SD’S AGOA POSITION NOT INFORMED BY ‘LIES’

Last Wednesday, Prime Minister Sibusiso Barnabas Dlamini was apparently explaining to his parliamentary portfolio committee in the House of Assembly the circumstances that could lead to the Kingdom of eSwatini forfeiting its place in the United States of America’s African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), which provides a preferential trade regimen to African countries to access and export to US markets. To be part of the AGOA regime, a country needs to attain and fulfil certain and specific obligations, otherwise it is out in the cold.

As it were, the Kingdom of eSwatini’s continued eligibility to AGOA is under scrutiny owing to its constant violation of international conventions covering the broad spectrum of industrial relations and human rights. Were the Kingdom to be struck off the list of AGOA beneficiary countries, this would negatively impact on the largely Asian-sourced textile industries, culminating in the loss of thousands of jobs. 

The PM blames the country’s threatened AGOA position on fellow compatriots who allegedly peddle falsehoods about the Kingdom.
This newspaper quoted him in last Thursday’s article ‘Liars will cost SD AGOA benefits – PM’, as having said it was Swazis who wrote letters with false information about the country to Washington, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and other stakeholders who were to blame. “These Swazis report false matters stating that there was no freedom of assembly, among other freedoms,” he was quoted as having said. He further said these individuals inform the international bodies that Swazis were not allowed to talk freely.

Wrong

“There is freedom of assembly and speech in the country, but with all freedoms there are limits… If we keep sending wrong information to the USA then I can safely say it is Swazis themselves who lost us AGOA. Let us tell the ILO, Washington and London the truth.” He threw down the gauntlet to every Swazi to rise to the challenge, adding: “Let us blame ourselves if Swazis lose AGOA and not the USA and ILO.”

Although the PM was not specific about whom these Swazis supposedly telling lies may be, he almost surely must have been referring to leaders of organised labour, specifically the Trade Union Congress of Swaziland (TUCOSWA). After all, it was the same government that originally registered TUCOSWA but later on contradicted itself by successfully challenging such registration in court.

As I see it, it is indeed the first duty of the PM or head of government anywhere in the world to defend his or her government and, by extension, his or her country. Be that as it may, the red flag of lying compatriots that the PM was waving before members of his ministry’s portfolio committee as being causal to the Kingdom’s threatened position in AGOA seems to somewhat downplay the collective intellect of the nation because it is downright implausible and, therefore, impolitic.
I will deliberately ignore the PM’s assertions apropos freedoms of assembly, association and speech because the picture he painted in Parliament is not exactly what is obtaining on the ground.

Protesting

Ask the same Members of Parliament he was addressing, because just the other day they were protesting against being banned from using the national radio. And, if my memory serves me well, it was the self-same PM who promulgated the ban during the tenure of the Ninth Parliament.
As I see it, what passes for ‘lies’ in official circles here is often the truth those in leadership are always petrified to acknowledge and face head-on.

Rather than pointing accusing fingers elsewhere, the PM and the rest of those in leadership should be doing an introspection of how this country is governed. As it were, no one needs to manufacture and create any lies about this country in order to discredit it because the government is accomplished at doing unconventional things that attract negative publicity to this country.

But assuming the PM’s position is plausible, is he implying those who are the recipients of these ‘lies’ are fools since they allegedly base their decisions on untested statements, accusations, allegations, innuendos, etc? I am pretty certain they have ways and means of independently gathering intelligence that would then be checked and double-checked before any decisions are made. That should seem a basic assumption.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: