Speech at the Conference on Southern Africa of the Socialist International and the Socialist Group of the European Parliament with the Frontline States, ANC and SWAPO, Arusha, September 4, 1984
Four months ago, the city of Arusha hosted the summit meeting of the frontline States. It was a historic event characterized by courage and determination. The highest leadership of the frontline States, together with that of the liberation movements, reasserted their commitment to the struggle for freedom in Namibia and South Africa. From Arusha they also launched an urgent appeal to all other nations and peoples for concrete support and active participation in that struggle. Now they are here again, to our great pleasure and honour.
The Arusha Declaration again underlines the fact that the liberation of Africa from exploitation will be pursued and led to victory by the Africans themselves. We who come from other parts of the world should support the African peoples` struggle for liberation on their own terms because it represents the longing of the African peoples, the true and vital interests of the African nations. This is self-evident but needs to be repeated. We should firmly and together oppose all trends of paternalism from the outside.
But naturally, we in Europe also have a role to play.
Involvement of Socialist International
This conference is the first one where frontline States and liberation movements from southern Africa meet jointly with Socialist International parties from Western Europe. The Socialist International has long been involved in the struggle for independence and freedom in southern Africa.
The reasons for our involvement are obvious:
1. The system of apartheid is and remains a moral outrage. It is the only system branding a person right from birth according to the colour of the skin. From the very moment of conception the child`s destiny is determined. This makes apartheid a tyranny of a particularly evil kind. Every civilized person and civilized people must view it with contempt. It is our duty to eradicate this weird aberration in human history from the face of the earth.
2. The peoples of Namibia and South Africa are denied the most fundamental human and political rights. Equally our European labour movement once was denied their rights and that formed the basis for the original programmes of our liberation movement. The workers of Europe are historically linked in solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Africa.
When the South African regime proclaims that it fights for the so-called "free world" and represents democracy, it must be crystal clear that this bastion of racism in fact represents the very opposite of freedom, and that the apartheid regime is a perversion of democracy.
3. We are all bound by the rules of international law and we have all accepted the Charter of the United Nations. The illegal occupation of Namibia continues in defiance of the whole international community. The destabilization policy of South Africa, with the use of military aggression and economic blackmail against the neighbouring States, is likewise in contradiction of international law.
4. The continued oppression in South Africa is a threat to international peace and security. This has been confirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The longer the apartheid system is allowed to persist the more violent its downfall will be. In a world of superpower rivalry and intervention, this can have the most disastrous effects on all of us, wherever we live.
March of folly
The racist policies of South Africa are at the root of the problem. I am not the one who is best placed to tell this audience what the situation is really like in South Africa. Our African friends here have learnt about it in bitter ways. But I would like today to share with you some thoughts I have about how history will deal with the developments in and our relations with South Africa.
A Swedish statesman in the seventeenth century, Axel Oxenstierna, Chancellor of Sweden under King Gustavus Adolphus, said on his deathbed: "Know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed."
This quotation is used in the introduction of a recent book by the American historian Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly.
In this book, using examples from old and recent history, she traces and explores one of the most compelling paradoxes of history: the recurring pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests.
By folly she means a self-destructive act, taken despite the availability of a recognized and feasible alternative. Going through history, she describes the fall of Troy, the papal misrule in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, leading to the split in the Christian church; she recounts how England created rebels in America in the eighteenth century. And finally she explains how the United States, by insisting on victory, was defeated in Vietnam.
Is the racist regime in Pretoria conducting a policy against the long-term interests also of the white minority, marching the road of folly, in Barbara Tuchman`s sense of the word?
I recently had a visit from a prominent South African industrialist. He started the conversation by saying that the black man will naturally take over in South Africa. This takeover must be prepared and for that reason South Africa must have a strong economy. He probably wanted to say that we should not weaken that economy by imposing sanctions.
Are there any signs that the ruling white minority believes in such a transfer of power to the black man? If this was so, we should be able to witness a number of reforms in that direction, recognizing the legitimacy of the demands of the majority: the start of a gradual process towards the ultimate goal, majority rule.
This is obviously not happening.
The so-called reforms of the Pretoria regime have only been of a cosmetic nature - a way of trying to give the system a more respectable facade.
The recent parliamentary elections for Coloured and Asian people is a good example. The new parliamentary chambers are only allowed to deal with matters within their own race groups. The all-white parliament retains a firm grip on all important matters for the country as a whole. It is no wonder that these elections were boycotted by a vast majority of those entitled to vote. The whole election procedure has proved to be a mockery. The forces against apartheid have in fact won a resounding victory.
Brutalization of apartheid
What actually seems to happen in South Africa is a strengthening and brutalization of apartheid.
The bantustan policy is a dramatic expression of this process.
In one of the richest countries of the world, which could feed and house everyone, some nine million people have already been robbed of their citizenship and some four million people moved by force to these areas. And many more are threatened.
In these "homelands", the per capita income is only 5 percent of what it is in the rest of the country. And in the largest of them, Transkei, four out of ten children die before they reach the age of ten.
Apartheid South Africa is in fact a society in permanent violence.
Every three days a black man is hanged.
Every year hundreds of thousands are arrested as a result of the pass laws.
And every year close to one million Africans are brought to trial for violation of laws that apply to black people only.
The truth about South Africa`s so-called reforms is this: when all the trappings are removed, it is obvious that the leaders of the white minority do not want to change the system. They do not want to give up their prosperity and privileges. And they use massive violence against those who oppose and try to change the system.
The racist minority government in South Africa projects a picture of might and arrogance. Partly it is the face of most oppressors in human history. Partly it is to conceal that they must know that their system in the long run is doomed. Sooner or later the explosion will come. The collapse of the system will be enhanced by its own contradictions.
In less than twenty years, the total population will have increased by about 15 million - almost all of them black people. The white minority will be even more of a minority, trapped in their "laager". The regime seems to have realized the meaning of these demographic figures. It tries to further split the people into groups based on skin and origin. Therefore, so-called reforms and further repression are two sides of the same coin.
Like few other regimes Pretoria spreads death and destruction beyond its borders.
Instead of seeking a modus vivendi with its regional partners, the apartheid State blackmails its neighbours.
It is also a contradiction that not even the architects of apartheid are true to their extremist ideas: without access to cheap black labour the wealth of the white minority would erode. In other words - without the blacks there would be no white wealth.
The more the white minority tries to strengthen itself internally by repressive means, the more they are subject to international contempt and isolation. The names of Sharpeville and Soweto are names of shame in the modern history of South Africa. There will be many more names to add to this abominable list if they continue to enforce apartheid. International opinion will not fail to react.
Rising resistance
But above all and in spite of all the military might, there is rising resistance within South Africa itself.
The African National Congress is gaining strength.
Independent trade unions are developing rapidly, despite severe constraints.
And the United Democratic Front has in only one year attracted more than 600 different organizations, with more than two million people. Never before in the history of South Africa has the organized resistance been of such magnitude.
In spite of all this the white minority government in South Africa steers towards an inevitable catastrophe. In the long run their system inevitably will fall. The longer the white rulers persist in maintaining the white dictatorship, the harder and more violent the conflict will be. Long-term security and stability are being sacrificed in a policy that is clearly contrary to the long-term self-interest of the white minority. This is truly a march of folly.
Gradually more and more white white South Africans realize this predicament. When asked what his country would be like in 1995, the South African author Andre Brink said: "By that time we should have the civil war behind us. I can`t see how the present circumstances shall be able to prevail for more than one more decade."
If the other white South Africans heeded his warning and recognized their true self-interest, there would be hope for peaceful change.
There is another course of action to choose, a reasonable alternative. They could recognize the legitimacy of the majority, embark on a road of gradual reforms, safeguard the legitimate interests of the white minority, start a process towards peace and equality. It is very late in the day. But it is still possible to choose a policy of wisdom and conciliation.
What should we do?
The European colonial governments were once faced with a similar option. Some had the wisdom to accept self-determination and national independence. Others chose confrontation and fought bloody racial wars.
Today we Europeans have a self-interest in a change of the system in South Africa. It is not only a question of principle. It is also a question of war and peace, because so long as there is apartheid, there will be no peace.
The question today is: why are we then not doing more to help the process of real change in South Africa?
In the colonial times, most of our parties were young and weak, and had no say in government affairs. We are a movement representing workers and other people oppressed through history.
For us, it should be a challenge to meet the forces of liberation in southern Africa, in a struggle against the remnants of old colonialism and minority rule.
What then should we do? Let me answer briefly, in a few points.
1. We should give full support to the frontline States. I have spoken today mostly about South Africa, the root of the present problems in the region. This is by no means to neglect the neighbouring countries, the frontline States. Their desire, after achieving independence, to concentrate their efforts on peaceful development has been seriously hampered by destabilization - military, economic and political. The reason is that these countries have stood up in solidarity with their oppressed brothers and sisters in South Africa. Undoubtedly, the South African Government would like to make the neighbouring States into some kind of bantustans, without possibility to oppose South Africa.
There is every reason to increase the economic support to and cooperation with these countries from us in Europe. This need is further underlined by the fact that the whole region of southern Africa has also been struck by drought and famine. Further pledges to support those affected by this disaster are therefore necessary.
In Sweden we allot something like twenty percent of our total development assistance, or nearly 0.2 percent of our gross national product, to the frontline States and the liberation movements. This at least shows our priorities.
2. We should press for government support to the liberation movements, the ANC of South Africa and SWAPO of Namibia. It is fully in line with resolutions in the United Nations to give humanitarian assistance to the freedom fighters in South Africa and Namibia. We have done so in Sweden for a long time and it has proved very efficient. It also has strong public support in my country. Popular organizations, churches and trade unions have continuously conducted campaigns and solidarity work with the liberation movements in southern Africa, as part of international actions. As parties and governments, we should give these actions our full support.
3. We should be more persistent in demanding South Africa`s withdrawal from Namibia. The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly and unanimously told South Africa to withdraw from Namibia. There were new signs earlier this year that a solution might finally be under way. These efforts should be supported, as long as they stick to United Nations Security Council resolution 435. But we should reject the so-called Cuban link, which has no part in the process for Namibian independence, and all other links or new conditions for the implementation of resolution 435. It is an international scandal that the independence of Namibia has not yet been achieved. And we should be prepared to continue and increase our support to the Namibian people, when the day of freedom finally comes.
4. We should be more active in the work for United Nations sanctions against South Africa. For many years the international community has been asked by the ANC, by the frontline States and by other forces of liberation to put pressure on South Africa through international sanctions. A large majority of the countries of the world are in favour of such sanctions. But so far binding international sanctions through decisions by the United Nations Security Council have not been achieved, except in the limited military sphere.
Big Powers use sanctions against each other, and against others. Evidently they believe in the method.
5. We should build up pressure on South Africa also by direct selective action. In the light of history, it will be no excuse to just sit back and say that some big Powers blocked a decision that the rest of us wanted, and let it rest at that. We have to go the other way. Party by party, government by government, we could introduce various means of direct selective action. Such sanctions will not be hundred percent efficient. But that is not the major point. We want to find peaceful means to put pressure on South Africa to change their system. We know that the South African Government is vulnerable to international pressure. And we know that when Ian Smith finally sat down at Lancaster House, this was because of both the liberation struggle and the international sanctions.
Since 1979 Sweden has had a law banning new investments by Swedish companies in South Africa. That is one example of direct selective action that I believe can be used also by others. My Government is now considering ways and means of making these sanctions more effective. But it is also my hope that more parties and governments will follow suit. Actions by one government will be more effective with more to come: we are now seeing some hopeful signs in other countries. Our resolution gives several examples of other kinds of direct selective action which also must be considered.
6. We should pursue a policy of isolation against the regime in South Africa. Contacts between South Africa and the neighbouring States are necessary for geographical reasons or because of their economic dependence on South Africa. I have not criticized such contacts. We have to understand them.. But such contacts cannot be used to justify attempts to break the international isolation of the apartheid State.
There is absolutely no reason for independent countries in Europe to accord the Pretoria regime credibility and acceptability and thereby alleviate the ban on South Africa by the international community. On the contrary we should make further attempts to isolate apartheid. The Nordic governments on their part pursue a policy of discontinuing contacts with South Africa in the fields of sports, culture and science.
Process of liberation cannot be stopped
For those who look at southern Africa today, without reference to history, the situation may look grim indeed. But seeing the shape of events in a longer perspective, we can be more optimistic.
When I came to Tanzania and Zambia in 1971, we were confronted not only with an apartheid regime in South Africa and an illegal occupation of Namibia. We also had a racist State across the river, in Southern Rhodesia. Meeting with President Kaunda in Livingstone, I remember saying that we now stood at the frontier of human decency. And Mozambique and Angola were at that time ruled by a European dictatorship. Many people said it would be unrealistic to believe in the liberation of those countries. The world would have to live with Portuguese fascists and the regime of Ian Smith.
I came back in 1977, with the Socialist International mission to southern Africa. Portugal had changed, and Mozambique and Angola were free and independent nations. But Ian Smith was still in Salisbury, and he said that things would not change in a thousand years.
Now it is seven years later. Zimbabwe is free. The process of liberation continues. It cannot be stopped. The basic human ideas that motivate this struggle are shared by the people in southern Africa as well as by peoples in the rest of the world. They will prevail.
It is my sincere hope that through this conference, we, as movements and parties from two neighbouring continents, shall be able to understand each other better, and that we can strengthen our ties of friendship and cooperation. We must find constructive ways to continue and follow up this dialogue of solidarity.
In sharing goals, wishes and dreams, we have a joint responsibility before mankind of today and tomorrow.
The voice of reason must be heard. Our actions must prove that we tried another path than the march of folly. We must follow the road of compassion and solidarity.