The events playing itself out in South African politics and economics have made me to wonder if our country has external forces influencing the way we do things. In his book entitled "The Conspirator's Hierarchy" Dr John Coleman (a former MI6 intelligence officer) talks about the Committee of 300. This is a devious organisation which seeks to control the world and is said to be responsible for many invasions, civil wars, assassinations, espionage and God knows what other evil deeds they have committed. In another book, Coleman says that the Committee of 300 is constantly striving to control all natural resources in all countries. Their position has been stated and restated by H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell.

Nowhere was this position more strongly enforced than in the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Africa he says. There are striking similarities between Zuma's treatment at the hands of his detractors and Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of Congo in 1960. All post apartheid presidents were first hated by the Committee of 300 which used the media to rubbish them until they won them over after which they became their darlings. Both Mandela and Mbeki, we are told, started in similar vein until they were co-opted by the Brenthurst institutions, which are members of the committee of 300 after which they indirectly became the committee's puppets.

Amongst the current members of the committee of 300 in South Africa the list includes Chris Stals, the former governor of the Reserve Bank, according to Coleman. Doesn't this explain the reason why we have private investors at SARB who control about 80% of shareholding whilst government controls a mere 10% or so. This institution, by the way, is called a lender of last resort and is supposed to have the interests of the republic at heart but no they don't. The late Jan Smuts, a military leader, British Commonwealth statesman and Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa from 1919 until 1924 and again from 1939 until 1948, is said to have also been a member thereof. The DRC, then known as the Belgian Congo, which is the second largest country in the continent (Africa), was for decades ruthlessly stripped of its natural resources namely copper, zinc, tin, rubber, ivory and agricultural products such as cacao, coffee and palm oil.

Incidentally, South Africa has for years also been stripped of its mineral resources, namely gold, platinum, copper, agricultural products like protea, timber etc which is exported raw and comes back as finished products and sold to locals in dollar linked prices. The stripping was even more prevalent during the tenure of our esteemed comrades whom we expected to advance the cause of MDM & NDR but they soon ditched policies like RDP and nationalisation after their cooption or confusion by the IMFs & World Banks of this world. The ANC structures rightfully called for the Nationalisation of mines in Polokwane and this mirrored the ideals espoused in the Freedom Charter.

This call which has found its voice again seems to have caused an unwarranted consternation amongst some of the elite members. Dr Coleman contends that Belgian's King Leopold II often said that, "everything of value in the Congo belongs to me". He continues to say that this was certainly true, as the Belgian government ran the country's railroads, mines, smelters, cacao and palm oil plantations, factories, hotels through front corporations. The corporations answered to King Leopold II, in essence, to the Committee of 300 and my question is: are we in this new era immune to the committee's power and influence without necessarily undermining or doubting the new administration?

The surrogate relationship in Congo was the Committee of 300's policy at its best and sadly the Congolese workers received little pay, and what they did get was largely in the form of free housing, medical benefits and clothing. The committee's stranglehold on Congo was threatened by a then aspiring political leader by the name of Patrice Lumumba. In South Africa, there is what was then called the South Africa Foundation (but is now called Business Leadership South Africa) which is a member of the committee of 300. Most corporations aligned to it are owned by the Oppenheimers (or used to be), whom Coleman tells us are members of the Committee of 300 too. Sadly, the workers earn a pittance in these corporations hence the need to continually rally behind the ANC, COSATU & SACP and safe guard the Alliance's soul.

In 1959, Lumumba announced the formation of a national political party to oppose Belgian rule in that country. The Belgian authorities tagged Lumumba a "communist" and a danger to the welfare of the country. Recently, on politicsweb, Zuma's SACP biography was published by Paul Trewhela with a series of articles on how the Communists had taken over the ANC. Msholozi is no communist though, atleast he doesn't strike me as one, maybe if they said he favours socialism which is a happy medium I would understand. That however unsettles the committee of 300, which through various mouthpiece organisations are agonising about the possibility of changes in policies despite assurances that the emphasis will be on implementation of existing policies rather than an overhaul thereof.

Of course a closer look at the Polokwane resolutions, tells a different story though which is that as a country we are bound to change our economic system to Socialism. In the parliamentary elections campaign Lumumba's Mouvement National Congolais was the only truly national party that advocated a single unitary state, aimed at curbing age-old ethnic divisions. In the last elections, the ANC was the only truly national party bar the emergence of COPE since all other parties were regionally focused (i.e. IFP in KZN, DA in WC & ID in WC) with the ANC cutting across racial and ethnic lies but COPE banked on the Eastern Cape. In South Africa, Zuma has been labeled a danger to our economy and more recently a danger to multi-party politics. His latest gesture to the IFP for them to "come back home" and vision of consolidation must surely have rubbed his detractors the wrong way, judging from the comments from people like Patrick Laurence amongst others.

The MNC as Lumumba's party was called then won by far the largest number of seats of any party, but this was still only 33 out of 137. The ANC too won but overwhelmingly, with a near two-thirds majority which makes it academic to summise that it can't effect reforms through parliament considering its number of seats and adding those who are sympathetic to its cause.

Lumumba, as mentioned above was appointed prime minister, with his rival Joseph Kasavubu, the leader of the Kinshasa and ethnic Kongolese-based ABAKO party, being appointed a ceremonial president. There was once a suggestion that we relook at a Prime Minister position in cabinet which would undoubtedly have made Zuma a ceremonial president. Coleman tells us that Lumumba was suddenly arrested on a charge of embezzlement and then released without further prosecution. Zuma too was for years vilified and prosecuted on trumped up charges but thankfully never arrested and in the end common sense prevailed when all charges were dropped.

Lumumba, was in fact not concerned with communism, but he directed his efforts at bettering the lives of the Congolese people. Isn't this "bettering the lives of the poor" also not what Zuma stands for hence when addressing the masses after his inauguration,  he said that, "ngiyanithanda futhi ngiyofa lapho eniyofa khona"? Back to Lumumba, in 1960, unrest occurred in Congo as Lumumba called for independence from Belgium. He asked for help from the United Nations and the United States, but was refused such. Lumumba was dubbed a "man who plays with Marxist verbiage" by the State Department which, by the way, did not offer proof of its contention.

Isn't this the same tag which has for years been attached to Zuma who was hounded through the courts and embarrassed through the media for the very same reason? Coleman continues to say, Lumumba's amazing gift of oratory was noted by the CIA in their reports from the Congo and they also described Lumumba's alleged communist connections. Zuma has alternately been labelled a "populist" who says one thing to one group and something else to the next group, because of his gift of capturing his audience?

Others like Stanley Uys have already started to write the political obituary of the tripartite Alliance, claiming that he made empty promises which will catch up with him. These esteemed writers forget what Oliver Tambo once said of the character of the ANC-SACP relationship on the 30th June 1981. This was on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the SACP and I quote, "It is often claimed by our detractors that the ANC's association with the SACP means that the ANC is being influenced by the SACP. That is not our experience, if at all, our experience is that the two influence each other. The ANC is quite capable of influencing and is liable to be influenced by others.  There has been an evolution of strategy which reflects this two-way process..."

It is important to note further that these sentiments were expressed since when Moses Mabhida had just been elected the General-Secretary of the SACP. He continued to say, "...In fact, the ANC was quite within its rights to tell the SACP that sorry but we cannot release comrade Moses from his tasks in the ANC, find another comrade to be the General-Secretary, yet we agreed that he would be a good General-Secretary for the SACP. He was not grabbed". Clearly therefore, these detractors' rants and ravings have no basis of fact but it's driven by a desire to sow confusion and cause divisions in the ANC's ranks.

Coleman tells us further that in August 1960 two CIA officers, both with criminal records, were ordered by Allen Dulles to murder Lumumba within 3 months. The following month, the CIA ordered Joseph Schneider, a bacteriological scientist, to the Congo with a diplomatic bag containing a vial of a lethal virus to be used to kill Lumumba. Dulles ordered the elimination of Lumumba after apparently consulting with Eisenhower, but the virus carried by Schneider could not be administered because Lumumba was constantly on the move. The break-in president Zuma's Durban flat led me to suspect that the perpetrators were trying to administer poison on Zuma and/or lace his clothes with poison, this being a similar fate which befell his predecessor as the ANC's Chief of Intelligence (Joe Nhlanhla).

Anyway Coleman continues to write that, the Senate Committee overseeing intelligence operations chaired by Frank Church, reported that the CIA was in touch with elements in the Congo who wanted Lumumba killed. The implication of the Church report was that these were Belgian government officials. There was once a report of a paid assassin in Durban which was quickly rubbished and the would-be assassin was discredited with the help of newspapers. Back to Lumumba, fearing for his life, he sought protection from the United Nations, but was turned away. Instead, the United Nations placed him under house arrest, but he managed to escape in a car provided by his brother, and with his wife and one of his children. Lumumba eventually fled to Stanleyville, where he enjoyed strong support. Accordingly Coleman tells us that, CIA reports in 1960 tell of how the agency helped to recapture Lumumba by showing the Congolese military how and where to set up roadblocks.

The puppet leader appointed by the Committee of 300, one Joseph Mobutu Seseseko, oversaw the search. When Lumumba was caught by Mobutu's men on 1 December 1960, he was held prisoner until the 17th January 1961. On 12 February 1961, Mobutu announced that Lumumba had mysteriously disappeared after he escaped from a house in a remote area where he was being held and that he had been killed by hostile tribesmen.

But again according to Coleman, the CIA's John Syckwell said that a CIA agent drove the body of Lumumba around in the trunk of his car while deciding what should be done with it. It was never disclosed as to exactly what was done with it however, the United Nations instead reported that two Belgian mercenaries, Colonel Huyghe, and Captain Gat, were the killers. The Justice Department ended its inquiries by concluding that there was no evidence to support any CIA involvement in Lumumba's murder.

One can't help but worry whether there will be attempts on Zuma's life in order to try to silence him forever since when they failed to stop him through the courts and the ballot , having also been tried albeit unsuccessfully in a court of public opinion (i.e. media). In Congo during Lumumba's time, when the locals realised that things didn't change quickly in terms of the reversal of the slant in economic spoils, especially Africans who were not immediately promoted to the officer corps within the army, the troops mutinied and they turned on Lumumba.  A week later the copper-rich province of Katanga declared its independence, under the leadership of Moise Tshombe.

The clandestine ways of the DA in opposing the 17th Amendment Bill and its Western Cape led government give me an impression that if they had it their way, they would declare independence or have a federal system. In the Congo unrest, the Belgians immediately flew in paratroopers to support Tshombe's secession and to supposedly protect Belgian lives and property in the rest of the country. In South Africa, the DA has been trying too hard to find out if our borders are safe and whether the SANDF is ready to protect it. Why? With the history of people like Mark Thatcher and Simon Mann, in their failed attempt at a coup de tat in Equatorial Guinea, of which the DA didn't see anything wrong with their plot, I can't help but wonder if someone is testing the waters in terms of the state of our soldiers' preparedness should our country be invaded.

Zuma is the commander in chief by virtue of being the state president and he should know that such questions indicate that someone or something poses a threat. Also should changes not come quickly or should there be changes which unravel the status quo for some there could well be trouble. The public's squeal about service delivery issues is justifiable and their impatience with the ruling party's past failures poses a threat of revolution. Any reluctance on the part of government to shift to the left and sit at "centre-left" is likely to cause problems for the country too. The strikes which are being organised by COSATU or its affiliates are not to be confused for this threat though as these do not fall in the same category of carefully orchestrated plots to undermine government.

My advice to president Zuma is: don't let these delays be used by your detractors to pull you down mfokaNxamalala because they can capitalise on this and influence the unsuspecting poor to cause unrest in the country once our people have been infiltrated. In reference to those overseas trips that Zuma made before Polokwane, the opposition was worried - asking as to who was he seeing and why was he making assurances to these people?

But I guess as a former Vula and Bible man who beat the apartheid generals in their own game, the country may be safe under Zuma. As a former intelligence man, you will know what to do Mr President and you will always have our support for as long as you keep the promises made through the manifesto - anything less spells trouble. Even as we are comfortable with this son of the soil, (president Zuma) and without being an alarmist, the electorate will need to remain vigilant in order to ensure that the president too doesn't fall in the same trap (i.e. either of being co-opted or being overthrown by those who sympathise or work for the Committee of 300). Do I have reason to worry or am I being paranoid? Only time will tell.

Musa Xulu (a concerned observer - neither a spin doctor or spokesperson)

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter