From April 28, 2017, this article will be public on EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW

reproduced here with permission from the authors,  with temporary substitutes for some images


South Africa Fights For Its Turn to the East

by David Cherry and Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane


April 8—The Empire struck back—with mass marches for regime-change on April 7—when South African President Jacob Zuma fired Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, London’s man, over March 30-31 in a major cabinet reshuffle. Zuma appointed in his place Malusi Gigaba, a partisan of the BRICS, who had been Home Affairs Minister. The fury of the City of London and Wall Street went off the charts, and reflected a difference of principle between the two ministers.

Pravin Gordhan had been fundamentally hostile to the vision of the BRICS, while doing his best not to appear so. Great projects? No, not today, thank you. He threw up obstacles against the very projects required to transform South Africa into a prosperous nation, one in which every family could look forward to a better life for its children. If you have wondered why the Johannesburg Regional Center of the New Development Bank (the BRICS bank)—which began hiring staff in March 2016—still does not have a director general, the answer lies in Gordhan’s obstruction.

Ex-Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan

Malusi Gigaba presents a sharp contrast to Gordhan’s imperial thinking. Last August 11, Gigaba, then Home Minister, attended the launch of the BRICS Journal in Johannesburg and was interviewed by Lameez Omarjee of the financial news website Fin24 on the spot. Gigaba said that South Africa should:

industrialize, manufacture more, and trade more on manufactured goods, and the best platform for that is both the African continent as well as the BRICS countries and emerging countries in general. . . .

We therefore need to view ourselves in relation to the continentand take a perspective that if the rest of the continent develops, infrastructure-wise, economically, politically, then South Africa’s own role and position is further enhanced, and in so doing, in developing the African infrastructure story, we can use that very strongly to create your downstream industries, to create your supplier industries, to industrialize our economies on the basis of that infrastructure rollout, and ensure that through that, we can then be able to face up to other parts of the world. . . .

Gigaba went on to attack the “hysteria” in the West about China and its role in Africa and elsewhere, according to which China is “out to gobble up our resources, to recolonize us.” But, he said, we are no longer so weak, and we are more aware: “We have had an experience of centuries of colonialism.” In this way, he drew out the laughable image of the perpetrators of ongoing imperialism in Africa being now so kind as to warn the continent against the alleged threat of imperialism from another quarter. The New Development Bank, he said,

gives us the opportunity to leverage funding for our infrastructure investments in a way that must lead to industrialization, because in itself, infrastructure can be a driver for economic growth—and it will benefit from economic growth—and it can be a [word indistinct] for industrialization. That’s what we need to use it for, and therefore, to take that leverage and engage with fellow BRICS countries in a manner that ensures that whatever investments they make on the African continent, they are linked to industrialization, . . . [and] therefore build the stage of the African continent in the world.1

Gigaba’s outlook rests on the same intentions that Nelson Mandela held and expressed upon being released from prison in 1990. And Mandela would have acted on those intentions if he had found a partner in U.S. President Bill Clinton. But beyond warmth and admiration, Clinton did nothing to enable Mandela to withstand the oligarchs of the British system, whom he did not have the courage to withstand, himself. It was also President Mandela’s decision, in 1996, to end South Africa’s recognition of the Republic of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China.

Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba.


LaRouche Method in Action

LaRouche South Africa (LSA), led by one of us, Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, has played a major role in inspiring the growing resistance to the tenacious imperial hand, the hand that captured the state more than 200 years ago, and has managed to keep it to this day. (Even National Party rule from 1948 to 1994, properly understood, was no exception.) The thrust of Tsokolibane’s and LSA’s method, learned from U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche—always situating major events and policy issues in terms of the higher, global strategic picture, and having confidence in the possibility of a better world—is evident in their record, summarized here:

Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane speaking at the BRICS Conference Australia 2015

Obama, mass murderer. LSA exposed President Obama as a mass murderer as he arrived to speak on the Soweto campus of the University of Johannesburg, June 29, 2013. Tsokolibane and LSA member Frank Sukwana were interviewed by a host of international press; the press featured their large posters of Obama with his Hitler moustache. Obama told his audience, in effect, that Africa would not be allowed to industrialize, since it would damage the planet.

Nuclear power and BRICS. On July 25, 2014 in EIR, Tsokolibane and his coauthor, David Cherry, celebrated President Zuma’s decision to add 9,600 megawatts of nuclear power to South Africa’s existing nuclear power production of 1,860 megawatts—in combination with his already established policy of vigorous participation in the BRICS.

Regime change. In the same EIR article, the authors first warned of regime change—months before the National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) and Rev. Barney Pityana first publicly called for regime change in December 2014. They warned: “The British financial empire will seek all possible avenues to disrupt the implementation of South Africa’s nuclear plans and crush the assertion of sovereignty that made those plans possible. The empire has seen this moment coming. It has the been laying the groundwork for another of its regime change operations—as seen in Iraq, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere.”

Nuclear for all Africa. On July 21, 2014, LSA issued a statement demanding nuclear power for Africa, to include “many safe, South African-designed Pebble Bed reactors throughout the continent. To be truly free, we must have cheap, abundant energy, to power all other development, including the provision of fresh water.” Conventional nuclear power and later fusion are the only path to that end, and “If Africa does not go nuclear, then it will die.” At the annual Nuclear Africa conference in 2016, Tsokolibane and LSA member Samuel Lepele had opportunities to tell nuclear specialists and government officials about BRICS and the possibility of financing nuclear via the BRICS’ New Development Bank. South Africa resumed its work on the Pebble Bed reactor in 2016.

Regime change networks. Tsokolibane and Cherry, in “No to British Regime Change in South Africa!EIR, Jan. 16, 2015, exposed previously unrecognized regime change connections between figures such as Gene Sharp and Michael Burawoy in the United States, and their collaborators at the University of the Witwatersrand, the University of Johannesburg, and elsewhere.

Mobilization for BRICS. LSA urgently called on government to educate and rally the people around the BRICS and its vision. Its statement, released Jan. 16, 2015, titled “Will You Allow the British Empire to Finally Destroy South Africa?” also stated, “Not enough of our citizens even know what the BRICS is, let alone that the BRICS policy represents the only hope.” President Zuma and others in government, such as Malusi Gigaba, have since taken on this responsibility.

The BRICS vision. Tsokolibane spoke on “Developing Africa through the BRICS” on March 29, 2015 at the Melbourne, Australia conference of the Citizens Electoral Council titled, “The World Land Bridge: Peace on Earth, Goodwill Towards All Men.”

‘Maidan Square’ threat. Tsokolibane published “Regime Change Movement, Against BRICS and Nuclear Power, Is ‘Marching to Pretoria’ ” on the News24 website on June 24, 2015, after the announcement of an Aug. 19 mega-march on Pretoria. He provided evidence that pre-arranged violence by provocateurs was likely. Pretoria News provided a link to the article. Within 24 hours, however, the article and its cached version came down for reasons unknown (but easily guessed—Patrick Gaspard was the U.S. ambassador). The article had hit its mark. The cacophony of the press against Zuma subsided temporarily, the march waspostponed, and Citizen editor Steven Motale published on Aug. 12 his powerful column, “I’m sorry, President Zuma,” which begins, “I’ve been party to the sinister agenda against Zuma, and can only apologize.”

New Suez Canal. Tsokolibane broke the blackout in the South African press of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s impressive and just completed project to expand the capacity of the Suez Canal, in a column in Pretoria News, Aug. 21, 2015.

Letter to Trump. After President Trump declared that his administration would put an end to continual war and regime change operations, Tsokolibane wrote to him on March 16, 2017. His letter said, in part, “I ask that you authorize a thoroughgoing investigation of individuals and organizations, both inside the U.S. government and outside, especially those U.S.-based organizations associated with Mr George Soros, regarding their involvement in coup and ‘regime change’ activity against the elected government of President Jacob Zuma of South Africa. I also ask that you to order all U.S. government agencies and individuals, including those associated with the U.S. State Department, and including left-overs from the Obama Administration, to immediately cease all support for regime change activities directed against the government of South Africa.”

U.S. regime change probe. When U.S. Senator Mike Lee announced that he and other senators were probing State Department regime change operations in Macedonia, Tsokolibane wrote to him on March 20, 2017, to propose that he extend his inquiry to include such operations in South Africa. He wrote, in part, that his associates affiliated with Lyndon LaRouche have provided leads that point to Obama and his State Department henchmen, including former U.S. Ambassador Mr. Patrick Gaspard, now the vice president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations,with responsibility for strategic direction and oversight of the agenda. Soros’ operatives, Tsokolibane wrote, are at the center of the efforts to oust President Zuma and reverse his policy for South Africa to play a key role in the BRICS alliance. This summary shows that method is right and the results are good, but the shutdown of the regime change networks has not yet been accomplished. That is evidenced by the April 7 demonstrations, even though they were weak. Demonstrations are but one strategic prong. There are other battle fronts, such as the upcoming attempt to get a vote of No Confidence in parliament, that will work in synergy with the demonstrations; there is still great danger.

The April 7 Demonstrations

Possibly as many as 50-60,000 people demonstrated “against Zuma” in all cities combined. About 15,000 of the total reportedly gathered in the largest demonstration, at Union Buildings, the seat of government in Pretoria. The government’s nuanced security work was well planned and well executed, leaving little room for incidents to get out of hand. The managers of the demonstrations were themselves not pleased with the puny size of these crowds. One commentator in the financial press used crowd sizes in the recent regime change in Brazil (as a percentage of total population) as a measure. The April 7 crowds in South Africa were largely middle class gatherings and did not draw all urban elements. Half of South Africa’s urban population lives either in the impoverished townships or as squatters in “informal settlements,” and this half of the urban population did not march. And, the leadership of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)—in spite of having bought into the anti- Zuma propaganda—ordered its members not to participate. COSATU came to understand that the unconstitutional removal of the President would be the real source of harm to South Africa’s democracy which, by default, is in the custodianship of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). When former President Thabo Mbeki was unceremoniously removed from office in 2008, it had split the ANC, just as George Soros had wished for a few years ago, during a visit to Cape Town.

Who Runs ‘Save South Africa’?

Regime change or “color revolution” is a way to win wars without having to fight them. It is a form of war. Its history in imperialist practice has been examined in earlier EIR articles.2 The April 7 demonstrations across South Africa were largely under the aegis of “Save South Africa,” which managed its operations through international big business, with the Oppenheimer family’s Anglo American Corporation taking leadership. But it would be wrong to seek to understand such regime change operations as being ultimately controlled by and for big business. They are, rather, controlled by and for the oligarchs— the elite of the elites—and big business is a tool with extensive capabilities that is well aligned in outlook. The “Save South Africa” operation—which has promised to deliver more and bigger demonstrations in the coming days and weeks—is led by the Britishtrained Sipho Pityana, chairman of the board of Anglo- Gold Ashanti (17% owned by Anglo American), with input from George Soros’ Open Society network, British agent Richard Calland, and others. In early September 2016, in forming Save South Africa, Pityana brought together a core of like-minded big-money people in business; the academics, political opposition leaders, and NGOs were brought in later. Pityana is not well qualified as a righteous critic of the wrongdoing of others. He joined the board of AngloGold Ashanti—one of the world’s biggest gold mining companies—in February 2007 when it was 42% owned by Anglo American. In August 2008, War on Want, the British NGO, published “Anglo American: The Alternative Report,” in which it said of AngloGold,

Trade unionists who have stood up against AngloGold Ashanti mining operations in Colombia have been murdered by military units assigned to protect the company, while the company’s links with armed groups responsible for human rights abuses in the DRC have raised serious questions over its continuing presence there.

In January 2011, AngloGold was named the world’s “Most Irresponsible Company” at the Public Eye Awards in Davos, Switzerland, and was accused there of a history of “gross human rights violations and environmental problems.” GhanaWeb’s news report on the event is titled, “Anglo- Gold Is World’s Most Evil Company.” AngloGold Ashanti—of which Pityana has been chairman of the board since 2013—attempted to clean itself up by initiating a conference to jawbone about “Ecumenical Reflections on Mining,” held at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Lambeth Palace in October 2014. This Pityana is the chief of the self-righteous coup organizers against democratically elected President Zuma. Pityana’s combined salary and bonus from AngloGold alone was $411,250 as reported in 2016, not to mention his income from other directorships and chairmanships, such his chairmanship of Munich Reinsurance of Africa. His brother, Rev. Barney Pityana, rector of the Anglican College in South Africa and Fellow of King’s College London, was one of the first to openly promote regime change in South Africa, long before Save South Africa was formed. He stood the truth on its head when he told a meeting in Johannesburg, convened by Democracy Works on Dec. 4, 2014, “Indeed we do want regime change, because that is what democracy is all about.” The organizer of Save South Africa’s Pretoria rally on April 7 was Mark Heywood, one of those numerous fake Marxists who learned to play the part at Oxford University. Heywood’s college at Oxford was Balliol, famous as a nursery for intelligence operatives. In Port Elizabeth, the Save South Africa rally was organized by a close associate of Sipho Pityana, Mkhuseli Jack, a wealthy Eastern Cape businessman who funded the Congress of the People (COPE) party when it split off from the ruling ANC in 2008.

Sipho Pityana, leader of the “Save South Africa” operation seeking to implement regime change in South Africa.

Oxford-trained Mark Heywood organized Save South Africa’s Pretoria rally on April 7.

The ‘Logic’ of Regime Change

The architects of the regime change operation, with the help of the mainstream media, are indoctrinating South Africans with two absurd mantras: First, that “Zuma is the problem, and if we can overthrow him, and get rid of his friends, the Gupta brothers, then corruption will be gone and all will be well.” So, then, South Africans will be guided by fine fellows such as Sipho Pityana. Second, that “Zuma is a dictator, and because he violates the constitution, we must throw him out by unconstitutional means to save the constitution.” South Africa’s constitutional system may be weaker than desired, but Zuma was elected in a fair contest, and appears to retain majority support. The real purpose of regime change is ungovernability. That should be obvious, especially for the “educated” people who seem now to accept what they are being told, that their moral self-righteousness and group-think trump all. Bertrand Russell wrote, “In order to condition students, verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. . . . It is for a future scientist . . . to discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black.” It is the same kind of operation that is being run in the United States against President Trump. His enemies— the same oligarchical enemies that Zuma faces—fear that Trump just might carry out some of the policies that he initially announced: an end to confrontation with Russia and China, an end to endless wars, an end to regime change operations, and a return to the American System of economy instead of the prevailing “loot thy neighbor” policy.

contact authors on:


1. See the embedded audio file in “Gigaba Challenges Western Media

Perspectives on BRICS,”


2. Such as David Cherry and Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, “No to

British Regime Change in South Africa!”: http://www.larouchepub.

com/eiw/public/2015/eirv42n03-20150116/44-55_4203.pdf and

Rachel Douglas, “Destabilizing Russia: The ‘Democracy’ Agenda of

McFaul and His Oxford Masters”:


Source: Executive Intelligence Review


Leave a Reply