The SACP comes to General Maphwanya's rescue after criticism for controversial foreign policy comments
The South African Communist Party (SACP) has come to the defence of South Africa's army chief, General Rudzana Maphwanya.
This comes after the government distanced itself from controversial comments made by Mphwanya during his recent trip to Iran.
Maphwananya came under fire for suggesting that South Africa and Iran have common goals. He also criticised Israel for its actions in the ongoing war in Gaza.
In a statement on Saturday the SACP said there was nothing wrong with the comments Maphwanya made.
'The SANDF chief's comments in Iran regarding political and policy questions reportedly included South Africa's adopted and correctly articulated policy positions on Palestine.' it said.
'This reflects South Africa's international relations and cooperation policy, including solidarity.'
The SACP believes that the government seems to be punishing Maphwanya for his comments.
'The government and the Presidency in particular, appears to have begun to act to isolate and punish the chief of the military for the alleged contravention of military code regarding political statements and policy statements made during the trip.
'This action is not an objective act of correcting the defence conduct of a soldier but is a political capitulation to Western-aligned imperialist, right-wing pressure directly influenced by the imperialists' political interests.'
South Africa's foreign policy dilemma
The SACP accused the South African government of mixed messages concerning its foreign policy.
'It clearly appears that the government is being cajoled to project itself as pro-West and anti-Iran.'
Will action be taken against Maphwanya
The party also said Maphwanya's comments should not be compared to the actions of DA MP Andrew Whitfield who went to the US on an unapproved trip during his time as deputy minister of trade, industry and competition.
President Cyril Ramaphosa subsequently removed Whitfield as the deputy minister.
'This comparison is incorrect, as Maphwanya's visit took place within the framework of military regulations with the full knowledge of the Minister of Defence whereas Whitfield's visit was unauthorised.
'The SACP rejects the impending acts of isolation and scapegoating of Maphwanya to appease Western imperialist forces and their domestic agents. compromising South Africa's sovereign right to formulate and implement its own foreign policy, including on defence cooperation.'
The party said any actions by the government towards Maphwanya as military chief must be based on strengthening the country's military institutions and their capabilities.
'The SACP rejects any attempt at dictating which nations South Africa may have bilateral relations with, including defence, trade and investment.
'We will defend our country's right to build relations based on mutual respect, equality and solidarity, free from the dictatorship of Washington, Brussels or their local political surrogates.'
ALSO READ: Ministries distance themselves from SANDF chief's comments in Iran
Tensions with the U.S
The SACP's remarks come as South Africa is on a mission to reset relations with the US.
The Trump administration has also slapped South Africa with a 30% tariff on exports.
Relations with the US have been strained since the spreading of misinformation by some civic organisations.
NOW READ: Ramaphosa unaware of 'ill-advised' Iran trip by SANDF chief – Magwenya
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- The Citizen
The SACP comes to General Maphwanya's rescue after criticism for controversial foreign policy comments
South Africa has been criticised for its unclear foreign policy of non-alignment. The South African Communist Party (SACP) has come to the defence of South Africa's army chief, General Rudzana Maphwanya. This comes after the government distanced itself from controversial comments made by Mphwanya during his recent trip to Iran. Maphwananya came under fire for suggesting that South Africa and Iran have common goals. He also criticised Israel for its actions in the ongoing war in Gaza. In a statement on Saturday the SACP said there was nothing wrong with the comments Maphwanya made. 'The SANDF chief's comments in Iran regarding political and policy questions reportedly included South Africa's adopted and correctly articulated policy positions on Palestine.' it said. 'This reflects South Africa's international relations and cooperation policy, including solidarity.' The SACP believes that the government seems to be punishing Maphwanya for his comments. 'The government and the Presidency in particular, appears to have begun to act to isolate and punish the chief of the military for the alleged contravention of military code regarding political statements and policy statements made during the trip. 'This action is not an objective act of correcting the defence conduct of a soldier but is a political capitulation to Western-aligned imperialist, right-wing pressure directly influenced by the imperialists' political interests.' South Africa's foreign policy dilemma The SACP accused the South African government of mixed messages concerning its foreign policy. 'It clearly appears that the government is being cajoled to project itself as pro-West and anti-Iran.' Will action be taken against Maphwanya The party also said Maphwanya's comments should not be compared to the actions of DA MP Andrew Whitfield who went to the US on an unapproved trip during his time as deputy minister of trade, industry and competition. President Cyril Ramaphosa subsequently removed Whitfield as the deputy minister. 'This comparison is incorrect, as Maphwanya's visit took place within the framework of military regulations with the full knowledge of the Minister of Defence whereas Whitfield's visit was unauthorised. 'The SACP rejects the impending acts of isolation and scapegoating of Maphwanya to appease Western imperialist forces and their domestic agents. compromising South Africa's sovereign right to formulate and implement its own foreign policy, including on defence cooperation.' The party said any actions by the government towards Maphwanya as military chief must be based on strengthening the country's military institutions and their capabilities. 'The SACP rejects any attempt at dictating which nations South Africa may have bilateral relations with, including defence, trade and investment. 'We will defend our country's right to build relations based on mutual respect, equality and solidarity, free from the dictatorship of Washington, Brussels or their local political surrogates.' ALSO READ: Ministries distance themselves from SANDF chief's comments in Iran Tensions with the U.S The SACP's remarks come as South Africa is on a mission to reset relations with the US. The Trump administration has also slapped South Africa with a 30% tariff on exports. Relations with the US have been strained since the spreading of misinformation by some civic organisations. NOW READ: Ramaphosa unaware of 'ill-advised' Iran trip by SANDF chief – Magwenya
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
The Le Roux Question: Millions shape media, courts, democracy?
The Millennium Trust funds initiatives in media, law, civil society, and politics across South Africa, supporting organisations such as Daily Maverick, amaBhungane, CASAC, Freedom Under Law, and Judges Matter. | These grantees are said to operate with full editorial and organisational independence, but the Trust's influence is said to be exercised indirectly through advocacy, investigative work, and legal reform efforts, rather than through direct control. | The Trust provides financial support to the Democratic Alliance Image: Sizwe Dlamini ECONOMIST Dr Séan Mfundza Muller has issued a stark warning about the growing power of South Africa's ultra-wealthy, spotlighting Michiel le Roux, co-founder of Capitec Bank, and his alleged behind-the-scenes influence on media, politics, and civil society through strategic funding, raising questions about accountability, transparency, and the integrity of democratic institutions. Speaking on Ntsiki Mazwai's Moya podcast, Muller said: 'Another South African billionaire, who I think is very interesting, is Michiel le Roux, who is one of the people behind Capitec. Now, as far as I know — and I heard this both from a private source and then I also came across a public source of this information — Le Roux is behind a trust called the Millennium Trust.' Muller explained that, according to his research and private discussions, the Millennium Trust, which was founded around 2010, supports a 'constellation of powerful voices in civil society', noting: 'The Millennium Trust funds the Daily Maverick, amaBungane, the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac), Freedom Under Law, as far as I know … and I'm going from memory here.' He further said that the trust operated with a certain degree of opacity: 'But so you've got all these civil society organisations, all these media outlets being funded by this … trust. I mean, I've gone to look at the directors. You would never guess from the directors of this trust. You would not be able to find out who's behind it.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Muller described how he discovered the connection: 'I only found out because I stumbled across something online and because somebody who had direct knowledge … told me privately that Le Roux is behind this.' When reached for comments, the Millennium Trust said they would get the appropriate person to respond to questions from the Sunday Independent, but had not got back to us by the time of compiling this report. Attempts to get comments from Le Roux drew a blank. Regarding potential implications, Muller raised concerns about editorial independence and transparency, saying: 'While these funds support critical journalistic and civic activities, concerns persist about their impact on editorial independence. Newsrooms such as the Daily Maverick and amaBhungane maintain that funding does not dictate editorial control, yet the exact terms and amounts often lack full public disclosure, raising questions about transparency in media financing.' He also spoke about Le Roux's financial support to South Africa's main opposition party, the DA: 'Michiel le Roux funds the DA … so he also funds their court cases. He funds the civil society organisations that apply to the court to be friends of the court in court cases. And he funds the media houses that report on all of that.' Muller posed a rhetorical question on the ramifications for public understanding: 'Okay, now, how do you think as an ordinary person, you're going to be able to get accurate information on, for example, who's corrupt and who's not, who's good and who's bad?' He noted that Le Roux's donations reportedly exceeded R50 million between 2021 and 2023 through private companies such as Fynbos Ekwiteit and Fynbos Kapitaal, making him among the largest disclosed donors to the DA within that timeframe. Muller also commented on broader patterns of philanthropic influence: 'This is just one billionaire. When they control three, right, and those are just the ones we know about, right, that's not even like particularly covert. As soon as you know who's funding the trust, you can figure that out loud, right? There's a whole lot of other stuff that we know less about, what we have to find out about through private sources … like who's funding Rivonia Circle … which is another thing which I've raised over the last couple of years.' Reflecting on new civic movements and political projects, Muller observed: 'Rivonia Circle was really the platform that Songezo Zibi used to start Rise Mzansi, which eventually we discovered was funded by the Oppenheimers.'
The Star
8 hours ago
- The Star
BRICS+ Series: The link Between the G20, BRICS & The Global South
Cole Jackson and Dr Iqbal Survé | Published 2 days ago The G20 (Group of 20) was established in 1999 in the wake of the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis as an informal platform bringing together Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from the world's leading developed and emerging economies to address global economic and financial stability. While its early discussions centred primarily on broad macroeconomic concerns, the G20 has since broadened its scope to cover a wider range of global priorities, including trade, climate action, sustainable development, health, agriculture, energy, environmental protection, and anti-corruption efforts. BRICS was established in a similar fashion, as quoted by Cole Jackson: ' The BRICS grouping has, to a large extent, grown naturally considering the global climate during its formation and in today's context. BRICS was formed in 2009. Its formation follows the 2007/08 financial crisis, caused by a period of dramatic economic downturn in the United States (US)--due to the housing market collapse and a subprime mortgage crisis–leading to a global recession. Many countries, the world over, bore the brunt of this recession, especially those countries in the Global South already battling economic difficulties.' The G20 comprises BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia) and other countries in the Global South (Argentina & Mexico). These presidencies and officials often overlap between countries in the Global South, G20, BRICS (and its associated institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB)). This in essence, means more than a quarter of members are BRICS or Global South affiliated. However, due to the United States (US) & Canada, for example, being part of the G7 they need to collaborate and deliberate with many of these countries having BRICS/Global South agendas to fulfill. Reforming Global Governance G20: Includes both developed and emerging economies and increasingly acknowledges the need for reform in global financial institutions (like the IMF and World Bank). BRICS: Actively pushes for a multipolar world and reform of institutions to reflect the voices of emerging powers and developing nations. Global South: Wants a fairer system where their voices are heard and interests are not sidelined by traditional Western powers. Promoting Inclusive and Sustainable Development G20: Advocates for sustainable development, climate finance, and reducing inequality, especially through multilateral cooperation. BRICS: Prioritises development-led growth, infrastructure financing (e.g., through the New Development Bank), and South-South cooperation. Global South: Seeks development financing and capacity building on their terms, focusing on health, education, and infrastructure. G20: While not centered on the Global South, it increasingly includes dialogues on cooperation between developing countries. BRICS: Champions South-South cooperation as a means to share resources, technology, and strategies among developing nations. Global South: Sees South-South partnerships as more equitable alternatives to Western aid or conditional loans. Multipolarity and Economic Sovereignty G20: Includes rising powers like India, China, Brazil, and South Africa, reflecting a shift away from unipolar dominance. BRICS: Promotes a multipolar world order with diversified centers of power. Global South: Seeks to reduce dependency on the West and build regional blocs and alternative financial institutions. Climate Justice and Energy Transitions G20: Has focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation, though progress varies. BRICS: Supports climate action but emphasizes common but differentiated responsibilities. Global South: Advocates for climate finance, technology transfer, and the right to develop. The growing alignment between the G20, BRICS, and the Global South reflects a strategic shift towards a more inclusive and multipolar global order. With overlapping memberships and shared priorities—ranging from global governance reform and sustainable development to climate justice and economic sovereignty—these groupings increasingly influence one another. BRICS and the Global South have injected fresh urgency and purpose into G20 deliberations, pushing for a system that better represents emerging economies and developing nations. As this alignment deepens, it strengthens efforts to reshape international institutions, promote equitable growth, and ensure that the voices of the Global South are not only heard but also acted upon. Written By: Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Cole Jackson Lead Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Chinese & South American Specialist * MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
