY 90S OFFLOADED MOZAMBICANS. HAMUCHADIWE. A TIPPING POINT IS COMING A BIG XENOPHOBIA LIKE NEVER BEFORE. TOUGH LUCK TO THOSE WHO DIDN'T PLAN WISELY. YOU WILL BE CHASED AND COME BACK WITH YOUR OLD TARTED UNDERWEAR.

Cde Luvale 1 month ago

Thus really and clear,new world order is on now ,deny it or agree with its philosophy


Vybz Kartel 1 month ago

New or old who cares??

007 1 month ago

tazvinzwa wakutongomirira every post here nhai.


nyari 1 month ago

SKIP NAVIGATION
logo

logo
MARKETS
CNBC TV
WATCHLIST

MENU
OPINION - POLITICS
A new world order is emerging — and the world is not ready for it
PUBLISHED SUN, APR 3 202210:17 AM EDTUPDATED 5 HOURS AGO
thumbnail
Frederick Kempe
@FREDKEMPE
WATCH LIVE
DUBAI – “Are we ready for the new world order?”

The provocative title of the panel that lead off the ambitiously named World Government Summit here last week was framed to suggest that a new global order is emerging — and the world is not ready for it.

There has been a proliferation of writing about who will shape the future world order since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, the most murderous Europe has suffered since 1939.

The tempting conclusion: Should Ukraine survive as an independent, sovereign, and democratic country, the U.S.- and Europe-backed forces will regain momentum against the previously ascendant Russian-Chinese forces of authoritarianism, oppression and (at least in Putin’s case) evil.

That sounds like good news, but there is a downside.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine and a series of COVID-related shutdowns in China do not, on the surface, appear to have much in common,” writes Atlantic Council fellow Michael Schuman in The Atlantic (a publication not related to the Council). “Yet both are accelerating a shift that is taking the world in a dangerous direction, splitting it into two spheres, one centered on Washington, D.C., the other on Beijing.”

My conversations in Dubai — at the World Government Summit and at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum — show little enthusiasm or conviction for this bifurcated vision of the future. The Middle Eastern participants have no interest in abandoning relations with China, the leading trading partner for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, or breaking with Russia, which established itself as a force to be reckoned with when it saved Syrian President Bashar al-Assad through its military intervention in his war.

Beyond that, our Mideast partners have lost confidence in America’s commitment to global leadership or competence for it following last year’s botched Afghanistan withdrawal. They are also experiencing whiplash from a Trump administration that trashed the nuclear deal with Iran to a Biden administration they feel is pursuing it without sufficiently factoring in Tehran’s regional aggression.

In all my many travels to the Mideast over the years, I have never heard this level of frustration from Mideast government officials with American policymakers.

That said, they are watching Ukraine with fascination, because a Ukrainian victory — with a strong, united West behind it — would force a rethink about U.S. commitment and competence and shift the trajectory of declining transatlantic influence and relevance. Conversely, a Putin victory — even at a huge cost to Russians and Ukrainians alike — would accelerate Western decline as an effective global actor.

My own answer to the panel question on our preparedness for “the new world order” was to quote Henry Kissinger (who else?) in questioning the premise. “No truly ‘global’ world order’ has ever existed,” Kissinger wrote in his book “World Order.” “What passes for order in our time was devised in Western Europe nearly four centuries ago, at a peace conference in the German region of Westphalia, conducted without the involvement or even the awareness of most other continents or civilizations.” Over the following centuries, its influence spread.

With that as context, the question is not what the new world order would be, but rather if the U.S. and its allies can through Ukraine reverse the erosion of the past century’s gains as a first step toward establishing the first truly “global” world order.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley tells me the effort was the fourth attempt toward international order in the past century.

The first effort after World War I, through the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, tragically failed. Instead, the world got European fascism, U.S. isolationism, a global economic crisis, and millions dead from the Holocaust and World War II.

Following World War II, the U.S. and its partners were dramatically more successful, building what came to be called “the liberal international order,” through the Marshall Plan and new multilateral institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank and IMF, NATO, the European Union, and others.

The third effort came following the West’s Cold War triumph. European democracies emerged or were restored, NATO was enlarged, the European Union expanded, and it seemed for a time that the rules, practices, and institutions developed in the West after World War II and during the Cold War period could absorb and steer an expanded international order. China profited from and embraced this order for a time.

What has been eroding now for some years is U.S. leaders’ commitment to defend, uphold and advance that expanded international order — what Kissinger called “an inexorably expanding cooperative order of states observing common rules and norms, embracing liberal economic systems, forswearing territorial conquest, respecting national sovereignty, and adopting participatory and democratic systems of government.”

American foreign policy leadership has rarely been consistent, but it was remarkably so after World War II and through the end of the Cold War. Since then, the inconsistencies have grown, underscored by former President Barack Obama’s “leading from behind” and former President Donald Trump’s “America First.”

Both, in their own ways, were a retreat from former President Harry Truman, and the post-World War II architecture and U.S. global leadership he established and embraced.

In the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE that were once our closest allies now are hedging their bets. Beyond the Iran disagreements, the failure of former President Trump to accept his own electoral defeat raises doubts among our friends about the durability of the American political system and the consistency of U.S. foreign policy.

Beyond that, our Mideast friends resent the Biden administration’s characterization of the emerging global contest as one pitting democracy versus authoritarianism.

“Every democratic attempt in the Arab world has turned ideological or tribal, so I’m not sure it is something we can work out successfully,” Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, told the World Government Summit. He sees the issues between democracy and authoritarianism as not binary, but ones of governance and the solution being “something in the middle of both.”

President Joe Biden’s decision to release on Thursday an “unprecedented” 180 million barrels of crude from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve was an acknowledgment that America’s traditional oil-producing partners were not prepared to help him. The decision came hours after OPEC ignored calls from western politicians to pump oil more quickly – and to resist any suggestion they should remove Russia from the organization.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited New Delhi this week to thank India for its refusal to join sanctions against Russia, an approach shared by Brazil, Mexico, Israel, and the UAE. Said Lavrov, “We will be ready to supply to India any goods which India wants to buy.”

To shape the future world order, the U.S. and Europe first need to reverse the trajectory of Western and democratic decline in Ukraine.


DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT 1 month ago

Nonsense ,it seems to me kuti wakarohwa nebhabharazi.


Leave a comment


Recent News


News Categories



Give us a Feedback