South Africa attracted world attention early this year, sadly not for hosting another FIFA World Cup but for xenophobic attacks that flared in Durban and other cities in which scores of so-called African economic refugees from other African countries were killed  or had their property looted and set on fire for ‘stealing’ local people’s jobs and business opportunities.
It was the second wave of xenophobic attacks, the first having broken out in 2008 in Cape Town where jobless black South Africans (who, after fighting a protracted struggle to end apartheid in 1994 still find themselves wallowing in abject poverty) vented their anger on fellow Africans, accusing them of ‘stealing’ jobs meant for locals.
No Zambian was reported to have been attacked or killed in the KwaZulu-Natal mayhem but a Mozambican was brutally slaughtered in cold blood while hundreds of Malawians, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Nigerians, Ethiopians and Somalis had their homes and shops destroyed.
The xenophobic attacks naturally aroused widespread condemnation from the international community. But most hurt were the various African countries that sacrificed so much and suffered reprisals from racist forces for harbouring African National Congress (ANC) and Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) freedom fighters and providing sanctuary to tens of thousands of South African exiles during the struggle against apartheid.
A former Zimbabwean colleague, who fled to Botswana when the simmering xenophobia-volcano finally erupted for the first time in 2008 in Cape Town, told me in Gaborone later that it was by ‘God’s grace’ that foreigners like herself managed to escape the violence that black South Africans  unleashed on their brothers and sisters from other African countries.
But why should Black South Africans treat only Black people as foreigners? Does it mean Black South Africans now accept White people and Asians (although the Chinese were targeted) as not being foreigners?
What a strange way of saying ‘thank you’ to people (fellow Africans) who helped you fight and win the battle against the oppressor who is still exploiting the people despite  having a  black man (Nelson Mandela then) as president, she said.
I agreed with her at the time and did so again this year when Black South Africans went on an orgy of destruction, killing and maiming fellow Blacks from various parts of the continent in a way reminiscent of the 1980s’ black-on-black violence that characterised Black miners’ hostels in Johannesburg.
Many observers, including the ANC and other liberation movements, believed strongly a third force was behind the hostel mayhem.
Can it, therefore, be deduced that the xenophobia attacks on non-South African Blacks are sponsored by some powerful elements with a hidden agenda?
Reports of thieves breaking into the South African Defence Force armouries (and stealing weapons) were abound in the run-up to the April 27, 1994 all-race elections. So it would be foolhardy for anyone to get complacent because the enemy could have taken a strategic retreat and is lurking somewhere, waiting for an opportune time to pounce and once that happens Black South Africans will have nowhere to run to for their safety.
Does that sound crazy?
A regular visitor to South Africa can plainly see that very little has changed for the poor majority because the economy is still firmly in the hands of the ‘boss’ who (once bitten) has even gone an extra mile to protect what he inherited from his ancestors who arrived at the Cape of Good Hope from Europe some four centuries ago.
It would, therefore, not be too far-fetched to argue that it is this type of ‘sniper’ who poses the greatest threat to a democratic South Africa and could be fanning the flames of hatred for non-South African Blacks who are probably seen as ‘trouble-makers’ out to ‘pollute’ the minds of the locals whom if left alone they can deal with in future.
President Jacob Zuma and other leaders, both black and white, who have condemned the xenophobia, therefore, deserve to be praised for their actions to prevent further attacks on innocent foreigners out there merely in search of better opportunities and whose parents were working on the Kimberly Diamond and gold mines by 1910 when the Union of South Africa came into being.
Having said that it is, however, important to note that xenophobia is not unique to South Africa or Africa as such. Xenophobia is a universal problem, as evidenced by incidents of racism/tribalism directed at non-indigenous communities in various parts of the world.
Looking in the distant past, for example, I remember one British member of Parliament (MP) who stoked the fires of xenophobia in the United Kingdom (UK) and by so doing helped the Conservative Party to win the 1970 general election.
To woo electors in favour of Conservative party leader Edward Heath, the veteran politician championed the repatriation of millions of Commonwealth immigrants from England Wales and cessation fresh entries into Britain.
Enoch Powell was not condemned but was widely applauded by voters from across the political divide. To salute him they sent the Tory MP a large number of letters, of about 5,000-6,000, for his stance on the immigration issue.
In one of his speeches, Powell had declared: ‘It would be absurd if I were to refrain from speaking about this subject (Commonwealth immigration). The scale of Commonwealth immigration into this country in the last twenty (20) years – a part altogether from the nature of that immigration – is already in point of numbers out of all comparison greater than anything theses have ever experienced before in a thousand years of our history.
Like any other man I can be mistaken; I can be mistaken either about the consequences or, if I am not mistaken about those, I can be mistaken about the possibility of averting them.
What is certain is that whatever the consequences are, my words could not cause them and my silence could not avert them. There are some so foolish so as to imagine, or so malevolent as to pretend, that those who think they foresee danger or disaster, therefore desire it.
One might as well accuse a man who warned against a rearming enemy of desiring the war he hoped to avert. The nation will be ill counselled which allows its statesmen to predict only what it is pleasant to hear.
The reduction of prospective numbers depends upon two counts of actions. One is the cessation of further immigration.
On this I find nothing to alter in what I said over two years ago: We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. However, I would be deceiving you if I allowed you to suppose that in my opinion the cessation of further immigration would sufficiently reduce prospective numbers to modify at all appreciably the consequences I foresee. I wish I could think so; but I cannot.
Therefore it follows that a major re-emigration or repatriation is essential if it is possible. The Conservative Party has adopted the policy of assisting the repatriation and resettlement of all who wish to avail themselves of the offer, without limitation of numbers.
The people of this country are told they must feel neither alarm no objection to a West Indian, African and Asian population which will rise to several million being introduced into this country.’
Powell on June 13, 1970 again warned of the ‘enemy within’ in his speech in Northfield in Birmingham, saying Britain was under attack, which most people found difficult to realise.
He went: ‘A nation like our own, which has twice this century had to defend itself by desperate sacrifice against an external enemy, instinctively continues to expect that danger will take the same form in future. When we think of an enemy we still visualise him in the shape of armoured divisions, or squadrons of aircraft, or packs of submarines.
As we prepare to elect a new parliament, the menace is growing, as such dangers do, at an accelerating pace. Other nations before now have remained blind and supine before a rising danger from within until it was too late for them to save themselves. If we are to escape the same fate, it is high time we opened our eyes; for the first condition of self-defence is to see what it is we have to fear,’ he concluded.
Former Times of Zambia senior sub-editor Goodwin Mwangilwa, who had been in the UK at the time attending courses at the Thomson Foundation in Cardiff, Wales, told me upon his return to the  Newsroom in Ndola that, ‘Bashi-mwana (son of man) things were beginning to get ugly out there because people had suddenly become hostile towards some of us’ due to Enoch Powell’s racist utterances.
Ten years later I was to experience xenophobia perpetrated by some UK youths during my attachment to the South Wales Echo newspaper in the Welsh capital.
A group of skin-heads emerged from nowhere, demanding to know ‘what the hell’ I was doing with a white girl’ as she and I strolled to the nearby Cardiff Castle for the annual Cardiff Festival.
The editor later said it was in fact advisable for black people ‘never to get anywhere nearer’ the quay or dockyards as ‘those crazy skin-heads can push you off into the sea’.
Experts say the nature and extent of Enoch Powell’s contribution to the 1970 Tory election victory  over Labour and Liberal Democrats remains a matter of opinion but he did receive between 5, 000-6,000 letters from voters from across the political divide, praising him for his stance on the immigration issue.
Some of the letters read:
Weybridge, Surrey.
‘All your many supporters feel, I am sure, that the contribution of your speeches during the last week made this wonderful victory possible, and it would appear that your words have not fallen on deaf ears at all.’
Norwich, Norfolk
‘Now it is all over, one can hear on every hand that you Enoch Powell won the Election for the Tories. On the 19th June at lunch time, I visited half a dozen pubs in the centre of Norwich and the topic was the Election and its result. The general view was that Enoch Powell had changed looming defeat into victory and people celebrated, in which I joined.’
Harrow, Middlesex
‘I voted Tory for the first time because I agree with your views on immigration.’
Wolverhampton, SW
‘It looks very much like a Conservative government by the early results; but I am hoping that this is not true, and I am a Socialist but not a member of the Labour party. Your outspoken views on the colour-question has helped the Conservative party, not hindered it…. The person the Labour party had to fear was you.’
Billericay, Essex
‘With my life history, going back to bitter childhood memories of the Depression in the North, I would not have believed that I could ever bring myself to vote Tory. Last week I did just that. I did it because your Tory voice is the only one to speak out, at least give an airing to this huge problem (immigration)’.
Carlisle
I have voted Labour for a great number of years now but at this present Election I voted for the Conservative party. My main reason for doing this was because you in your speeches were voicing my opinions and as a loyal member of Britain and a great believer in Britain I could do no other. I have written to the Prime Minister, Mr Heath, in this vein and also stated that I think he owed his success to your firm stand on the immigrant problem.’
But happily, one might say, things have changed for the better since then though most visitors and students from Commonwealth countries (particularly from the black and Asian section) cannot enter Britain without a visa – which some people regard as one way of keeping ‘unwanted’ settlers at bay.
I am not by any means trying to blur or justify xenophobia demonstrated by Black South Africans against their fellow Africans from other countries, but to condemn it in the strongest terms possible because it is not only an affront on individual liberties but also a crime against humanity, as espoused by the United Nations (UN).
Source: Powell and the 1970 Election (John Woop).
Comments please send to: alfredmulenga777@gmail.com