<\/p>\n
By Gillian Schutte<\/strong><\/p>\n Peter Fabricius\u2019s article in Daily Maverick about Jacob Zuma\u2019s relationship with the late leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, is a revealing exercise in neo-colonial propaganda, presenting African alliances as morally compromised while keeping silent on the ideological influences of Daily Maverick\u2019s own American funding.<\/p>\n Using selective excerpts from Mathews Phosa\u2019s memoir ‘Witness to Power’, Fabricius attempts to cast Zuma as a blemished mediator corrupted by Gaddafi\u2019s financial support for the ANC in 2009, which Fabricius quickly notes may have tainted Zuma\u2019s impartiality as a mediator in 2011. Yet, Phosa\u2019s narrative, ironically, does not indict Zuma; instead, it shows a consistent diplomatic approach by Zuma that Fabricius disregards, preferring to twist Phosa\u2019s words into Daily Maverick\u2019s dubious framework. It\u2019s a familiar methodology, fitting comfortably within the publication\u2019s pathological obsession with critiquing African political relationships while shielding its own Western influences from scrutiny.<\/p>\n Fabricius fixates on Gaddafi\u2019s financial support to the ANC, strongly suggesting that it morally compromised Zuma\u2019s later diplomatic role in Libya. Phosa confirms that \u201cthe ANC did, under successive treasurers-general, receive donations from Gaddafi,\u201d which Fabricius frames as a shocking revelation mired in inherent African amorality. Yet this financial support reflects Gaddafi\u2019s long-standing Pan-Africanist solidarity, rooted in his vision of a self-determined continent free from Western control. In attempting to paint this support as corrupting, Daily Maverick, yet again, engages in selective critique, presenting African alliances as perpetually suspect, as though African solidarity is somehow less legitimate than Western influence.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Daily Maverick itself benefits from US-based funding sources, such as the Open Society Foundations, without the same scrutiny. The irony is palpable: US funding carries far more ideological weight than the African solidarities it critiques, arriving with a clear agenda that aligns with American interests. For decades, organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID have funnelled money into global media and civil society with the aim of aggressively pushing narratives that favour US values and neoliberal economic principles. While such influence is a longstanding practice, Daily Maverick strategically leaves its audience uninformed of its own ideological entanglements, presenting itself as \u201cindependent\u201d while aligning with Western perspectives on African affairs.<\/p>\n Equally obnoxious is the utter arrogance of the United States, which enforces strict transparency laws through the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This mandates any person or organisation receiving foreign funds to declare those affiliations publicly. Yet, this transparency is not required of American organisations when operating abroad. US funding bodies are free to influence media outlets worldwide, shaping discourse that promotes American interests.<\/p>\n Fabricius\u2019s article, focused on Gaddafi\u2019s support for the ANC, conveniently sidesteps the fact that American funds\u2014far more ideologically loaded\u2014have far-reaching influence on South African media without equivalent scrutiny. The double standard is preposterous. African financial alliances are deemed ethically suspect, while American funds mould narratives without the same level of accountability.<\/p>\n Fabricius\u2019s portrayal of Zuma\u2019s relationship with Gaddafi is no less distorted. Phosa\u2019s account shows that Zuma, far from playing a double game, tried to mediate between Gaddafi and opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril to avoid escalation. After meeting with Gaddafi, Zuma returned and stated that \u201cGaddafi was not amenable to discussions with what he regarded as terrorists.\u201d Instead of showing betrayal, this statement reveals Zuma\u2019s commitment to opening channels of dialogue, working to bridge divides rather than choosing sides.<\/p>\n Fabricius\u2019s interpretation of Jibril\u2019s frustration with Zuma as evidence of treacherous betrayal similarly obscures the facts. Phosa recounts Jibril\u2019s growing mistrust, captured in his question, \u201cHas Zuma changed?\u201d Yet Jibril\u2019s exasperation stemmed from Zuma\u2019s refusal to unconditionally back the opposition, not from any supposed deceit. Fabricius frames this as a flaw in Zuma\u2019s loyalty, ignoring that Phosa describes Zuma proposing a peace plan involving both sides\u2014a diplomatic approach essential to genuine mediation. This insistence on balance, which frustrated Jibril, becomes for Fabricius a reason to doubt Zuma\u2019s intentions, reflecting Daily Maverick\u2019s propensity to cast African leaders in a one-dimensional moral framework.<\/p>\n This obvious selective focus reveals Daily Maverick\u2019s broader neocolonial approach: African alliances are cast as suspicious unless they align with Western interests, while the publication\u2019s own American funding remains unexamined. South Africa\u2019s Political Party Funding Act (2018) requires political parties to disclose foreign donations exceeding R100,000, mandating a level of transparency and protecting against undue foreign influence. However, no such regulation applies to media outlets like Daily Maverick, which receive significant funds from American entities yet operate without transparency. While African political ties are scrutinised, Western-backed media are free to influence public discourse without equivalent accountability, creating a well-resourced system where certain interests shape narratives unchecked. This is tantamount to foreign interference, possibly bordering on terrorism. Not that this matters to Fabricius nor his Daily Maverick cronies.<\/p>\n What his article ultimately exposes is Daily Maverick\u2019s ideological thuggery, not Zuma’s supposed duplicity. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n It lays bare a publication way more invested in its monetised servitude to Western narratives than in honest critique. Rather than a balanced intellectual analysis, Fabricius offers a reductionist and deformed view of African leadership and diplomacy. He is clearly more invested in casting suspicion on African solidarities to deflect any examination of Western influence. This hackneyed approach speaks to Daily Maverick’s role as an ideological agent, serving to validate Western narratives about African political morality under the guise of \u201cindependent journalism.\u201d The strategic framing in Fabricius\u2019s article is not a product of accidental bias, but a deliberate choice to reinforce, package, and export a narrative that places African agency and resistance in a morally corrupt light simply because it does not conform to Western expectations.<\/p>\n In the end, Phosa\u2019s memoir does not show Zuma as a traitor but as a consistent mediator, attempting to prevent conflict through balanced engagement with both sides. Fabricius\u2019s embarrassing attempt to frame this as a betrayal collapses under close examination, exposing Daily Maverick\u2019s vile preference for casting African solidarities as morally questionable while remaining conspicuously silent on the influence of its own Western backers. This, is not an expos\u00e9; it is an exercise in brutal neo-colonial bias, wielding a false moral high ground to frame African alliances in a dubious light. Fabricius\u2019s article lays bare Daily Maverick’s role as an agent of Western-backed discourse, uncritically reinforcing an ideological agenda under the weak disguise of ethical journalism.<\/p>\n Far from a spilling of beans on Zuma, this article is an indictment of Daily Maverick\u2019s role as a willing weapon in the ideological war against a sovereign Africa. It\u2019s all about enforcing the shaping of African discourse to fit obediently within Western frames of morality and influence. A sorry excuse for critique, the only thing Peter Fabricius\u2019s fabrication leaves in its wake is the stench of Daily Maverick’s own bottom-feeding diet of dubious duplicity.<\/p>\n * Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.<\/em><\/p>\n ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or .<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Gillian Schutte Peter Fabricius\u2019s article in Daily Maverick about Jacob Zuma\u2019s relationship with the late leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, is a revealing exercise in neo-colonial propaganda, presenting African alliances as morally compromised while keeping silent on the ideological influences of Daily Maverick\u2019s own American funding. Using selective excerpts from Mathews Phosa\u2019s memoir ‘Witness […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[2195,3763,5717,13140,16889,3200,16890,14569,16892,5508,16893,16891,9296,1539],"class_list":{"0":"post-223700","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-politics","7":"tag-agenda","8":"tag-alliance","9":"tag-daily","10":"tag-distorts","11":"tag-fabricius","12":"tag-fit","13":"tag-gaddafi","14":"tag-mathews","15":"tag-mavericks","16":"tag-memoir","17":"tag-neocolonial","18":"tag-phosas","19":"tag-twisted","20":"tag-zuma"},"yoast_head":"\n