11 September 19902
It is very pertinent and, indeed, highly appropriate that as the United Nations seeks to determine the apartheid regime's response to the historic consensus United Nations Declaration on Apartheid and its Destructive Consequences in Southern Africa the non-governmental organizations be given an opportunity to exercise their judgement. This is so not only because the non-governmental organizations have over the years played a prominent role in the anti-apartheid struggle but also because in the majority of cases it is thanks to their tireless and painstaking efforts that their respective Governments have been obliged to assume militant anti-apartheid postures. In this regard it is hardly surprising that public opinion in the United States, for instance, has compelled the United States Congress to adopt the most far-reaching anti-apartheid legislation, overriding the veto of a very conservative Administration. The African National Congress therefore remains indebted to the Special Political Committee for this opportunity to participate in these hearings.
It is our understanding that the purpose of these hearings is to enable the non-governmental organizations to pronounce themselves on the issues facing the resumed forty-fourth session of the General Assembly, namely, the policies of apartheid.3 More specifically, we are called upon to determine whether the South African regime has complied with the requirements of the United Nations Declaration at all; if it has complied, to what extent, and, if not, what should the response of the international community be? These, in our view, are the basic questions that are facing this meeting.
For us in the ANC, the issues are crystal clear. In order to make a determination we have used the Declaration itself as the litmus test. In particular we have very carefully considered the relevant paragraphs of the Declaration in terms of which the apartheid regime is called upon to carry out specific obligations in order to create the necessary climate for negotiations.
In arriving at our conclusions we have been greatly assisted by the United Nations Secretary-General's report, as well as by the report of the monitoring group, the Ad Hoc Committee on Southern Africa of the Organization of African Unity. Above all, however, we have relied on our own examination of facts on the ground in South Africa. In our view, in spite of what the pro-apartheid lobby and other apologists of apartheid may want to say, the truth is inescapable: the apartheid regime has dismally failed to comply with the requirements of the Declaration.
Let us examine the record. Paragraph 6 (a) of the Declaration requires that the South African regime release all political prisoners and detainees unconditionally and to refrain from imposing any restrictions on them. While it may be argued that a number of political prisoners have been released since 2 February 1990, their number in actual fact constitutes a tiny fraction of the political prisoners incarcerated in apartheid gaols. Indeed, there exists a wide disparity in the figures for political prisoners given by the regime and those given by observers such as human rights activists and human rights sources. The fact that there have been discussions between the ANC and the apartheid regime on the issue of political prisoners and the fact that under the terms of both the Groote Schuur and Pretoria agreements a timetable has been provided for the release of political prisoners should not be viewed as an indication that Pretoria has in deed and in fact complied with that requirement. The truth of the matter is that in spite of the agreed timetable political prisoners in their thousands are still in goals in South Africa. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that the continued existence of such legislation as the Internal Security Act, which has been designed to circumscribe political activity, has made it possible for the Government to detain even greater numbers of people across the country, including the leaders of the African National Congress. We are therefore saying that while political prisoners have been released the number released does not in fact constitute the kind of numbers that the United Nations Declaration had in mind when it referred to political prisoners, because the Declaration is very clear on that issue and it says that all political prisoners must be released.
To say there is a timetable that is in place - one that may range from any period - does not in itself mean that the political prisoners have been released. Therefore, we take very strong exception to anybody wanting to suggest that because of those agreements the apartheid regime would have complied with the requirements of the Declaration on that score.
Furthermore, the fact that the state of emergency remains in force in Natal and that some emergency measures are applicable in the Transvaal area has given the regime an excuse to detain even more people. In other words, what we are experiencing here is a situation in which the regime is saying on the one hand that in terms of the agreement it is releasing political prisoners but at the same time, in the interest of maintaining law and order, and because of the applications of the provisions of the state of emergency in Natal and elsewhere, it is duty-bound to continue to incarcerate more political prisoners or more detainees.
In our view, this is typical of the South African regime, which is as usual giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It should therefore not in any way delude international public opinion into thinking that there has been any significant movement in that direction. We are thus saying that while there appears on the surface to be a liberalization of the regime, in reality there are still thousands of patriots languishing in apartheid dungeons precisely because they have dared to oppose apartheid
Leaving aside the question of political prisoners, paragraph 6 (b) of the United Nations Declaration requires the Pretoria regime to lift the ban on all proscribed and restricted organizations and persons. Again, while it is true that on 2 February 1990 De Klerk issued a statement before Parliament in South Africa in which he announced the unbanning of the political organizations, the truth of the matter is that it is in fact well nigh impossible for those political organizations to function in contemporary South Africa.
That is precisely because the South African regime has refused to ensure safe conduct for those members of political organizations who are in exile to participate in the political process in South Africa. Again, we need to be very careful here in using the agreements that have been reached as an excuse to say that the South African regime has in fact delivered the goods. As of now, the political organizations, although technically declared legal, have in actual fact found it impossible to participate in the process.
Paragraphs 6 (c) and 6 (d) of the Declaration address the issue of the need in South Africa to create a political climate that is free of violence. The truth of the matter in present-day South Africa is that we are engulfed in a spiral of violence which the apologists of apartheid have characterized variously as black-on-black violence, sometimes as inter-tribal friction, and at other times as Inkatha versus the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC), and so on. The truth is that behind the facade of those very unhelpful characterizations there is irrefutable evidence of the complicity of the South African police not only in fomenting but also encouraging the conflict.
I believe this to be a very important point of which the international community ought to be apprised, because in the debates that are going on about what is currently occurring in South Africa, we are very often sidetracked from what the Declaration itself requires in South Africa and of the South African Government as an important yardstick that has to be used to determine whether the South African Government has in fact complied with the Declaration. What we find are all kinds of red herrings that are thrown across the path in an effort to characterize the ANC as the aggressor in the violence that is at present engulfing South Africa.
It is also very interesting to note that this kind of characterization comes at a time when the ANC has in fact taken a decision to suspend its armed struggle. It is therefore quite interesting to note that precisely at the point when the ANC is supposed to have suspended armed struggle it is being accused of continuing the conflict. It does not matter what the rationalization is. The truth of the matter is that behind the conflict there is no denying the direct involvement and complicity of the South African Government.
Not too long ago, the religious delegation led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu met with De Klerk and presented him with sworn affidavits as evidence pointing to the direct involvement of the South African police. What De Klerk has done is merely to give an undertaking that an investigation will be conducted in order to determine this. There have also been eyewitness accounts of white people driving around the township of Soweto and elsewhere having painted themselves black and going on shooting rampages in order to provoke the kind of conflict that we find existing here. We have seen a statement from the police that acknowledges the existence of those kind of vehicles. Of course, the only point they are denying is that the white people painted themselves black in order to give the impression of being black, so as to give a justification of black-on-black violence.
We feel very strongly about this precisely because throughout the years the South African regime has been known to be the sole bearer of responsibility for the conflict that has been raging not only in South Africa but in all of southern Africa and there have been numerous studies undertaken to show the devastation that has occurred precisely because of the policies of the apartheid regime. Suddenly, we are now given to understand that the South African Government is the sole bearer of peace and that the people who are on the receiving end of the violence are supposed to be the ones who are starting that violence and encouraging it.
We believe that this is totally unacceptable and flies in the face of contemporary reality in southern Africa. We would therefore like to make the point that it is neither the ANC nor the people of South Africa that stand to gain in a situation of continued violence in South Africa. Therefore, the ANC can have no interest in ensuring that our own people, who have been shedding blood over the years in order to get rid of apartheid, would want to continue the violence. I therefore require that the international community place the blame squarely where it is supposed to be placed, that is, on the South African Government.
It is also very interesting that over the years the South African Government has been able to utilize its huge military arsenal in order to keep in check any kind of protest movement in South Africa, including the shooting of unarmed children. And yet, in a situation where arms of devastation are being passed out among thousands and thousands of people, the South African Government now seems totally unable to keep this in check. We refuse to believe that there is no way in which the South African Government could have taken its responsibility on this issue.
That is why, in the light of this, the religious delegation that was headed by Desmond Tutu required that De Klerk set up a permanent judicial commission of inquiry to establish and to investigate the violence, beginning with the shootings in Sebokeng; it requested the Government to act to purge the police and the South African Defence Force of those elements that were in fact set on de-railing the peace process that is under way; it requested that independent monitors, including judges, lawyers, community activists and church leaders accompany security forces who were acting in situations of unrest; and, finally, it requested that a new unit of the security forces be created to handle unrest and be recruited on such a basis as to ensure it was respected by the black community.
Those are not positions of the ANC; they are the positions of the religious leaders that have gone and presented these depositions to the De Klerk regime precisely because of their analysis of the situation and their deep understanding of the actual role and complicity of the South African Government.
What has come from the South African Government as a response to these overtures - the ANC's suspending violence and the calls for the Government to take action against the police? We find that the South African Government has in fact moved a step further in order to intensify the conflict. Not too long ago, an amendment to an existing law was introduced in Natal allowing for the carrying of what is called traditional weapons by the traditional Zulu people, which in fact means that, whereas in the past there may have been laws that prohibited the carrying of weapons, the South African Government has now legitimized it on the grounds that it is in fact observing the cultural traditions of the Zulu people and allowing them to carry whatever weapons they wish to carry. This is, in our view, a way of in fact contributing to an existing situation that is highly explosive. It is not very helpful at all, and that is why it ought to be very clear to the international community where responsibility for the violence lies.
Stepping aside from the violence in South Africa, given the litmus test we are supposed to utilize in determining whether the South African Government has in fact met the requirements, what would be the verdict of the African National Congress? Indeed, what would be the verdict of the international community?
For us, the conclusion is inescapable that there is no way in which anybody can suggest - though there will be such suggestions - that there have been changes, that there have been important developments, that there have been positive developments and that therefore the South African Government ought to be given a chance and we need not, in the old tradition of the United Nations, use its forum to whip the South African Government. We know why such arguments are going to be advanced. The reason is that there is a concerted effort on the part of certain Governments to reward South Africa for what is happening in South Africa and to allow it to take its seat in the General Assembly. Those who advanced such arguments would not be doing so because they were convinced anything was happening in South Africa that warranted actions against South Africa being suspended. It would merely be because they in fact wanted to play as lobbyists of the South African Government in allowing circumstances to come about in which South Africa could be reintegrated, or perhaps sneaked into, the international community through the back door.
We cannot allow such things to happen. We do not think it would be very helpful for the United Nations, after having taken a very firm position that was codified in the United Nations declaration, to turn around, on the basis of what South Africa promises to do, and reduce the existing pressure on South Africa.
In our view, therefore, the verdict is a very clear one, and it is that South Africa has not been able to meet the requirements of the declaration. Having reached that conclusion, the other conclusion is inescapable: that therefore it ought to be the position of the international community that those measures that are currently in place against the South African Government should in fact remain in place, if not be intensified, because, as we have all agreed over the years, in fact over four decades, the United Nations has passed resolution after resolution condemning apartheid, but over those decades the apartheid regime has continued to exist to the detriment of the majority of the South African people. The only time the South African Government was able to act in a responsive manner as desired by the international community and the majority of the people of South Africa was when pressure was brought to bear on it. That is the kind of language that has in fact, in our view, assisted tremendously in. the attainment of independence by Namibia and in ensuring that South Africa gets to the negotiating table. It is therefore our view that it would be totally incorrect at this stage, after all the pressures that have been brought to bear on it, to let the South African Government off the hook and in fact allow it to buy more time in which to strengthen apartheid, even though it is perhaps given a face-lift. What we are interested in is not an amelioration of the situation in South Africa but an end to apartheid.
On the question of the reintegration of South Africa into the international community, again I think we need to underline what is already contained in the declaration: that only a new South Africa will be allowed to enter and take its place in the international community. In other words, only when a new constitution has been adopted in South Africa will the new South Africa be enabled to take part in international affairs on an equal footing.
Having said that, we also wish to make an appeal to the international community, an appeal we have made over the years but becomes very pertinent at this stage. Over the years we have always said that while it is important for the international community to adopt a very firm position against the apartheid regime, what is ultimately going to be very important and prove more useful, particularly for the people of South Africa, is a situation in which those people will have been rendered the kind of assistance they require to ensure they will rid themselves of the scourge of apartheid.
Under these circumstances, we wish to say that in South Africa we are now faced with a situation in which, starting from 1 October, something in the order of 20,000 political exiles will be going back into South Africa, into a situation in which the economy has been devastated, particularly through the imposition of sanctions, and therefore in a situation in which a great deal of assistance will be required for those who want to be reintegrated into the South African community and to take part in the political process.
To that end, in South Africa there has been created a co-ordinating body intended to receive political exiles. It is comprised of the various political organizations, the South African Council of Churches, the trade union movement and other service organizations such as the Health Workers Educationists. The purpose of this Committee is in fact to ensure that those who will hopefully be coming out of prisons in their thousands will be enabled to take their place within the community and be properly integrated. It is also this Committee's task to ensure that those who are coming from outside the boundaries of South Africa, with their children and so forth, into situations in which the educational system for black people has been in virtual stagnation, will be enabled to be given the educational facilities they require.
We are therefore making an appeal to the international community, and in particular to the various bodies and specialized agencies of the United Nations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and others, for assistance in this direction. We understand that a number of these bodies have expressed some concern over this, to the effect that such assistance might be seen as participation in South Africa and in violation of United Nations sanctions. The point I should like to make, however, is that the assistance that they would provide would in fact be assistance that had been enjoyed by the liberation movement previously, and nobody is calling for the actual involvement of these United Nations bodies in South Africa itself but for them simply to recognize that the situation deserves the kind of concerted assistance that the United Nations can provide in this direction.
Hence, coupled with a very strong insistence on the need to maintain existing sanctions against South Africa, we would also like to make a very fervent appeal to the international community to provide precisely the kind of assistance that would enable those South Africans, either in prison or elsewhere outside the borders of South Africa, to participate in a process which has in fact been envisaged by the United Nations - in other words, to address the question of resolving South Africa's problems by peaceful means.
We are committed to the cause of resolving South Africa's problems by peaceful means. Many people have in fact wanted to project this as a tactical move on the part of the ANC. We wish to go on record as stating very categorically that it is a position that we have taken after a very careful assessment and analysis of our situation, and we think that it is a position that has been taken in the best interests of our people.
Having said that, we would also like to reiterate what the Deputy President of the ANC, Nelson Mandela, said at the recent Ad Hoc Committee meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in Kampala to the effect that, if the South African Government continues to utilize a situation in which the ANC has suspended violence in order to foment and encourage violence, this might leave the ANC with no option but to exercise its right, and the right of the people of South Africa, to self-defence. But we want to make the point that for South Africa to move in the direction envisaged by the United Nations Declaration it is critical that at this stage the international community maintain the sanctions that were so necessary to get South Africa to the negotiating table in the first place.
We should like to conclude by saying that as far as the ANC is concerned the struggle continues, and until such time as we can rid not only South Africa but the entire African continent of the scourge of apartheid, we shall not rest and we shall ensure that the support we have received over the years from the international community has not been in vain but will in fact lead to a transformation in South Africa, a transformation in which the people of South Africa shall together determine their own destiny in a democratic fashion, irrespective of their colour, creed or other considerations.
Footnote
1. Mr. Mafole was ANC representative at the United Nations.
2. Source: United Nations document A/SPC/PV.26
3.
Several non-governmental organizations were heard at this meeting.