text:
Most product-development managers are always struggling to bring in projects on time and on budget. They never have enough resources to get the job done, and their bosses demand predictable schedules and deliverables. So the managers push their teams to be more parsimonious, to write more-detailed plans, and to minimize schedule variations and waste. But that approach, which may work well in turning around underperforming factories, can actually hurt product-development efforts.
Although many companies treat product development as if it were similar to manufacturing, the two are profoundly different. In the world of manufacturing physical objects, tasks are repetitive, activities are reasonably predictable, and the items being created can be in only one place at a time. In product development many tasks are unique, project requirements constantly change, and the output—thanks, in part, to the widespread use of advanced computer-aided design and simulation and the incorporation of software in physical products—is information, which can reside in multiple places at the same time.
The failure to appreciate those critical differences has given rise to several fallacies that undermine the planning, execution, and evaluation of product development projects. Together, we have spent more than 50 years studying and advising companies on product-development efforts, and we have encountered these misconceptions—as well as others that arise for different reasons—in a wide range of industries, including semiconductors, autos, consumer electronics, medical devices, software, and financial services. In this article we'll expose them and offer ways to overcome the problems they create.
Fallacy 1: High utilization of resources will improve performance.
In both our research and our consulting work, we've seen that the vast majority of companies strive to fully employ their product-development resources. (One of us, Donald, through surveys conducted in executive courses at the California Institute of Technology, has found that the average product-development manager keeps capacity utilization above 98%.) The logic seems obvious: Projects take longer when people are not working 100% of the time—and therefore, a busy development organization will be faster and more efficient than one that is not as good at utilizing its people.
But in practice that logic doesn't hold up. We have seen that projects' speed, efficiency, and output quality inevitably decrease when managers completely fill the plates of their product-development employees—no matter how skilled those managers may be. High utilization has serious negative side effects, which managers underestimate for three reasons:
They don't take into full account the intrinsic variability of development work.
Many aspects of product development are unpredictable: when projects will arrive, what individual tasks they'll require, and how long it will take workers who've never tackled such tasks before to do them. Companies, however, are most familiar with repetitive processes like manufacturing and transaction processing, where the work doesn't change much and surprises are few and far between. Such processes behave in an orderly manner as the utilization of resources increases. Add 5% more work, and it will take 5% more time to complete.
Processes with high variability behave very differently. As utilization increases, delays lengthen dramatically. (See the exhibit "High Utilization Leads to Delays.") Add 5% more work, and completing it may take 100% longer. But few people understand this effect. In our experience with hundreds of product-development teams, we have found that most were significantly overcommitted. To complete all projects on time and on budget, some organizations we worked with would have needed at least 50% more resources than they had.
High Utilization Leads to Delays
It is true that some variability is the result of a lack of discipline, and that some product-development tasks (like designing components for an airplane prototype or performing clinical trials) include more-repetitive work. But even if some of the work is predictable, when it's combined with other unpredictable work, you will see queuing problems.
They don't understand how queues affect economic performance.
High utilization of resources inevitably creates queues of projects. When partially completed work sits idle, waiting for capacity to become available, the duration of the overall project will grow. Queues also delay feedback, causing developers to follow unproductive paths longer. They make it hard for companies to adjust to evolving market needs and to detect weaknesses in their product before it's too late. Ironically, these problems are precisely the ones that managers think high utilization will allow their teams to avoid.
Even when managers know that they're creating queues, they rarely realize the economic cost. Although that cost can be quantified, we've found that the vast majority of companies don't calculate it. Managers need to weigh queue costs against the costs of underutilized capacity in order to strike the right balance.
In product development, work-in-process inventory is predominantly invisible.
Manufacturing queues consist of physical things, and when inventory in a factory doubles, it's obvious. That's not the case in product development, where inventory largely consists of information, such as design documentation, test procedures and results, and instructions for building prototypes. When inventory doubles in an engineering process, there are no physical signs. Moreover, because accounting standards require most R&D inventory to be carried at zero value, financial statements give no indication of serious inventory excesses in product development.
It is very difficult to fight a problem that you can't see or measure. Consider the situation at a major pharmaceutical firm. Several years ago its newly appointed head of drug discovery faced a managerial dilemma. Like other senior executives who run large R&D organizations, he was trying to find ways to make his scientists more innovative. He wanted them to experiment more with new chemical compounds that could generate promising new drugs and, at the same time, to eliminate unpromising candidates as early as possible. Experiments with living organisms, however, were the responsibility of animal testing, a department that was not under his control and was run as a cost center. It was evaluated by how efficiently it used testing resources, which naturally led to high utilization. Consequently, the scientists in drug discovery had to wait three to four months for the results of tests that took a little more than a week to perform. The "well-managed" testing organization impeded the discovery unit's progress.
The obvious solution to such problems is to provide a capacity buffer in processes that are highly variable. Some companies have long understood this. For decades, 3M has scheduled product developers at 85% of their capacity. And Google is famous for its "20% time" (allowing engineers to work one day a week on anything they want—a practice that means extra capacity is available if a project falls behind schedule). However, in our experience this kind of solution is quite hard to implement. As we will discuss, few organizations can resist the temptation to use every last bit of available capacity. Managers reflexively start more work whenever they see idle time.
But there are other viable solutions:
Change the management-control systems.
For the pharmaceutical company, this might involve taking steps to align the objectives of the animal-testing unit with those of the discovery unit. The company could, for example, reward animal testing for prompt responses (measuring time from request to completion of test) rather than resource utilization.
Selectively increase capacity.
Adding extra resources to the areas where the utilization rates are 70% or higher can significantly reduce waiting time. If the pharmaceutical company did this in animal testing, it would obtain feedback on new chemical compounds far faster. In settings where testing is conducted with computer modeling and simulation, increasing capacity is often relatively inexpensive, since it just involves buying additional computer equipment and software licenses.
Limit the number of active projects.
If the pharmaceutical firm couldn't increase animal testing's capacity, it could still lower the utilization rate by reducing the number of active projects exploring new chemical compounds. The discipline of putting a hard limit on what goes into a product-development pipeline often results in sharper focus and clearer priorities.
Make the work-in-process inventory easier to see.
One method is to use visual control boards. These can take a number of forms, but the key is to have some sort of physical token, such as a Post-it note, represent the development work (see the exhibit "Typical Work-in-Process Control Board"). A control board should display all active work and show what state each part of the project is in. It should be at the center of the team's management process. Teams can hold 15-minute daily stand-up meetings around such boards to coordinate efforts and keep work moving.
Typical Work-in-Process Control Board
Fallacy 2: Processing work in large batches improves the economics of the development process.
A second cause of queues in product development is batch size. Let's say a new product is composed of 200 components. You could choose to design and build all 200 parts before you test any of them. If you instead designed and built only 20 components before you began testing, the batch size would be 90% smaller. That would have a profound effect on queue time, because the average queue in a process is directly proportional to batch size.
The reduction of batch sizes is a critical principle of lean manufacturing. Small batches allow manufacturers to slash work in process and accelerate feedback, which, in turn, improves cycle times, quality, and efficiency. Small batches have even greater utility in product development, but few developers realize the power of this method.
One reason is the nature of their work flow. Again, because the information they're producing is mostly invisible to them, the batch sizes are too. Second, developers seem to have an inherent bias to use large batches—possibly because they incorrectly believe that large batches produce economies of scale.
In a well-managed process, the batch size will balance transaction and holding costs (see the exhibit "How to Determine Optimal Batch Size"). It's similar to buying eggs at the grocery store. If you buy a 12-month supply on a single trip, your transaction cost is low, but most of the eggs will spoil, increasing your holding cost. If you buy a one-day supply at a time, your spoilage will be low, but your transaction costs will be high. Intuitively, you try to strike a balance between the two.
How to Determine Optimal Batch Size
The companies that understand how this works have exploited IT advances to reduce batch sizes, often with astonishing results. Some software companies that used to test large batches of code every 90 days are now testing much smaller batches several times a day. A manufacturer of computer peripherals that used a similar approach with its software group reduced cycle time in software testing by 95% (from 48 months to 2.5 months), improved efficiency by 220%, and decreased defects by 33%. The cost savings were twice as high as the company had expected. Although those results were exceptional, we have found that reducing batch size improves most development projects significantly. Similarly, computerized modeling and simulation tools have dramatically lowered the optimal batch size of experimentation and testing in companies that develop physical products.
By shrinking batch sizes, one company improved the efficiency of its product testing by 220% and decreased defects by 33%.
Fallacy 3: Our development plan is great; we just need to stick to it.
In all our consulting work and research, we've never come across a single product-development project whose requirements remained stable throughout the design process. Yet many organizations place inordinate faith in their plans. They attribute any deviations to poor management and execution and, to minimize them, carefully track every step against intermediate targets and milestones. Such thinking is fine for highly repetitive activities in established manufacturing processes. But it can lead to poor results in product innovation, where new insights are generated daily and conditions are constantly changing.
A classic study of technical problem solving done by Thomas Allen of MIT highlights the fluid nature of development work. He found that engineers who were developing an aerospace subsystem conceived of and evaluated a number of design alternatives before selecting one that they judged to be the best. Along the way their preferences changed frequently, as they tested and refined competing technical solutions. This is typical in innovation projects: Testing and experimentation reveal what does and doesn't work, and initial assumptions about costs and value may be disproved.
Defining customers' needs can also be hard to do at the outset of a product-development project. When you think about it, that's not surprising: It isn't easy for customers to accurately specify their needs for solutions that don't yet exist. In fact, familiarity with existing product attributes can interfere with an individual's ability to express his or her need for a novel product. Customers' preferences can also shift abruptly during the course of a development project, as competitors introduce new offerings and new trends emerge.
For all those reasons, sticking to the original plan—no matter how excellent its conception and how skillful its execution—can be a recipe for disaster. This is not to suggest that we don't believe in planning. Product development is a set of complex activities that require careful coordination and attention to the smallest detail. However, the plan should be treated as an initial hypothesis that is constantly revised as the evidence unfolds, economic assumptions change, and the opportunity is reassessed. (See "The Value Captor's Process," by Rita Gunther McGrath and Thomas Keil, HBR May 2007.)
Fallacy 4: The sooner the project is started, the sooner it will be finished.
As we discussed earlier, idle time is anathema to managers. They tend to exploit any downtime by starting a new project. Even if the task cannot be completed because people have to return to another project, managers reason that anything accomplished on the new project is work that won't have to be done later. Such thinking leads companies to start more projects than they can vigorously pursue, diluting resources.
This dilution is dangerous. If a company embarks on a project before it has the resources to move ahead, it will stumble slowly through the development process. That's problematic because product-development work is highly perishable: Assumptions about technologies and the market can quickly become obsolete. The slower a project progresses, the greater the likelihood it will have to be redirected. Indeed, one branch of the military discovered that its cost and schedule overruns were exponentially proportional (to the fourth power) to a project's duration. In other words, when the original schedule of a project doubled, the cost and schedule overruns increased by a factor of 16.
The importance of reducing the amount of work in process is evident when we look at one of the classic formulas of queuing theory: Little's Law. It simply states that, on average, cycle time is proportional to the size of the queue divided by the processing rate. Thus, if 20 people are ahead of you in line at Starbucks and the barista is serving five people a minute, you will be served in four minutes. You can shorten the cycle time by raising the processing rate or by reducing the number of jobs under way. In most settings the latter is the only practical choice.

For some product developers the solution has been to rigorously control the rate at which they start work. They match it to the rate at which work is actually completed; carefully manage the number of projects in process; make sure that once a project is launched, it is adequately staffed until it is completed; and resist the temptation to steal resources from an ongoing project to squeeze in new ones.
Fallacy 5: The more features we put into a product, the more customers will like it.
Product-development teams seem to believe that adding features creates value for customers and subtracting them destroys value. This attitude explains why products are so complicated: Remote controls seem impossible to use, computers take hours to set up, cars have so many switches and knobs that they resemble airplane cockpits, and even the humble toaster now comes with a manual and LCD displays.
Companies that challenge the belief that more is better create products that are elegant in their simplicity. Bang & Olufsen, the Danish manufacturer of audio products, televisions, and telephones, understands that customers don't necessarily want to fiddle with the equalizer, balance, and other controls to find the optimum combination of settings for listening to music. Its high-end speakers automatically make the adjustments needed to reproduce a song with as much fidelity to the original as possible. All that's left for users to select is the volume.
Getting companies to buy into and implement the principle that less can be more is hard because it requires extra effort in two areas of product development:
Defining the problem.
Articulating the problem that developers will try to solve is the most underrated part of the innovation process. Too many companies devote far too little time to it. But this phase is important because it's where teams develop a clear understanding of what their goals are and generate hypotheses that can be tested and refined through experiments. The quality of a problem statement makes all the difference in a team's ability to focus on the few features that really matter.
When Walt Disney was planning Disneyland, he didn't rush to add more features (rides, kinds of food, amount of parking) than other amusement parks had. Rather, he began by asking a much larger question: How could Disneyland provide visitors with a magical customer experience? Surely, the answer didn't come overnight; it required painstakingly detailed research, constant experimentation, and deep insights into what "magical" meant to Disney and its customers. IDEO and other companies have dedicated phases in which they completely immerse themselves in the context in which the envisioned product or service will be used. Their developers read everything of interest about the markets, observe and interview future users, research offerings that will compete with the new product, and synthesize everything that they have learned into pictures, models, and diagrams. The result is deep insights into customers that are tested, improved, or abandoned throughout the iterative development process.
Determining what to hide or omit.
Teams are often tempted to show off by producing brilliant technical solutions that amaze their peers and management. But often customers would prefer a product that just works effortlessly. From a customer's point of view, the best solutions solve a problem in the simplest way and hide the work that developers are so proud of.
One company that has understood this is Apple. It is known for many things—innovative products, stylish designs, and savvy marketing—but perhaps its greatest strength is its ability to get to the heart of a problem. (See "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs," by Walter Isaacson, in our April issue.) As the late Steve Jobs once explained, "When you start looking at a problem and it seems really simple, you don't really understand the complexity of the problem. And your solutions are way too oversimplified. Then you get into the problem, and you see it's really complicated. And you come up with all these convoluted solutions….That's where most people stop." Not Apple. It keeps on plugging away. "The really great person will keep on going," said Jobs, "and find…the key underlying principle of the problem and come up with a beautiful, elegant solution that works."
Determining which features to omit is just as important as—and perhaps more important than—figuring out which ones to include. Unfortunately, many companies, in an effort to be innovative, throw in every possible bell and whistle without fully considering important factors such as the value to customers and ease of use. When such companies do omit some planned functionality, it's typically because they need to cut costs or have fallen behind schedule or because the team has failed in some other way.
Deciding what to omit from a product is as important as figuring out what to include.
Instead, managers should focus on figuring out whether the deletion of any proposed feature might improve a particular product and allow the team to concentrate on things that truly heighten the overall customer experience. This can be determined by treating each alleged requirement as a hypothesis and testing it in small, quick experiments with prospective customers.
Development teams often assume that their products are done when no more features can be added. Perhaps their logic should be the reverse: Products get closer to perfection when no more features can be eliminated. As Leonardo da Vinci once said, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Fallacy 6: We will be more successful if we get it right the first time.
Many product-development projects fail to meet their objectives for budgets, schedules, and technical performance. Undoubtedly, poor planning, rigid processes, and weak leadership all play a role. But another cause that's often overlooked is managers' demand that their teams "get it right the first time." Requiring success on the first pass biases teams toward the least-risky solutions, even if customers don't consider them much of an improvement over what's already available. Worse yet, teams have little incentive to pursue innovative solutions to customers' problems.
To avoid making mistakes, teams follow a linear process in which each stage (specify, design, build, test, scale, launch) is carefully monitored at review "gates." Work on the next stage cannot begin until the project passes through the gate. As the project moves down the line, significant commitments are made and the cost of responding to new insights increases by orders of magnitude. Successful tests in late stages are celebrated, and surprises, no matter how valuable they are, are considered setbacks. Unfortunately, such a linear process flow can cause project overruns because test feedback is delayed, teams cling to bad ideas longer than they should, and problems aren't unearthed until it's expensive to solve them.
A tolerance for "getting it wrong the first time" can be the better strategy as long as people iterate rapidly and frequently and learn quickly from their failures. Advances in simulation and rapid-prototyping technologies have made operating in this fashion vastly easier and less expensive.
Practical Guidelines for Overcoming Common Fallacies
Consider what we found in a study of 391 teams that designed custom integrated circuits. Teams that followed an iterative approach and conducted early and frequent tests made more errors along the way. But because they used low-cost prototyping technologies, they outperformed (in terms of the time and effort required) teams that tried to get their design right the first time. The teams that faced high prototyping costs invested more effort on specification, development, and verification. And because they did their iterations later in the process—and did far fewer of them—they delayed the discovery of critical problems.
Experimenting with many diverse ideas is crucial to innovation projects. When people experiment rapidly and frequently, many novel concepts will fail, of course. But such early failures can be desirable because they allow teams to eliminate poor options quickly and focus on more-promising alternatives. A crash test that shows that a car design is unsafe, a drug candidate that proves to be toxic, or a software user interface that confuses customers can all be desirable outcomes—provided that they occur early in a process, when few resources have been committed, designs are still very flexible, and other solutions can be tried.
Demanding that teams "get it right the first time" just biases them to focus on the least-risky solutions.
A classic example of the advantages of the "fail early, fail often" approach is Team New Zealand's surprising victory in the 1995 America's Cup. To test ideas for improving the keel design, the team used two nearly identical boats: one boat that was modified during the course of the project and a "control" boat that was not. On a daily basis, the team simulated hypotheses on a local graphics workstation, applied those that looked promising to the one boat, raced it against the control, and analyzed the results. In contrast, its competitor, Team Dennis Conner, which had access to more-powerful computers (supercomputers at Boeing), ran large batches of simulations every few weeks and then tested possible solutions on one boat. The result: Team New Zealand completed many more learning cycles, eliminated unpromising ideas more rapidly, and ended up beating Team Dennis Conner's boat Young America.
What we hope is becoming clear by now is that experiments resulting in failures are not necessarily failed experiments. They generate new information that an innovator was unable to foresee. The faster the experimentation cycle, the more feedback can be gathered and incorporated into new rounds of experiments with novel and potentially risky ideas. In such an environment employees tend to persevere when times get tough, engage in more-challenging work, and outperform their risk-averse peers.
But creating this kind of environment isn't easy—a topic that Amy C. Edmondson of Harvard Business School explored in "Strategies for Learning from Failure" (HBR April 2011). Failure can lead to embarrassment and expose gaps in knowledge, which can undermine individuals' self-esteem and standing in an organization. After all, how often are managers promoted and teams rewarded for the early exposure of failures that lead a project to be killed—even though the early redeployment of precious resources benefits the company? This is especially true in organizations that have built a "zero tolerance for failure" or "error-free" (Six Sigma) environment.
This article also appears in:
Thomas Alva Edison understood all this. He organized his famous laboratories around the concept of rapid experimentation, locating machine shops for building models close to the rooms where experiments were conducted so that machinists could cooperate closely with researchers. The labs had libraries containing a vast number of volumes so that information could be found quickly; nearby storerooms with ample quantities of supplies; and a diverse workforce of craftsmen, scientists, and engineers. Edison wanted to make sure that when he or his people had an idea, it could be immediately turned into a working model or prototype. "The real measure of success is the number of experiments that can be crowded into 24 hours," he said.
Advances in information technology, such as computer-aided design, modeling, and simulation, have already allowed companies to make great strides in developing better products in less time and at a lower cost. Many companies, however, have not tapped the full potential of these tools, because their management thinking has not evolved as quickly as the technology: They still approach the highly variable information-generating work of product development as if it were like manufacturing. As advances in IT continue, the opportunity to improve the product-development process will become even greater. But so will the risks for companies that fail to recognize that product development is profoundly different from manufacturing.


text:
A Conversation with Jacob Zuma
Washington, D.C.
PRINCETON LYMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all, and welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations, a conversation with Jacob Zuma. We're delighted to have so many people here for this event.
Let me make a few administrative comments first. I'm Princeton Lyman. I'm an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations on African Studies. Our meeting today will be on the record, and we're delighted and grateful to C-SPAN which will be broadcasting this meeting live.
We have also via teleconference, we have council members participating around the country and indeed around the world.
Let me ask you all, please, to turn off, not just turn silent, to turn off all electronic communications devices because it interferes with the transmission. Thank you very much.
I'm also delighted that our event today is the Darryl Behrman lecture. The Darryl Behrman Lecture Series was endowed by the Behrman family in the memory of Darryl Behrman, who came from South Africa, was a very successful businessman in the United States but very concerned with international peace, with Africa and with South Africa. He died unexpectedly in 2002. The family has endowed the Behrman Lecture Series. This is our third in the series, and we're very grateful to the Behrman family.
Now, how we're going to proceed today is that we're going to make tis conversation style. I'm going to ask our guest to open up with some remarks, et cetera. Then he and I will have a bit of a conversation. And then we'll throw it open for questions. And we will end promptly at 1:30.
These are very momentous times in South Africa, perhaps the most momentous since the end of apartheid in 1994. There are major changes underway in the leadership of the African National Congress. We had the resignation of President Thabo Mbeki just seven months short of the end of his second term. We have movement underway by some people in that administration to break away from the ANC and talk of establishing a separate party.
And perhaps fueling a lot of these changes and much of the debate, an unhappiness in the country or in certain elements of the country that in spite of 15 years of relatively good growth, the benefits of that growth have not reached the majority of the population in jobs and in terms indeed of moving out of poverty. And that has fueled much of the debate and some of the changes that are taking place in the country.
All of this, of course, happening as the world is going through a financial crisis. And that, too, may have a bearing on all of this.
Our guest today, Jacob Zuma, is very much at the center of all these developments, and we're delighted to have you here.
You have a full bio of Mr. Zuma in your papers. And I will be only brief in introducing him. He was born in 1942. He joined the ANC at 17 (years) and devoted much of his life to the liberation of South Africa from apartheid. He was imprisoned for 10 years on Robin Island where Nelson Mandela was also serving in prison.
After 1994 -- he was part of the negotiations leading up to 1994 -- he rose rapidly in the ANC. After that, he became national chairman of the ANC. In 1999, he was elected executive deputy president of South Africa. Then in 2005, things seemed to change a little bit. There were allegations of corruption, and President Mbeki asked him to leave. And Mr. Zuma has fought those charges with vigor, and he led a campaign to change the leadership of the ANC.
In December 2007, Mr. Zuma was elected president of the ANC, defeating Thabo Mbeki. And he is, in our election terms, the presumptive ANC candidate for president and, if history is any guide, perhaps the next president of South Africa.
He is a man of some controversy. But if I can add a personal note, Mr. Zuma, when I was in South Africa during that period of 1992 to '94 when the violence in KwaZulu-Natal, your province, was so threatening and even threatened civil war on the beginning of South Africa's democracy, which would have been a tragedy, no one, in my view, worked harder than you to contain that violence, to reach across to the Inkatha Freedom Party, to bring it under control and avoid a civil war. And I know you brought that same skill to your work in bringing peace to Burundi.
So welcome to the council. And we look forward to your opening remarks. Thank you very much.
JACOB ZUMA: Well, thank you very much for your kind words and for the opportunity. Before I say a few words, allow me to introduce my colleagues here. As you know, we are here as a delegation of the ANC. I'm with the colleagues, some attending other meetings. But we have the ambassador, who is here, Ambassador -- (inaudible). We have also Mathews Phosa, who is the treasurer general of the ANC, an old freedom fighter as well who was the first premier of Mpumalanga province. He now tries to see that the ANC has money to function. (Laughter.)
LYMAN: Very important.
ZUMA: Very important indeed. We also have Dr. Zweli Mkhize. The people didn't see you. They just saw the little hand showing. (Laughter.) I think if you could stand. That's Phosa. (Applause.) Yes, please. And then Zweli Mkhize. (Applause.) He is also the member of the National Executive Committee of the ANC but also the chairperson of the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal province. He's also an MEC for finance. MEC means Member of the Executive Council which, in simple terms -- we are very fancy with words -- it means the provincial ministry, really, in simple terms.
Other colleagues are somewhere else, as I said.
But thank you very much for the opportunity indeed. Firstly, we are here as a delegation. We have had meetings or are in the process of having meetings with Madam Secretary this morning. We have also met with the president. We have had a meeting in the White House with some of the key people there who was passing through. And it started to get into meeting and greet, and we were grateful for that and, of course, had some discussions as you'd imagine. If you were in this part of the world or in Europe, the issue of Zimbabwe is always the issue on the agenda. So those matters have been discussed. But we are very happy.
We are here because we believe that there has been a relationship between South Africa and the United States in the process of the history, as it were, in a democratic society. There is going to be change in the United States. There are changes already that were referred to in South Africa that are taking place. And both sides felt it was very necessary that we touch base to ensure that those relations continue. That we, therefore, don't meet for the first time if we'll all be there after next year. We could meet now and look at the situation. Fortunately, we have been part of the administration in one form or the other. There has been those kind of communications. But also to meet the investor, the private sector and other concerned people to discuss the issues of South Africa. We have already talked about the issue of the financial problems that face the globe today with both meetings and other meetings that have taken place.
Of course, among other issues, there has been the issue of what is happening in South Africa. Well, if I could say a few words on that one because I think it would be saying why is, you know, not discussing South Africa but discussing everything in the world.
You will recall that South Africa is relatively a young country. We are just about to complete 15 years of age. So we are in our teens, if you were to make the analogy of a human being really. But nevertheless, we believe that we have made a good start, firstly because we were able to achieve change in South Africa from apartheid in a manner that not many people expected will happen.
Of course, I'm sure many people would say we all made the contribution. And indeed, we all made a contribution to that. I'm sure my good friend sitting there, the former leader of DA will say we made a contribution. The DA serves as a progressive party. We have had a very important member who kept the opposite regime in check all the time.
But from the ANC point of view, we believe that over the years, we matured our policies and culture. And because of our clarity, we had confidence in addressing the issues of South Africa, which the question of negotiations was critical. We did things that many -- liberation movement did not do at the beginning. We are not afraid to conduct the negotiation within the borders of South Africa, which many liberation movements would not have done.
I think that goes a long way to indicate the confidence of the ANC and its certainty about what it wanted to do. But we've also done something which we believe was important to take every political entity in South Africa as part of that process. So we had an inclusive process.
We did not seek to exclude other people. We felt everybody should be part of the process. We felt gains could only be done by people who were confident, who knew exactly what they were doing, and then gains also in a process where all parties -- some of them who been quarreling, calling them names -- popheads (ph) and sell outs -- because of -- (inaudible) -- et cetera.
But at that point was we realized a defining moment in South Africa had come. Every political entity had to be part of the process. And we were, therefore, in a better position to organize the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, which, at times, is referred to as the major party in negotiations, and produced a kind of an agreement that actually shocked the world.
And people said this is a miracle because nobody ever thought apartheid will end in a negotiated settlement given the intensity and the depth of the conflict and racial nature of it. I think that -- (audio break) -- going a long way to say to people whatever challenges that we are faced with, how we're going to deal with them.
You will also, of course, be certain that as we started, led by the former President Nelson Mandela in 1994, we establish a democracy that we believed was important. The nitty gritties of reaching there are also important because we finally agreed that the constitution, the final constitution of the country had to be negotiated by the elected representatives, not by the parties that met at Codessa because we all agreed we're not elected, even if the ANC was a big organization. But we believed that you need people to write the constitution of the country who are elected by the representatives or by the people.
So we said -- (audio break) -- Parliament. We will, therefore, turn it something to a constitutional assembly to write the constitution. All we could do was to write an -- (inaudible) -- which in itself was entrusted because it entrenched unity of the country given the fact that we were coming from racially divided society.
I think from that point of view, every South African was really confident we established a rainbow nation. We had an economy that has been growing since that time. So democracy has been there. Our constitution is one of the constitutions that is commented about as the best constitution so far -- I mean, all constitutions cannot be very perfect -- with checks and balances, with guarantees that it cannot be abused by an individual or a strong political party, which then makes the South African citizens to be comfortable.
So if you look at what is happening today in the ANC firstly -- and I must say this, and we could, again, quarrel with my friend -- that the ANC has been in the center of this because of its size, because of its clarity, because of its commitment to democracy. I think we've been in a position to live relatively comfortably to say things are going to move okay.
But given the ANC as an organization, there have been developments within the ANC, which started in the years that you just alluded to and that began to see some developments within the ANC. Now, ANC is a strong culture of collective leadership, of the membership that is very active, participating in the affairs of the organization, jealously guarding that the ANC remains what they believe it is.
At some point, I think, there were feelings that things were not moving the way they would've wanted. And those who observed the South African senate after 2005, in fact during 2005, we had what was called the National General council which is a bigger government of the ANC between the two conferences wherein the membership of the ANC put the leadership of the ANC on the spot on the development that had taken place -- (inaudible) -- to observe some of the decisions, even the decisions that I've taken as an individual.
The membership said no, you do what we want you to do. Clearly, again, that must tell you that you're dealing with an organization that has a very particular culture but that it does not depend on an individual. It depends on the collective as well as its membership. I think that was played out, to a large extent, as we went for the conference last year.
I think it is going to be important again just to indicate that leaping into that one, you had a situation where because the country's constitution has two terms for a president and the ANC's constitution doesn't have limitations, and people were saying, what's going to happen given the people of -- (inaudible) -- been noticed in the process? And of course, you know these guys. I'm sure they are all over here, the media, were rushing to people to say, look, what will happen.
And they began to say to President Mbeki, what's going to be your position? Well, his indication was, well, the question of the -- (inaudible) -- serve them because the constitution is very clear. I'm going to be loyal to the constitution. But the ANC does not. And therefore, if the ANC members are saying we still needed to continue, I will have said to -- (inaudible). That provoked a debate in the ANC because the people were saying, could you have a president of the ANC not being the president of the country? Wouldn't that create two centers?
It's a debate which went on, and it went into the branches of the ANC until it was resolved in a national policy conference of the ANC, which was held a few months before December. The ANC took a position that the ANC president to the ANC would be the country's president, so to speak. And therefore, that was a position that was taken.
But of course, after that position, the guys that said they're very active came to the president. And it still continued well if I'm elected, I will. That led to, I think, a contestation of some kind because when the nominations were done, some ANC members nominated Mbeki, some nominated Zuma. And therefore, that's what you saw going to Polokwane.
In Polokwane, of course, the conference spoke. What is important, which I think our friends maybe missed, is the kind of strong traditions of democracy within the ANC. What I think is not very common that a sitting president is voted out of his position while still sitting. But in the ANC, as I just described it, was in a position to do so.
Of course, in the process of elections, there were quite a number of people who were not elected, who had been sitting in the ANC, some of them, since 1991 in the executive. It is clear from the behavior of some of them that it has been difficult to accept the fact that they are no longer members, they are no longer taking part in the decision-making. And when first decisions as the ANC has taken to ask the president to resign and they were not party to it, they were not informed about the nitty gritties of it, I think it has just difficult for some to accept. And I think that is why some of them are feeling, well, maybe it's time that we disagreed, this ANC is different, et cetera.
That has brought to the point that many people have been talking about over the period. Can the ANC break or whatever? And of course, you have in the details what I'm talking about, the possibility of a convention. And I heard that my friend's party has said they will attend the convention. (Laughter.) If that is not -- (Inaudible) -- this was an open convention.
In any case, that's democracy -- whoever attends it will be very fine. And that could lead to a formation of the party. We are still waiting, all of us, to see. From the ANC point of view, we're trying our level best to engage but we have taken certain decisions to those who have acted outside of the constitution of the ANC.
Once again, as the situation moves forward from the ANC, we are confident that our policies are very strong, are very clear. And even those who are speaking from the ANC, talking about the convention, a possible formation of a party, so far have not articulated any alternative kind of policy positions that will be different from those of the ANC. We are still waiting to see. And we'll see the situation as we move forward.
We are certainly approaching the election with the usual vigor, hoping to raise the percentage as we already do. And then people are beginning to see that possible. That's a debatable point, but that's our determination, that's what we want to do. We don't think that what is happening in South Africa politically should actually make anybody to -- (inaudible). We have a very mature democratic that could take such decisions.
I've been making an example that a few weeks ago, I was visited by former generals from some countries in Africa who, when they greeted me, said if this decision was taken in any of our countries there would be a civil war. But in South Africa, there is none. I think that it's smooth moving forward. And of course, people are politically making their points. That is the essence of democracy. So I don't think people should be worried about that.
With regard to policies, the ANC has pronounced some policies in its conference, and we are, as creator of the ANC, going to be undertaking that mandate to ensure that we are able to move forward. And therefore, we have made it a point we are going to change no policies. It is the ANC that do set policies, change them when it is necessary. It's not the job of individuals, whoever's the president, whatever. Even the collectives discussion have to work very hard to make recommendations for those changes. ANC is a very sensitive organization to its policies, so you cannot do that.
So there should be no worry. The situation is going to continue no matter, and the collective leadership of the ANC is going to do so as we can see right now. There is President Kgalema Motlanthe, who is in this period, who hasn't changed any of them. He's adhering to the policies of the ANC. So I don't think there will be anyone who will do so.
So in a sense, I'm saying no panic. Everything is fine in South Africa. Thank you very much.
LYMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Zuma. That was a very interesting assessment of how the process works. But let me ask a question about some of the things that people are worried about. Some of your supporters have been making some pretty radical statements. I know you said in an interview not long ago about Julius Malema, the head of the ANC Youth League, he's a young man, let him grow. I mean, you said, bring him along.
But he's said really some things about anybody who gets in the way has to be eliminated, pushed aside. It raises questions about independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, et cetera. But I think, even more fundamentally, the challenges that the next government of South Africa will face on economics are very grave.
And when you have supporters, as you do, from the Labor Federation, the Communist Party, the Youth League who want, I think, quite radical changes from the policies that have been followed, how do you deal with that? And how do you, to put it more bluntly, keep those groups from trampling on some of the constitutional principles that you've talked about?
ZUMA: Well, as you know, we have the Youth League. ANC Youth League is an old organization. President Mandela was one of the founders. You know what he said one day in a serious meeting of the ANC to the president of the ANC? He challenged him and said, I'm going to be the president of the ANC, and I'll deal with this matter very radically.
We believe that the Youth League -- in fact, I swear we trained -- (inaudible) -- to become leaders of tomorrow. Remember, it's not the first one. We have had quite a radical youth. You'll remember one called -- (inaudible) -- who probably said more things than what Malema has said. And that's before Malema. Figyelem Balula (ph) has been also very vocal, Malema as well.
I think, in a sense, in a democratic situation, the youth have always moved from that point. It becomes our job to help them, train them as we've done. And I'm sure you will agree today that Malema is not saying those kind of things. That must say something about what the ANC is doing in terms of preparing and making its young people appreciate what is the development to be done in a particular way.
If there was a youth who doesn't do that, then we wouldn't have a vibrant youth that could tomorrow be the leaders of tomorrow. I said one time when I was talking to one journalist, I'm sure in South Africa, we know people now who learn computers, they don't learn grammar. Is there no longer any figure of speech -- I mean, that is said figuratively -- that people learn, some people who make statements. Politically, people that come make very strong statements, which you could think they are about to fight.
I'm sure if you went into many parliaments in the world, you can even seem to -- (inaudible). They stand and shout while one is speaking, et cetera. I think it is in the nature of politics. I don't think Malema meant what he said that he's going to do it. Fortunately, he has clarified that to the authorities that wanted that clarification. So I don't think we should worry about it. That's why the ANC is handling internally as a matter that it needs to handle it.
But the remarks that you talked about, which I think I would like to deal with, the threat to the judiciary, et cetera, I think you should bear in mind that there has been a case which I can't comment about was about me. The manner in which the case has been handled, there has been a very obvious realization from the ANC broad kind of membership that there's political manipulation of the case.
And there are certain things that happened. For an example, at one point, which is not done, you first heard of NPA which is the National Prosecuting Authority. When everybody was saying after this investigation of this case, we'll then have Zuma being taken to court. Then they got trials. The allegations have been tested, and a verdict will come.
He suddenly called a meeting which it called of -- (inaudible) -- select editors which were called to have off-the-record briefings, and advised to them the details of the investigation and allegations. That way, they tried not just me alone. There are other few people that he talked to.
And then pleaded with the editors that helped me. I want to try Zuma in the court of public opinion -- (inaudible). And it became open knowledge. And people said, but what investigation is this? What is happening? And that's when people began to fear that it was not a suspicion, it was in fact a statement made by the man in charge of the investigation, that he has an agenda to try Zuma in the court of public opinion. So it did not emerge for Malema or my supporters, if there were supporters at all.
But it did not end there. When he concluded the investigation, he had conducted his own trial in the press conference and made a determination that nobody made in court, whether there is a prima fascia case or not, and said to Zuma there's a prima fascia case. But I'm not going to take him to court because my case is not winnable in court. It was never done. Unprecedented. Sitting next to him was a minister -- Maduna, Peneull Maduna -- who's a political -- (inaudible). What did he want there? He actually said things himself.
Now, if there is no political manipulation, why did the -- (inaudible) -- say that? Why would Maduna fit in that situation? Now, that is what influenced people to say there is a problem here. What is happening?
Now, of course, at some point, the case was thrown out of court. There were threats thereafter that I'll be charged. And as we went into Polokwane, the rumor about me being recharged, the tension and -- (inaudible) -- was growing, became even more intense -- (inaudible). That this was very much a test to political temperature in the country.
I think our conference ended on the 28th of December. During the holidays, I was recharged as if it was a response to the results of the Polokwane. So there has been a lot by the state (organizations ?) suggesting the political manipulation of the case. And this is what people have been saying that, from the basis of that, this is a political matter. And therefore, it might need a political solution. This is their own view.
But at the end, the judge looked at them. (Inaudible) -- NPA. Along the line, that there had been in fact dealing with this matter politically and even say there was interference from the president. And he indicated earlier -- now, this is a judge, not Malema -- who said there has been interference.
I think we should take all of that into account when we say why then the ANC people will be saying what they say. I think that is the background which I think we should take into account because the ANC believes very fully in the rule of law and to respect the judiciary. And we'll defend it to the end. We respect the freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. If we were to deal with these matters, we must take that into account.
With regard to the issue of -- (inaudible) -- to end South African Communist Party. Now, I've been saying to the media -- they've got short memories -- when Mandela became the president, he was fully supported by Cosatu and the South African Communist Party. Nobody said now Mandela is going to deviate to socialism. What we are part of our multi forces as the ANC. (Inaudible) -- when President Mbeki was to be elected president, he was also supported by this, too, fully.
So there is nothing new and strange with Zuma today. I think people just forget that in fact there's nothing new with this, too. And you cannot then say from Mandela to Mbeki because of the support of Cosatu and the South African Communist Party, then we succumb to the pressure and move to socialism. Not at all.
A very important fact where an important factor so far is they are able to be the voice of the poor who remain poor all the time. And therefore in a sense they bring the balance in the debate, so to speak. And to us, that is not at all a wrong thing for them to exist and have the views about what happens.
I've just made a statement here that the ANC policies will remain. One of the things that many people don't know, the evolution of ANC policies is actually -- which is their participation. It's not that they make policies when its concluded -- much of the debate between us and them that they are part of the policies. So there isn't anything to worry about. These are the colleagues who have been with for a long time, since Mandela, Mbeki, and they will be here, I'm sure, to the one who will follow. They will still be there.
LYMAN: Thank you. I have many more questions, but I'm going to open it up to many people here.
I think I'm going to take about two questions at a time so we can get in as many people as possible. When I call on someone, you have to stand up and give your name and your affiliation and then a very brief question so we can get in as many as possible.
So let's start here, the lady right here and wait for a microphone.
QUESTIONER: Hi. Barbara Slavin from The Washington Times. Sir, I wonder if you could tell us, if you become the president of South Africa, would you accept a two-term limit as president? And also, what changes would you like to see in the current South Africa constitution regarding land ownership, foreign businesses, et cetera? Thank you.
LYMAN: Let's take one more and then we'll -- yes, Pauline, right here.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. Pauline Baker from the Fund for Peace. Mr. Zuma, again, in the future, you said that all ANC policies would be maintained. Does that apply to HIV/AIDS? And how important is that issue to you?
LYMAN: Well, that's a pretty full menu. (Laughter.)
ZUMA: Yes. Well, firstly, the issue of two terms is an established set in South Africa. That's the constitution of South Africa, which we all follow, and we've committed ourselves to it. So there will be no change. Two terms will certainly be what the constitution says.
You said -- just remind me of the other.
QUESTIONER: (Off mike.)
LYMAN: Land --
ZUMA: Oh, changes in the constitution. No, we haven't talked about the changes in the constitution. And certainly, just to make the point, I haven't said that there is no change that we are foreseeing. If there needs, though, to be changes, we cannot rely on the individual. Generally, that would have to be discussed by the organization if there was. There isn't, so far, up to this point in time.
It's going to be difficult for the ANC to have changes because people will agree that the ANC had a lot to do with the current constitution in terms of crafting it. So the constitution stands on what the ANC participated to make it what it is. Our duty, as a citizen, as a political party, is to defend the constitution. So that is very important.
With regard to the land issue, we have a policy in South Africa, land restitution, which has been going on. The criticism has been that it has been too slow. Probably will be -- the act dealing with it is too complicated. I don't know.
But there are issues that need to be looked at, even with what has happened. The land, for an example, that has been reclaimed and has been given back to the people. In some cases, there hasn't been a program to ensure that the land, for an example, that was protected continued to be productive, in the majority of cases left unattended to. And that we need to look into that. What can we do to improve on that situation?
In some cases, people are asked to choose whether they get the land or they are given money. I don't think there has been an effective advice from people because generally, when to the people the money is mentioned in millions, they think these millions are coming to them. But when it's divided many ways, it comes back to few thousand.
So I think it's a question of people understanding that the land is an important asset that they should not necessarily get rid of quickly. So those matters, I think, we could follow and deal with.
There have been issues with question of the land that there is more work that we need to do. But some people have a perception, for an example, that maybe the farmers are resistant, et cetera. But I've met farmers who are actually looking forward to be in a position to be helpful. So it's a question of us exhausting what is there at the moment insofar as the question of the land.
I don't think there will be any changes in terms of our relations with investors. We will still continue the same way. We are still asking the investors to come in so that kind of our forward-looking policy in terms of doing business is going to maintain and is going to be different. And I'm hopeful that on that one, all of us, including my friend there, we ask for investments to come -- (inaudible). Absolutely. (Laughs.)
And with regard to the question of HIV and AIDS, I think our policy has been good. It's been good. I know there is a perception which I'm going to explain. We have a policy that is in fact acknowledged by the World AIDS Organization as one of the best. We have a comprehensive program to deal with it.
What people at times have mistaken is what was said at one point by President Mbeki as his own personal opinion, not as a policy of the aims of government, with regard to the HIV and AIDS. And people tended to believe that that was our policy. It was not. And we have been clarifying the issue.
Equally, the answer that was given by the former minister on certain foods that you must eat as a support to -- (inaudible) -- good food, et cetera, people tended to think because it is said by the minister that is our policy. Not at all. Our policy is clear if you look at it. So we are not going to change our policy. We are going to maintain our policy as it is, a comprehensive one.
You are aware, of course, that President Motlanthe had changed the minister of Health. There's a new minister. And I'm sure if you follow what the new minister is saying in terms of -- she's not saying anything new. She's just saying let us implement our policy as it is minus the emphasis on the food. (Laughter.) I think it's just important.
LYMAN: We'll take some more questions. The gentleman there, and then I'll get Mel and then come back to Rosa. And then I'll go to the back.
QUESTIONER: Peter Leone, partner -- (inaudible) -- Johannesburg, South Africa. Mr. Zuma, you've said constantly that there will be no change in economic policy under your watch. You don't make economic policy, the party makes it. So I just want to put something to you. There seems to have been a definite drift in government policy in terms of market friendliness. I give the example of the establishment of a state mining company, the announcement from the Tripartite Summit this weekend that the principal of willing buyer-willing seller could be abandoned in terms of land reform, and that the expropriation bill which I think Mr. Phosa would say responsible for having withdrawn from parliament is likely to resurface on the agenda next year. Doesn't that all seem to indicate that government is becoming more interventionist in terms of its economic policy and less market friendly? And what sort of environment does that create for investors?
LYMAN: Okay. We'll take two more. Take Mel and then Rosa and then I'll go to the back.
QUESTIONER: Mr. Zuma, welcome. We met some years ago in your home in Cape Town.
LYMAN: And introduce yourself, Mel.
QUESTIONER: My name is Melvin Foote. I'm with the Constituency for Africa here in Washington, D.C. My question, Mr. Zuma, is what changes do you envision in terms of South Africa's policy with respect to Zimbabwe?
LYMAN: And then take one more -- Rosa.
QUESTIONER: Welcome. We have many stakeholders here --
LYMAN: (Inaudible.)
QUESTIONER: Oh, Rosa Whitaker, president of The Whitaker Group. You have many stakeholders here who would like to see you succeed and are supportive of your vision. Are there any insights that you can share with us about the ANC's economic summit? And what role do you see for the United States government and U.S. private sector in helping you to achieve those industrialization goals that you've outlined?
LYMAN: Okay, we have strong questions on the economic front, are changes that people seem to be talking about.
ZUMA: I have absolutely continued to say I will change no policies if I become the president. I have no capacity and authority to do so. That is in the hands of the ANC. And I would imagine, to some degree, you are talking about the ANC participants. And therefore, you are talking about a collective that debated the resolution from Polokwane.
How do we put those into programs, to implement, to go forward? And if those issues are discussed, it's not the first time. We have discussed those issues because the ANC continues to discuss policies and the implementation and also to evaluate whether they are working.
The issue of the land has been the issue that has been discussed. Polokwane has taken a very serious decision with regard to egrarian policies precisely because we are faced with a problem not only on the size of the land but in the usage of the land to deal with the issue of poverty in South Africa and to deal with the issue of rural development in totality, which is part of the element of dealing with rural development. That's one of the very strong resolutions we took in Polokwane, how to develop the economy in the rural areas so that the people in the rural areas also benefit in the economy of the country.
Now, if there are discussions and issues that people are looking at as they emerge -- I think when the press conference -- (inaudible) -- we have led the country -- as they emerge from the summit, it means these issues need to be debated and they are open for discussion to South Africans once they are out there, you are expected to contribute. In your view, what you think will be the best way? We have been always open to debate issues with whoever has views in one form or the other, including the land issue.
We have said the land issue is a very serious matter in South Africa. But we wanted to handle it responsibly so that we are able to resolve it. But even before we say -- if we get people to talk about more land, as I was saying earlier answering another question, are we able to ensure that what we have done already, we have done it appropriately, effectively, could we improve on that. And if at all there are gaps, how would we close those gaps?
I think it's, in my view, an indication of a democratic society that there are no issues that are taboo, that cannot be discussed. No matter how people could feel about certain views on specific issues, they must be in the open for discussion. And if changes have to come, certainly the ANC's appropriate structures will deal with those issues. You will know, if you come from Johannesburg, that if we go for our national policy conference, we actually publish our paper position for comment from everybody else. By the time we meet, we are able to take into account what people say and discuss those and formulate our policies.
So it's not the question of one day we wake up, we must change the economy. Economy -- (inaudible) -- at all. There is a process. There's a process that everybody is aware of. We believe in being transparent, that people should be aware and should participate.
And I'm sure, if I could take the last question as being part of what she was asking, we are going to maintain the policy of relations with the United States. Some of us believe that it wasn't done sufficient in terms of the investment from here or two ways. We need to do more on that. And our being here actually says something towards us saying, what else can we do continuing forth in terms of the relations?
We believe that America, up to now, has not come very strongly to take advantage of the open economy that we have. And we wish to discuss and companies must discuss what else can we do to deepen that kind of relationship. We want to, we want to deepen that relationship. We feel it to be very important for South Africa as well as for the continent.
LYMAN: Zimbabwe.
ZUMA: Zimbabwe. (Laughs.) I would have been surprised if that question did not arise. (Laughter.) Well, Zimbabwe, I feel, has been a problem for quite a while. And we are dealing with it, as you know. And I must say, South Africa, for a long time, was under pressure, under criticism as to why was South Africa adopting a particular stand on the Zimbabwe policy. We believe we are correct.
But what is important as well is that South Africa, unlike many other countries, including in the region, South Africa, with regard to Zimbabwe, has had more impact on Zimbabwean problem. There have been two-and-three-plus million Zimbabweans in South Africa. And to us, it's not an ancillary question. It's a question that affects us directly, that strains our own social resources.
And therefore, we adopted a particular stance from the beginning. But instead of criticizing Zimbabwe from a distance, we needed to engage the Zimbabweans, to be together with them and search for a solution. And in that context, we decided to engage both -- (inaudible) -- and MPC. And both knew that we were discussing.
There were a lot of discussions that took place. President Mbeki was (looting ?) that from the government point of view. There are many things that happened in that process over a period. From the infancy, we engaged the two parties to try to find a solution. We have done so all the time. And we believe that engagement by South Africa of Zimbabweans in order to further taking a decision to say Mbeki should in fact, on behalf of South Africa, be a mediator. We should finally -- (inaudible) -- the deal.
And indeed, it has been difficult for the deal to be implemented. That's a challenge that faces all of us. We are encouraging Zimbabweans to do so because we believe the plight of the Zimbabwean people is more important in the country. And they're encouraging them. And you don't want them to waste a minute before that package on the table is implemented.
We know that Mbeki, for an example, has been asked again by President -- (inaudible) -- to go and help the Zimbabweans to finalize the package and the package to be implemented. He has had difficulties for Zimbabweans does things -- they're not easy customers to deal with. (Laughter.)
But all of them agreed that we should have a meeting of a troika the smaller body of SADC in Swaziland that's supposed to take place yesterday. I saw from the news that there was no progress made there because Morgan Tsvangirai did not have a passport. Now, you can't have that kind of a situation when you're dealing with such an important matter. One of the very chief figures can't attend because he doesn't have a passport. I think that sounds weird. (Laughter.) Absolutely! Why couldn't a citizen have a passport to go to an important meeting? I think SADC must actually put their foot down so that we can have a solution. That is our view. And to support a process that is going to achieve an agreement that will be implemented, that the Zimbabweans for the first time, and for a long time, could therefore be helped by everybody. People are waiting to help. The meeting that was held here, the government indicated they are ready to move, but they cannot move without a proper agreement.
I also have a problem personally that if you have a package that has been agreed upon -- hailed by the world, why should we have a difficulty to implement? After all, this is not a permanent arrangement. We're talking about the interim arrangement. Why should it be so difficult? So once we have an opportunity, we'll continue to interact with the Zimbabweans so that we have a solution.
LYMAN: I have time for about just a couple more from the back -- Stan and then the person there, three people right there, and then I'm afraid we'll have to bring it to a close.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm Dan O'Flaherty with the National Foreign Trade Council and the Corporate Council on Africa. President Zuma, you indicated a desire for closer commercial ties with the United States for more investment flowing your way and presumably some flowing our way. Two and a half years ago, the free trade negotiations with SACU were suspended. So my question to you is, would you favor a resumption of free trade negotiations between South Africa and its neighbors with the United States?
LYMAN: Two more quick ones. Yes.
QUESTIONER: Gabriel Pellathy, Department of Commerce. Building on that question, where do you see South Africa's energy sector and energy policies going, including nuclear? Thank you.
LYMAN: And we had one more there.
QUESTIONER: I'm Lawrence Freeman from Executive Intelligence Review. Mr. Zuma, given the -- one of the difficulties facing President Mbeki has been the failure of the economy to provide for the poorer people in society. And given the fact that we now have a full-scale financial meltdown, how, if you're the president, how are you going to be able to deal with the 40 percent that are still suffering from poor economic conditions that have not been dealt with up to this point under more difficult conditions because of the global economy.
LYMAN: Okay. We have free trade, we have energy and helping the poor.
ZUMA: (Chuckles.) Well, yes, the issue of the free trade, as I said, we are in favor of increasing the interaction between South Africa and the United States. There were negotiations that were taking place between South Africa and its neighbors and, of course, with the United States. And I think the issue was should that be negotiated as a bloc with the United States or individually? And I think that's a matter that the region, I think, the SACU countries are discussing. And I don't think I can have a final point on this one, for the matter, I think, is under discussion.
And I think once we have concluded those discussions, we will come back to that. It's an issue that cannot be left unattended to. It does need to be attended to for, in a sense, it speaks to question of how do you deal with the region or some countries in the region as the United States or also opening up the individual kind of interaction? It's an important issue, and I'm sure SACU will take that matter further at some point.
LYMAN: Energy policy.
ZUMA: Energy policy -- our energy policy, I think, is clear. With regard to -- I know that you might have problems with the fact that you have had energy difficulties, which we appreciated that there were some mistakes made, and we are dealing with that our energy policies currently.
With regard to the departure of the --
LYMAN: Nuclear?
ZUMA: Nuclear -- our policy is very clear that nuclear, insofar as it is the nuclear that is beneficial, that is not the kind of the nuclear that will produce bombs and other things, the nuclear that is going to help people, to develop and meet the demand of the people, we are for that. And I think we've been arguing about -- the global argument about countries in terms of this issue that there must be an understanding that we needed to deal with that because it is one of the safer kinds of energies that we could have.
So our policy moves along those lines. And we'll continue to argue for that -- that let us use nuclear for the beneficiation of the people rather than for destructive objectives.
The last question was -- ?
LYMAN: Helping the poor --
ZUMA: Helping the poor.
LYMAN: -- in the midst of global financial crisis.
ZUMA: Well, your financial crisis certainly is going to make an impact. Because what it's going to do, it's going to slow down the economic growth given the fact that this is very huge. And therefore, it's going to impact to the poor. What is a challenge to us is the very point you are making. We have been having a growing economy in South Africa, which everybody is aware of. But the research and statistics indicate that because of the growing between the poor and the rich -- and that's a challenge that face the administration right now and the administration that is going to come.
Some of the policy provisions that we are taking, that have been taken as -- (inaudible) -- have that in mind. How do you deal with the issue of the poor? That is why we have very much talked about the need for job creation -- quality job creation and that other economic policies that we have, not -- (inaudible) -- so that we do not have the huge army of the unemployed.
One of the points, for an example, that we are prioritizing, the rural development, deals directly with the question of poverty, where the -- (inaudible) -- poverty is. What is it we're going to do? We are elaborating details as to what we are going to do. We are very much mindful of this, and our policies that we have taken are, in fact, in a sense, bearing this in mind. How do we deal with this?
We have in South Africa a situation of what we are calling the two economies -- the first economy and second economy. And the issue is how to close the gap between the two. It's a tough issue because, in a sense, the first economy which is regulated -- the regulation of the first economy does not take into consideration the second economy. And therefore, that is why there's been the opening of the gap rather than the closing of the gap. How do we mete out the kind of policies that, in a sense, bring these two so that the first economy helps the second economy to grow and, therefore, pick up the poor, so to speak, to a particular level. Those other matters we would have to deal with because at times, the regulation of the first economy in fact suffocates the second economy. How do we open up that situation is a challenge which I think we are going to be dealing with.
LYMAN: Well, Mr. Zuma, thank you so much. We'll have to have you back when you have all those answers in place. (Laughter.) But you've been very kind. (Applause.)
ZUMA: Thank you very much.
LYMAN: And thank you, everybody, for being with us today. Thank you, again, Mr. Zuma, for a wonderful conversation.
ZUMA: Thank you very much. It was a wonderful conversation.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Maurer to make Cactus League debut on Monday
PEORIA, Ariz. -- Right-handed rookie Brandon Maurer, one of the Mariners' top young pitching prospects, will get his first shot at Cactus League play on Monday against the Angels after being held back slightly after getting drilled in the shin by a Kendrys Morales line drive in batting practice earlier this week.
Maurer, 22, was the Southern League Pitcher of the Year last season after going 9-2 with a 3.20 ERA for Double-A Jackson. He was held out of conditioning drills on Friday and Saturday, but said otherwise he's been doing all his normal throwing and threw a bullpen session as scheduled on Saturday.
As for meeting up with Morales' line drive back up the middle on one of the first batters he faced in live batting practice in his initial big league camp?
"That ball came back real quick," he said. "Morales is a big boy. But it's all good."
The 6-foot-5 Maurer, the Mariners' No. 10 prospect, said he took a shot off the same left shin last year while pitching for Jackson.
"Same thing, about an inch below," he said. "I have a nice little scar there. It was a big lefty, the same pitch, a two-seamer outside. He just got the bat out and, 'Whap.' It happens. It's part of the game."
Now that he's been introduced to Major League hitters, Maurer is ready to take the next step.
"I'm feeling good," he said. "I'm excited to get into a game and get that adrenaline going and face some hitters from a different team."


text:
Litigation Release No. 21084 / June 12, 2009
Securities and Exchange Commission v. ZNext Mining Corporation, Inc. and Elvira G. Gamboa, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil Action No. CV 09-2611 (VRW)
The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against penny stock company ZNext Mining Corporation, Inc., formerly known as Pearl Asian Mining Industries ("PAIM"), and its principal, Elvira G. Gamboa.
The SEC's complaint alleges that from as early as 2004 through 2008, Gamboa caused PAIM to issue numerous materially false and misleading press releases and other disclosures, which gave the impression that PAIM owned and operated a viable gold mining operation in the Philippines. In reality, as alleged in the complaint, PAIM was and currently is nothing but a shell used by Gamboa to generate stock sale profits, and any gold mining operations that do exist belong to a separate Philippine company of the same name owned almost entirely by Gamboa.
The SEC's complaint further alleges that Gamboa issued the false and misleading disclosures to artificially sustain demand for PAIM stock. According to the complaint, from 2006 through March 2008, PAIM sold at least 1.9 billion shares of purportedly unrestricted PAIM stock to a penny stock promoter. Gamboa allegedly knew the buyer acquired PAIM shares for immediate resale and facilitated such resales by issuing stock certificates without restrictive legends and at times providing the buyer advance copies of PAIM press releases.
The complaint alleges that Gamboa profited from her misconduct by at least $1 million through misappropriation of PAIM's stock sale proceeds and an arrangement to sell 1.5 billion of her PAIM shares through the company's investor relations officer.
The SEC's complaint charges ZNext Mining and Gamboa with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions and civil penalties from ZNext Mining and Gamboa, and seeks from Gamboa an accounting, disgorgement, a penny stock bar, and an order barring her from serving as an officer or director of any public company.
PAIM was formerly a subsidiary of First Canadian American Holding Corporation, now known as Blackout Media Corporation, that was spun off in November 2003. Also today, the Commission sued Blackout Media and its former principal, Sandy Winick, in the Southern District of New York for illegal distribution of stock through such spinoffs. SEC v. Blackout Media Corporation and Sandy Winick, Civil Action No. 09 CV 5454 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.); LR-21083 (June 12, 2009).
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission.


text:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Monday turned to law enforcement leaders in three communities with mass shootings for help in getting Congress to pass tough new gun legislation.
At a White House meeting, Obama said that no group is more important in the gun debate and he said he recognizes the issue "elicits a lot of passion all across the country." But Obama also said he believes Congress will respond to appeals from police.
"Hopefully if law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take," he said, "Congress is going to be paying attention to them, and we'll be able to make progress."
The president's meeting comes as he tries to build support for gun control legislation that will be difficult to get through Congress. He urged Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, limit high capacity magazines and require universal background checks.
Obama met in the Roosevelt Room with the heads of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Major County Sheriffs Association, members of his Cabinet and chiefs that responded to the worst shootings of 2012. That includes Aurora, Colo., where 12 were killed in July; Oak Creek, Wis., where six died in a Sikh temple assault: and Newtown, Conn., scene of the most recent mass tragedy that left 20 first-graders dead.
Obama also said that Washington needs to take mental health issues and school safety more seriously and should help law enforcement agencies hire more police, make sure they get the training they need and give rural forces the resources they need to deal with emergencies.
"Many of them also recognize that it's not only the high profile mass shootings that are of concern here," the president said. "It's also what happens on a day in day out basis in places like Chicago or Philadelphia where young people are victims of gun violence every single day."
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.
Send questions/comments to the editors.


text:
Use a REST Web Service to call a SOAP Web service
From this REST Web Service URI
- https://api.wsdltophp.com/rest/request/v1/send/53d5dbf25871fddb417ca10105ee06ba2022f2a2/846/1.json
You get this type of JSON response
{ "error_code" : 0,
"error" : false,
"error_reason" : null,
"output_format" : "json",
"data" : {
"soapcall" : {...},
"requests" : {...},
"responses" : {...} } }
Ok, I get it
Ok, I get it
To do so, go to "My account -> Profile tab" then choose between upgrading your account type or purchasing credits
Until then, you won't be able to generate any package privately.
Latest blog posts
New methods have been added to our REST API, check it out!
A REST Api has to be flexible and capable of evolving over the time. Moreover, it must evolve according to the features it already provides in order to keep its homogeneity and its flexibility. We're still in the beginning of our Api so it should evolve for a long time in the future. As we only p...
New output formats for our REST Api: PHP, XML and JSONP
Before reading this post, please read the post about how to call our REST Api.As indicated in our previous post only json output format was available. We quickly added 3 new output formats which are : PHP: the data are serialized with serialize XML: the data are transformed to XML data using D...
Call any SOAP Web service using a REST Web service
Here is the newest feature and this is one of the most innovative one. it is also the one before the last complex feature. This new feature intends to let you call any SOAP operation remotely really easily. In addition to ease any call to any SOAP operation, we used an actual and innovative...
We love to fix, improve and help. Ask us to help you!
Since the last blog post, more than once month ago, we've been making three main things: improving deeply the WsdlToPhp project, helping users to achieve their SOAP projects, and paving the way for not anticipated features that will be useful. While we were doing these three mai...
Save your SOAP requests and execute them better, faster, stronger!
Here is the newest feature: save your sent requests. This feature allows you to store any sent request. After you stored it in our database, you are able to use it later in order to automatically fill in the web interface fields. To do so, you first need to load the method definition. Then y...
Fixing a little bug contained by the generated PHP code of the SOAP request
We just fixed an issue reported by a user.The caseWhen you send a request using the web interface, you can set the authentication login and password: After you sent the request, you can download the PHP code that allows you to make the request on your own environment. Lately, you would hav...


text:
0 Membres et 1 Invité sur ce sujet
CorePlus is an installation image and not the distribution. It is recommended for new users who only have access to a wireless network or who use a non-US keyboard layout. It includes the base Core System and installation tools to provide for the setup with the following options: Choice of 7 Window Managers, Wireless support via many firmware files and ndiswrapper, non-US keyboard support, and a remastering tool.
Bad Behavior has blocked 59 access attempts in the last 7 days.


text:
When the Nets convinced Deron Williams to re-sign during free agency last summer, they had nights like this in mind, nights when he would lift the crowd inside Barclays Center to its feet with his play, and lift his team to a win.
Williams did that, and then some, against the Wizards, finishing with a franchise record 11 3-pointers — one shy of the NBA record — and a season-high 42 points to carry the Nets to a resounding 95-78 victory over the Wizards Friday night in front of a sellout crowd of 17,732 in Brooklyn.
"I just got hot," Williams said with a smile afterward.
Williams got so hot — starting off the game a perfect 8-for-8, including 7-for-7 from 3-point range, and finishing the game 11-for-16 from behind the arc — that he blew out two separate pairs of shoes, one in each half.
He'd better order more.
Williams wasted no time getting started, hitting those first eight shots and finishing the first quarter with 23 points, single-handedly outscoring the Wizards and giving the Nets a 38-14 lead. He finished the quarter 8-for-9, with each shot he made sending both his teammates and the crowd into bigger and bigger states of delirium.
It reached a crescendo when Williams received a pass from Reggie Evans following a Brook Lopez blocked shot and raced up the right side of the floor. From the moment the ball hit his hands, his intentions were clear, and he soon was pulling up from the right wing and draining a 25-foot bomb that gave the Nets a 22-2 lead with 7:19 remaining in the first quarter.
"That was a heat check," Williams said. "Think I should've shot another one after that, too. Joe [Johnson] told me I should've when I got back to the bench."
As the first half wore on and the Nets already had the game in hand, the sole focus of everyone in the building was how long Williams would be able to keep up his shooting spree. Every time Williams brought the ball past half court, a collective energy began to build as fans hoped he would rise and fire once again. It even got to the point where the crowd would boo Williams every time he passed up even a remote chance to shoot the ball.
"I thought they were going to boo me one time because I didn't shoot it," Williams said. "I might have had a shot and passed it down to Joe and they were kind of [upset]."
He still managed to give them plenty to look at, though, as he got to the rim for some layups while also knocking down two more 3-pointers to set the NBA record for a half with nine. He nearly pushed it to 10 when he got an open look from the top of the key at the end of the second quarter, only to see it go just long off the back rim and send the Nets into the break with a 59-33 lead.
Williams finished the half with 33 points — tying his previous season-high — while going 12-for-15 from the field and 9-for-11 from 3-point range.
"I really thought he was going to go for about 60," Johnson said.
For as loud as the crowd got for Williams, though, they got even louder in support of Reggie Evans in the fourth, when the Wizards employed a "Hack-a-Reggie" policy to send the poor-shooting big man to the foul line 10 times.
Evans went 3-for-10 — but sank the final two — eliciting a huge roar from the crowd and a standing ovation when he sat a few minutes later.
"It was exciting," said Evans, who had 24 rebounds. "I was happy. I was mad on the inside, but I was enjoying the moment whether I missed or made it. I was just excited."
But other than that brief moment, all eyes were focused on Williams to see how many records he would topple after the break. Williams set the franchise record with his 10th 3-pointer when he opened the second half with one, passing Vince Carter's old mark of nine, and then hit the 11th with 1:39 remaining to pull within one of the NBA record.
He got a wide-open look at No. 12 on the following possession, but it went long, one of the few shots that didn't go down for him.
"I'm just happy we won," Williams said. "That's the main thing. If I'd done this in a loss, it definitely wouldn't have meant anything.
"All the records are good … [they're] good stories to tell your kids and grandkids when you get older. But I'm just after one, and that's a championship."


text:
Dave Johnston, the runner who finished the Iditarod Trail Invitational in an unfathomable record of 4 days 1 hour 38 minutes, told me, "You must have had a pretty easy time out there if you're already riding this much." I had to laugh. Maybe I did take it too easy out on the Iditarod Trail, but traveling 350 miles on foot was unknown territory to me, let alone doing it in a week, with a 45-pound sled, in highly variable winter weather conditions. I stayed where I thought I needed to stay to survive and reach the finish, which I did. Now I know a whole lot more than I used to.
As for Dave, hearing his stories about the experience were absolutely mind-boggling. I think it would be generous to say that I ran 5 percent of the trail (and this was often shuffling, not a whole lot faster than my walking pace.) Dave walked 5 percent and ran 95 percent of the time, often up to 9-minute-mile pace. Even after his sled broke into two pieces on the dirt at mile 220, he lashed it together with rope and dragged the shattered remains another 130 miles. And he did it nearly without stopping. He slept a total of six hours, basically only ate just a little more than once a day in checkpoints (because he couldn't eat on the move without getting sick, he hardly bothered with trail food!) and when he ran out of water, he didn't stop to melt snow — he was just out of water, sometimes for many hours. He justified this with the explanation that, back in ancient times, people traveled without stopping for days, and they didn't get food and water every thirty minutes. And they lived and went on the reproduce the offspring that became wimpy us.
"People think they need all of this stuff, and they don't," he said.
I said, "Dave, what you did out there doesn't seem possible."
He replied, "I know. Everyone told me I couldn't do it, and even now people still tell me it's not possible. But I did it."
In my admittedly biased opinion, I think Dave's feat on the Iditarod Trail to McGrath is one of the most incredible ultra-long-distance running accomplishments by anyone, anywhere. I hope to write a longer article about it when I get a minute to breathe. Hopefully soon! I'm falling behind on everything.
Instead, we crossed the Seward Highway to hit the nicely packed and blissfully quiet snowmachine side, rolling along the valley on punchy but fun crust.