Last week's conference on National Security seems to have been interesting and helpful.

But why was it held after the National Intelligence and Security Bill had been approved by the National Assembly and after the country had been subjected to such intense stress; and not before. But now that this frightening Directorate is legally in place, it should surely have taken the lead role in this conference. In the event, it seems to have played no role at all. How very strange.

There were several intriguing reports from this conference regarding the fascinating detail of this country's international borders. One and perhaps others I can touch on next week - was that this country does not own the land along large parts of its borders. Surely this is to slightly mis-state the situation? Freehold, privately owned farms, may indeed, adjoin much of the international border with, say, South Africa from Bokspits to Pont's Drift. But can there be the slightest doubt that all those farms fall within this country and that their owners are registered here?

Can there be any doubt that were it felt necessary, the government, with any number of legal mechanisms to choose from, could acquire over-night ownership of the whole lot - why not on security grounds! That broom would, of course, sweep up not only the older established Boer farmers but those local entrepeneurs, who with government loans, were enabled to buy some of them out.

But then again, doing so might set one government policy in collision with another - national security or national food security or even, hold it, national tourism industry security? As regards the latter, I make a guess that less than one percent of the population of this country has ever seen the great Limpopo River although this should be their inheritance and their right. Where else could anyone see it? In the entire Tuli Block there is not a single village and nearly everywhere access is blocked by the privately owned farms.

On the other hand, there are the public crossing points, the famous drifts, but they are few and far between. Most desert and semi-desert countries value their rivers.

Everywhere, they were, and continue to be the givers of life - the Nile, the Euphrates and Tigris, the Yangtze, the St. Lawrence, Tiber, Amazon, Seine, Mississippi and Thames.

Here it is different, and totally upside down. Colonialism stole the rivers and converted a peoples' property into multiple private rights. One of the first priorities of the last 40 or so years should have been to recover what had been lost. It could have been done, bit-by-bit, over the years, without upsetting investor confidence, or attracting news curiosity, by utilising the new wealth, to buy up here and there. Partly, such a process has been carried out over the years in the north east district but this seems to have been a regionally directed rather than national policy. The Limpopo River is different because it has been purlioned and removed from sight and from the consciousness of everyone in this country. Yet it is that magnificent river which can help to explain so much about the history of this country about which so many seem keen to know nothing at all. Why?

Presumably because they are afraid of the information and interpretations, which will emerge as a result of further enquiry. Contrast the enormous self-confidence with which this country currently deals with the rest of the political and economic world with its current reluctance to examine its past. By a curious irony it now seems to be the national security people who want to get the Limpopo back. Will Tourism now back Security in demanding the return of this famous river? If they can do so, great chunks of history will be immediately opened up and we may learn if, historically, the great river became the means of growth, the transmission of knowledge and development and gain or, was it, unusually, a barrier to progress?