Does this give credibility to the United Nations, which has been under question for a bit?

Not really.

The problem has been the U.N. Security Council has something of a split because Russia and China, who have veto power there, are obviously supporting Iran.

And the Trump regime has its veto and it's using its formidable, let's say, its weight in global power politics, its bribery, its pressure points.

So the main strategy to go around the UN from Trump's standpoint seems to be working because he split the BRICS.

And he's got a board of peace that includes BRICS members like India.

It's not formally a member of the board of peace, but very supportive and was at the main meeting in February.

How should we understand that?

If you look at all the developments that are happening there and you have all of these massive China malls that are springing up and, you know, what you are saying is actually visible if one looks around you in terms of, the dumping you know why our trade is being dragged down and manufacturing etc but what about mining because you know looking at the gold price for example precious metals and you would think that maybe there we should be seeing a more positive picture why aren't we at least in the second quarter

Well, it was an extraordinary rise in gold, wasn't it, through about September last year.

And then it's up to 5,400 an ounce.

I think it's about 4,500 now.

So it has come down.

And of course, we don't have a handle on capturing all of the gold.

There are a lot of informal miners who do it.

When we look at household spending and the fact that it's increased by 0.4%, what comprises that particular category of household spending? Would something like online gambling fall into that because it shows 0.4% increase, yet the overall economy has contracted? So would something like gambling fall into that?

What makes this Concord judgment bigger than simply saying no, stopping Shell from exploring and potentially drilling off the wild coast?

Yes, thanks for having me, Lester.

Greetings to you and your listeners.

And just to disclose, I was a very, very minor figure in this, in writing the critique of offshore oil and gas, because when you take, especially the methane gas, it's 85 times more potent than CO2.

So I did some, I guess, testimony at the request of the Legal Resources Center.

But I think the main thing, having now gone through the High Court in Wakanda, the Supreme Court, and on Friday, the Constitutional Court, is a respect for a series of factors that I hope all oil and gas companies are intimidated by now.

And one of them is climate.

readily,

When you hear that, Professor, what reply do you have to people saying this is a massive blow for the economy?

Both Mike and Celine haven't looked properly at the ways in which oil companies extract.

They take a non-renewable resource, a hydrocarbon that our future generations may need, you know, for our production.

plastics.

I'm talking to you through a laptop.

Lots of hydrocarbons there for lubricants, for other synthetic materials, for tarmac.

All sorts of things come from hydrocarbons.

Will this, I'm going to call it the alternative economy, will that alternative economy bring in the same sort of investment and foreign investment, local investment that oil and gas has been doing?

And when COVID came around, we said, oh, what opportunity does this present for? for the African continent when there was fighting between or still is fighting between Russia and Ukraine? What opportunity does this present for the African continent, more so when ships have to reroute? Maybe the question again, here we are in 2026, what opportunity does this present? And are we ready to catch that opportunity or realize that opportunity?

I doubt it because our ports are so congested with container traffic, especially the major port of Durban, but also Cape Town, which ends up in the world's worst, least efficient ports, not because of any natural fault there.

It's very difficult weather and the congestion in that city helps explain why you couldn't really expect Cape Town to suddenly become a beneficiary of this, the shipping that goes around.

I think instead we would say maybe that the show of force by the Houthis and the Iranians' capabilities of withstanding constant bombing, then put Africa at great risk with higher petrol prices, again, up to $100 per barrel, and then shortages of fertilizers coming from the Gulf, and also then the knock-on effect on food disaster and major threats of inflation, and then higher interest rates, and then more debt defaults.

And these are all of the knock-on effects that we would expect if the war continues.

But what we're really seeing is a show of strength from the underdogs here, the Iranians and Houthis.

And of course, the Houthis themselves say, well, we're also attacking Saudi Arabia because they attacked us.

All of this is to cement the US's hegemony in the world.

What opportunity does this present for the African continent, more so when ships have to reroute? Maybe the question again, here we are in 2026, what opportunity does this present? And are we ready to catch that opportunity or realize that opportunity?

I doubt it because our ports are so congested with container traffic, especially the major port of Durban, but also Cape Town, which ends up in the world's worst, least efficient ports, not because of any natural fault there.

It's very difficult weather and the congestion in that city helps explain why you couldn't really expect Cape Town to suddenly become a beneficiary of this, the shipping that goes around.

I think instead, we would say maybe that the show of force by the Houthis and the Iranians' capabilities of withstanding constant bombing, then put Africa at great risk with higher petrol prices, again, up to $100 per barrel, and then shortages of fertilizers coming from the Gulf, and also then the knock-on effect on food disaster and major threats of inflation, and then higher interest rates, and then more debt defaults.

And these are all of the knock-on effects that we would expect if the war continues.

But what we're really seeing is a show of strength from the underdogs here, the Iranians and Houthis.

And of course, the Houthis themselves say, well, we're also attacking Saudi Arabia because they attacked us.

All of this is to cement the U.S.'s hegemony in the world.

Professor Bond, just to be clear, are we looking to increase the taxation in these zones or are we looking to decrease the taxation in these zones? How are these special economic zones currently set up in South Africa in particular?

Well, our broader corporate tax rate, 27%, it's kept coming down, down, down with the hope that that incentivizes new investment.

The peak was about, I think it was 52.5%.

If I'm not mistaken, in 1992, the apartheid regime was really needing that corporate tax.

And then Mandela and Becky, even Zuma and Ramaphosa, they've cut it.

And now it's 27.

So it's a big set of tax cuts with the anticipation, with the logic that if you lower the tax, you get more investment.

How do we strike the balance between using the subsidies as a tool to attract that investment and commitment into the country and doing it via special economic zones? Is there a distinct difference? Are there distinct benefits? And should we be weighing up one versus the other as a mechanism?

I thought the whole purpose of special economic zones was to enhance and encourage trade.

Yes, and special is the most important word.

An economic zone can be a sort of, you know, sovereign place where you, as a company, you don't pay very high taxes, you don't worry about labor or environmental.

That's the Chinese secret.

That's where industrial development zones and SEZs really got their start, Shenzhen especially.

Now, in South Africa, the original IGZs, especially the very first and, you know, Still today, the biggest, KUKA, outside Quebec.

And that one has been particularly connected to the auto industry with two Chinese companies, first Autoworks and Beijing Auto Industrial Corporation.

Professor Bond, just to be clear, are we looking to increase the taxation in these zones or are we looking to decrease the taxation in these zones? How are these special economic zones currently set up in South Africa in particular?

Yes, well,

for obviously 150 years or so since Cecil Rhodes and the Rand Lords began to start thinking about moving from the Kimberley to the Joburg, and then they started moving up to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi.

So we've seen an extractivism, a desire to pull out the wealth.

of the region and leave nothing, loot the place.

And they really did that, didn't they? I mean, the most recent and really tragic example was Anglo Gold Ashanti.

We should call out its CEO, Bobby Godsell, often thought to be a rational, reasonable humanitarian businessman.

You know, no doubt he is, according to the logic.

How do we Or how do people who understand the impact of all of these factors try to convey them to the public and really link the dots between the present state of South African impoverishment and inequality with these wider factors that you've sketched?

Yes,

well, for obviously 150 years or so since Cecil Rhodes and the Rand Lords began to start thinking about moving from the Kimberley to the Joburg, and then they started moving up to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi.

So we've seen an extractivism, a desire to pull out the wealth.

the region and leave nothing, loot the place.

And they really did that, didn't they? I mean, the most recent and really tragic example was Anglo Gold Ashanti.

We should call out its CEO, Bobby Godsell, often thought to be a rational, reasonable, humanitarian businessman.

You know, no doubt he is, according to the logic.

How do we Or how do people who understand the impact of all of these factors try to convey them to the public and really link the dots between the present state of South African impoverishment and inequality with these wider factors that you've sketched?

How should we understand that?

Well, the ratings agencies are pretty notoriously mediocre.

For example, they get paid by companies that need to be rated.

So there's already an instinctive bias and sort of a conflict of interest.

And so if you, for example, look in the year 2008, in the middle of that year, you're seeing companies like Lehman Brothers being rated lower.

as investment and grade double A and then suddenly they go bankrupt.

And I think that level of mediocrity by the rating agencies, by Fitch, Moody's, Standard & Poor's, isn't something we raised enough in criticizing them.

So what do you tell those young people who say, yes, we borrow, but we're not seeing why we borrow? And so are we really victims or perpetuators of the cycle?