The pot calling the kettle black!

President Zuma was interviewed on CNN yesterday and has been cited as criticising former president Mbeki’s standpoint on HIV and Aids. He said that Mbeki’s choices and actions were “not government policy”. The Times Online article argues that this was criticism of the previous regime, but to me it seems like simple defensiveness.

So what if to question the usefulness of ARVs was not government policy? It happened and it was not stopped, or criticised by Zuma at the time. Never mind the support for Manto Tshabalala Missing-her-mango (as she is characterised in the comedy Black Mamba) in her crusade to use beetroot and madumbis for a cure. This was not only ill-placed; according to a Harvard School of Public Health report it was deadly. More than 330 000 lives were lost because of these actions between 2000 and 2005. Not government policy? I should fricking hope so.

Zackie Achmat has congratulated Zuma and called for an apology from Mr Mbeki and co. But this is not enough, because the misinformation on HIV has not stopped. There are no phrases describing them as the “dark old days” because the days remain dark and denialism still runs riot amongst the leadership.

Zuma’s comments in one interview don’t suggest to me that he is critical of their positions. They suggest to me that he was defensive, and was trying to portray South Africa as well-governed, with one or two crazies (Enter M and T-M). It was pure defensiveness and a means to suggest that he has it all under control. Where were the questions about his own views?

A 2006 M&G article cited the director of LoveLife who labelled Zuma’s own sentiments about HIV as “hugely damaging”. He stated during the trial in which he was accused of rape that he believed his own risk was “minimal”. How he came to this decision may have been based on the prevailing ideas at the time, but nevertheless it was unfounded and dangerous. As former chairperson of the Aids Council, why have there not been calls for his apology.

And what of his failure to deal with these issues during the interview. Rather than labelling them as freak accidents of a confused former president and health minister Zuma could have taken the opportunity to use his platform and make a clear statement. But, once again, he has not done so.

Zuma’s criticism of Mbeki was well-founded. He deserves criticism, and should apologise. But to say that it was “not policy” is not enough. He should have said “It was not government policy, and evidence clearly shows that those suggestions made by the former regime were wrong”; or, “It was not government policy, and I have come to learn that HIV most certainly causes Aids, that everyone can be infected, and that all South Africans are affected by HIV”. But he didn’t. Another painful silence, probably punctuated by the infamous laugh.

All in all, the pot has called the kettle black. It’s time for Zuma to be proactive. I’m waiting.