Minister downplays US blockade risk as fuel prices soar
“There’s no shortage of petrol, oil or diesel in the country. It is just expensive. That is the function of the price. But in terms of supply, it is available because we are not an enemy of Iran. That is what saved us. The issue is price and that is not in our control”, says mineral & petroleum resources minister Gwede Mantashe (“Fuel supply not at risk due to good terms with Iran, Mantashe says”, April 21).
Mantashe is technically correct: South Africa has not been subject to Iranian export restrictions and South Africa’s non-belligerent status does afford some diplomatic insulation from Iranian-side interdiction.
But Iranian willingness to sell does not equal physical ability to deliver. The relevant chokepoint risk was never primarily about whether Iran would embargo South Africa; it was always about whether the Strait of Hormuz would be physically navigable and whether the US navy would permit tanker traffic. The minister’s framing completely sidesteps this.
The US naval blockade doesn’t require Iranian co-operation to disrupt South African supply chains; it operates regardless of South Africa’s diplomatic alignment with Tehran. If the US is enforcing primary and secondary pressure on Iranian oil exports, South Africa’s non-enemy status with Iran is simply irrelevant to the physical risk.
Is the minister unaware of this distinction? His testimony before the parliamentary portfolio committee confirms the government’s public posture is supply reassurance plus price acknowledgement. But the blockade risk remains unaddressed in official messaging, which is itself an intelligence signal worth noting.
Chris Hattingh
Centre for Risk Analysis
Calls for accountability overshadow aid offers
It was with some incredulity that I read of the French government’s intention to provide concessional financing to assist South African metros with water, waste and energy infrastructure management (“France and SA in talks over €100m loan for metro trading services”, April 21).
Perhaps they are unaware, or are turning a blind eye to the fact, that these funds will simply be siphoned off into unscrupulous cadre bank accounts and exotic car showrooms without ever having a meaningful impact on their intended outcomes.
South Africa is not short of money to fund such activities ourselves, what we lack is any form of accountability for those who wantonly embezzle. I haven’t noticed any significant increase in demand for orange overalls, despite endless commissions and Special Investigating Unit investigations.
I would urge France’s ambassador to South Africa, David Martinon, to rethink his government’s generous offer and redeploy such funding to more deserving private sector infrastructure initiatives.
Chris Powell
Norton Bavant, England
Site value rating touted as a solution to urban land challenges
Geordin Hill-Lewis is getting lots of advice these days, but Ghaleb Cachalia frames the need for policy innovation rather well: “The DA’s ideological positioning remains unresolved. Its instinctive neoliberalism, lightly reframed in social democratic language, has yet to find authentic expression in a country marked by inequality. Bridging that gap requires more than rhetorical calibration: it demands policy innovation that speaks credibly to markets and the marginalised.” (“Race and identity remain central to who governs in SA, and for whom”, April 20).
A reintroduction of site value rating in our cities would fit nicely into the space. Though they comprise only a fraction of our total 122-million hectares, it is here where the bulk of the value, need, urgency and opportunity lie as regards South Africa’s land challenges. Coming up right now is a golden opportunity.
Hill-Lewis could, for example, have a conversation with his candidate for mayor of Johannesburg, Helen Zille, and endorse a campaign to reverse the epidemic of vacant stands spreading, as predicted, after the ANC abolished site value rating by passing the Municipal Property Rates Act in 2004.
The beauty of encouraging landowners to use their land productively rather than free-riding on the city’s growth generated by everyone else is that it fits Cachalia’s ideological imperative perfectly, if for no other reason than it is pragmatic not ideological.
Neoliberals globally have generally missed out on this big-time as did the national democratic revolution-type ideologues who in 2004 had a golden opportunity to extend site value rating nationwide. Instead, they thought it would be a good idea to discourage buildings by slapping rates on them instead of on land only. Talk about not fixing something when it ain’t broke!
One of the reasons for the dynamism of Johannesburg, which Zille will no doubt remember, from her youth here, was that vacant stands were a rarity. Instead of “land banks” and blackjack farms disguised by advertising hoardings, it was “buy, implode and build!”
Not all vacant stands are suitable for affordable housing, but could go a long way towards redressing the spatial inequities of apartheid. Equally important, turning our cities into vibrant building sites with cranes instead of hoardings will give that listless economy of ours the kickstart it so badly needs.
Stephen Meintjes
Linden
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.