Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.


Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

or use

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Have You Heard From Johannesburg?

Anti-Apartheid in 8 1/2 Hours


Eight and half hours is long time for any movie, much less a political documentary. However, Connie Field’s "Have You Heard from Johannesburg" has a serious ambition – to tell the complete story of the South African anti-apartheid movement from an international perspective. The result of this desire is a seven-segment documentary grouped into three parts. Parts 1 and 3 fit as an organic whole, while part 2 examines the more specific topics of the sports boycott against the apartheid regime and the development of the divestment campaign.

The film justifies the exceptionally long treatment by making a solid case that the anti-apartheid movement deserves attention as one of the first truly global movements for social justice. Field weaves together the story of the developing anti-apartheid forces in South Africa with a burgeoning boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in the West. During the film’s best moments, the viewer sees these two often quite distinct movements converging toward the common goal of destroying the apartheid state. Some positive consequences flow from this paring.

New Historical Actors

The first is the subtle shift in emphasis from Nelson Mandela as the focal point of anti-apartheid to less popularly recognized actors such as Oliver Tambo. Tambo served as the African National Congress’ (ANC) president-in-exile and managed to build a strong network of international resistance to the South African regime. Field presents him as a critical figure – one-part stately ambassador, one-part committed revolutionist. Tambo’s transition from a religiously informed pacifist to a spokesperson for urban guerillaism mirrors that of the freedom movement in South Africa.

The jet-setting Tambo is also used to investigate the interesting linkages between the neighboring African states and the anti-apartheid movement. Field successfully conveys the strategic importance of the ANC being provided with the ability to operate on the borders of the apartheid state. The decolonization movement of the 1960s flows into the upsurge in resistance in South Africa. Tambo capitalizes on these sentiments to build vital alliances with neighboring Zambia, Angola and Tanzania.

Equally critical to Field is the role played by the support movement in the Western world. Large stretches of the film are dedicated to documenting attempts to isolate the apartheid regime. A particularly brilliant section of the film in Part 2, examines the manner in which campaigners such as the poet Dennis Brutus successfully forced South African national sporting teams out of international competition – first with high profile struggles around the Olympics and then to lesser known bans issued by groups like the International Table Tennis Federation. The final showdown with Apartheid sport came in a spectacular fashion with the “Rugby Wars” waged by support groups in Britain, Australia and New Zealand. In each, Field skillfully displays the manner in which grassroots groups forced unwilling sports associations and governments to take actions that supported the freedom movement in South Africa. Regular people really did exercise a degree of
political power.

Missing Pieces

A deeper political reading of the film reveals some missing pieces. On one level, the film is a documentary about the mainline political activists in the anti-apartheid movement. However, a few key issues are neglected. The first is any substantive commentary on the manner in which the racial classification system presented challenges to the political formation of the anti-apartheid movement itself. How, for instance, did the Indian community, the Coloured community and the African community negotiate differing historical and political legacies? What were the tensions and how where they overcome over the course of time? How did the South African Communist Party serve as a pole of attraction for whites in the country?

Equally frustrating was the treatment of the key pivotal moment in the formation of the resistance movement – the resurgence of political activism in the mid-1970s. This resurgence produced serious tensions between the older generation of ANC activists and younger activists influenced by Black Consciousness thinkers such as Stephen Biko. The linkages between the ANC of the 1960’s, the Soweto Uprising of 1976, the formation of the United Democratic Front in the 1980s and the defeat of the regime in the 1990s are portrayed in too linear a manner. There were important political debates going on inside the movement and this film would benefit from airing them. Nearly 16 years after the transition one would think it would finally be safe to publicly investigate these issues, but the risk relates to a third objection.

The film tries to avoid any discussion of the condition of post-Apartheid South Africa. A few hints of disappointment with the controlled transformation away from apartheid slip out – a mildly critical comment by a participant in the Soweto uprising, the lavish backdrops of the houses of ANC officials versus those of base level activists and the later involvement of elite businessmen with the ANC – but there is no substantive examination. This is the conceptual rock upon which other documentaries of the anti-apartheid movement, most especially the otherwise interesting Amandla! A Revolution in Four-Part Harmony, have crashed. Can a film simultaneously document the development of the anti-apartheid movement while offering thoughtful critiques of the subsequent decisions made by the ANC-led governments? The consequence of not doing so in Have You Heard is a relatively flat ending with the solitary figure of Nelson Mandela accepting his seat in the
United Nations.


Overall, Field has made an important contribution to the world of political documentaries. Those unfamiliar with the anti-apartheid movement, beyond the towering role of Nelson Mandela, would do well to engage with all or part of this film. The focus on the international anti-apartheid support movements offers an opportunity for Western viewers to self-identify with this liberation struggle. In addition, the film begins to fill the large void in popular understanding of this movement in the West. The ability of popular forces to defeat a regime as deeply entrenched and heavily armed as that of the apartheid state should provide inspiration to all those engaged in popular movements for social justice.

Going forward, the hope is that we might hear the voices of grassroots participants in the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Doing so will require a serious amount of oral history documentation and will, necessarily, force the film to grapple with the cruel everyday realities of poverty and discrimination in post-apartheid South Africa. Have You Heard from Johannesburg is not able to accomplish this task, but does open the conceptual door to further investigations.

Have You Heard from Johannesburg will be playing at the Film Forum until April 27

BILLY WHARTON is a writer and activist whose articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine..