MEDIA AND SOUTHERN AFRICAN STRUGGLE (March 1988)

[Paper presented to the Seminar on the Role of the Latin American and Caribbean Media in the International Campaign against Apartheid, Lima, Peru, March 7-9, 1988. The Seminar was organised by the UN Special Committee against Apartheid in cooperation with the Government of Peru.]

The role of the media has been important in all freedom struggles — both in promoting the unity of the oppressed people and in securing international support. Freedom movements have had to combat and overcome the moves of the oppressors to curb the media in their countries and their well—financed propaganda against those movements in other countries.

In South Africa the freedom movement has faced tremendous odds — with a large white community poisoned by rabid racism and armed to the teeth, and the involvement of powerful foreign economic and other interests. It attaches utmost importance to securing support of the international public opinion. Indeed, mobilisation of world support for effective international action against the apartheid regime is essential to avert a ghastly conflict with an immense loss of life.

The Pretoria regime spends annually tens of millions of dollars in public and secret funds for its propaganda and resorts to dirty tricks with impunity. Its efforts are supplemented by those of the South Africa Foundation, set up by South African business interests and media, as well as by other groups. It receives support from different quarters, including transnational corporations which profit from apartheid, military and intelligence establishments of some Western countries which see the white racist regime as a dependable ally and from ultra—conservative and racist elements.

It has sought to convince Western public opinion that the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) is terrorist and "communist—dominated", that the fall of the racist minority regime would lead to Soviet domination of South Africa, endangering Western strategic and economic interests, that the racist regime is reformist, that violence is caused by the liberation movement, that sanctions against South Africa would hurt the blacks and retard reform, and so on.

These themes, however baseless, are openly or subtly spread by the Western media and have required enormous efforts by the liberation movement and its friends to counteract effectively.

The first priority of the racist regime has been to prevent sanctions by its main trading partners. The Western media, which are themselves controlled by transnational corporations or influenced by Governments which oppose sanctions, have been most receptive to the propaganda of that regime. While they could not avoid reporting on the excesses of apartheid, most of them have consistently opposed sanctions against the racist regime. For them, the task was at best to end some human rights violations, not the liberation of a people and the establishment of a non—racial democratic state in South Africa.

Since 1984, however, with the unprecedented upsurge of mass resistance in South Africa and the escalating violence and repression by the regime, wider segments of public opinion in Western countries have begun to demand action by the Governments. The coverage of police violence against peaceful demonstrators on the television networks in the West has provoked outrage by millions of people, whatever the commentaries or slants, and has helped promote international action which, in turn, has encouraged the movement in South Africa.

To counter this, the Pretoria regime has imposed sweeping restrictions on coverage by South African and foreign media. In November 1985, it prohibited filming or photographing of demonstrations and police violence. Since December 1986, it has further extended the restrictions.

While media have protested the restrictions, they have not fought them nor tried to overcome them. They go to extraordinary lengths to cover and publicise insurgence in third world countries, but have done nothing of the kind in South Africa. Again and again they have succumbed to the pressures of the Pretoria regime in their anxiety to maintain correspondents in South Africa. For several years now, the curtain of silence on Namibia has been even more complete.

This is the context in which the role of the media needs to be discussed.

The façade or pretence of a "free press" in South Africa, upheld in the West as a redeeming feature of that country, has now been destroyed.

I refer to the "façade" because the press has never been truly free in South Africa. Just as there is a façade of parliamentary democracy (for whites only), there has been a façade of a free press (for whites only).

The television and radio, controlled by the regime, have always been mouthpieces of the racist ruling party.

The major newspapers have all been owned by the whites, including the mining and banking houses and the racist political parties. A few newspapers set up by blacks were also taken over by the white groups as they could not survive financially without advertisements.

Already in the 1940s, the freedom movement could obtain coverage for its activities only in the Guardian, a communist weekly. The Guardian was banned in 1952. It reappeared under different names - Advance, New Age, Clarion Call, Spark - but that became impossible by 1963 as all the journalists were detained, prohibited from writing or forced into exile. A Liberal Party weekly, Contact, which was started in the 1950s, was also forced to close down.

With the banning of the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) in 1960, and the serving of "banning orders" on hundreds of leaders of the liberation movement and on black writers, they could not be quoted, and their views could not be disseminated. The regime hoped that the people would forget their movement and their leaders in the course of time.

A façade of a free press remained since the English—language press, supporting the opposition parties, could still criticise the regime. The criticism, however strident, was within the confines of white power and the controversy was on reform or regression under the system of white domination. Yet, as some of the newspapers exposed the excesses of apartheid, the regime enacted several restrictive laws prohibiting, for instance, reporting on prison conditions and police and defence matters, without official permission, and consequently intimidated the newspaper owners.

By the late 1960s, the press was subject to a hundred repressive laws and newspaper editors who wished to report on repression against the people had to have constant recourse to legal advice.

With the revival of large—scale resistance, especially by the black youth and trade unions in the 1970s, black journalists, though employed by white—owned papers, tried to utilise all possibilities to reflect the sentiments and aspirations of the black people.

During the upsurge after the Soweto massacre of African students on June 16, 1976, the African townships became centres of resistance. Police resorted to indiscriminate shooting, killing and wounding of thousands of youth and students. As white reporters could not enter the segregated townships, the white—owned press had to rely on African reporters, both from their staff and free—lance journalists, who covered the events at great personal risk.

Soon after, the regime detained many African journalists, including the entire leadership of the Union of Black Journalists.

In 1980, after the independence of Zimbabwe, when Percy Qoboza, an African editor, and Bishop Desmond Tutu launched a campaign for the release of Nelson Mandela, there was another swoop on the journalists to suppress the nation—wide campaign. The World, a white—owned newspaper which Percy Qoboza edited, was banned in 1981 and many black journalists became unemployed.

A number of black journalists have continued to do what they could, using every loophole in the web of restrictions and risking constant persecution.

In the past few years, an "alternative press", known as community papers, has emerged. Edited by black journalists, these papers are weeklies or monthlies with limited circulation and insecure finances, but they have been courageous in reporting on the revolutionary upsurge in the black communities.

The regime is now intent on destroying this alternative press, while intimidating the opposition white establishment press so as to prevent all coverage of resistance. It is equally anxious to prevent objective reporting by international media.

The latest assaults by the regime on the media cannot be treated as only further additions to the armoury of restrictions. The motives of the regime seem more sinister.

The regime has not been able to suppress the popular resistance despite the state of emergency and massive repression. Over 30,000 people have been detained, including nearly 10,000 juveniles: thousands of them have been tortured. White vigilantes have killed a number of popular leaders. Yet, the resistance continues.

It appears that the regime intends to resort to even more violence and brutality. It is anxious that the extent of its barbarism should be concealed by a curtain of censorship. It feels that its show of some restraint to give credibility to President Reagan’s policy of "constructive engagement" has failed as he could not prevent partial sanctions by the United States of America.

In this context, the media, as well as Governments and organisations committed to the anti—apartheid struggle, will need to consider means to: (a) obtain news of developments inside South Africa; (b) reach the people inside South Africa; and (c) show solidarity with the oppressed people and the South African journalists who are making a significant contribution to the struggle for freedom.

In 1981, the Special Committee against Apartheid organised a seminar in Berlin, German Democratic Republic, on "Publicity and Role of the Mass Media in the International Mobilisation against Apartheid". The Seminar stated in its declaration:

"All those committed to the liberation of South Africa must make every effort to mobilise public opinion in all countries, especially in Western and other countries which provide vital support to enable the apartheid regime to survive, and promote widest public action, in concert with the efforts of committed Governments and in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations and other international organisations.

In this context, the mass media have a crucial role and responsibility.

The media must publicise the legitimacy of the struggle against apartheid waged by the national liberation movements.

The media must make the world aware of the inhumanity of apartheid, the struggle of the people of South Africa and Namibia under the leadership of their national liberation movements and the need for effective international action.

The media must expose the nefarious propaganda of the apartheid regime and its allies, including efforts to defame the national liberation movements.

The media must investigate, publicise the expose the sustenance of the apartheid regime by certain Western Powers and transnational corporations. ...

Neither the media nor anyone else can be neutral on apartheid, which is the greatest moral challenge of our time and a grave threat to peace and international security and cooperation."

The Seminar went on to make a number of concrete proposals for action by Governments, organisations and the media.

The major international media, especially in the West, must be persuaded that they cannot be neutral on the inhumanity of apartheid, which involved even indiscriminate killing and mass torture of children, and threatens to engulf the whole region in a ghastly conflict. The pretence of neutrality only makes it possible for the Pretoria regime to maintain an aura of respectability as a legitimate Government and to plant its vicious propaganda in the media.

Meanwhile, independent and third world media should consider a more effective contribution to the international campaign against apartheid by: (a) publicising the struggle of the people against racist tyranny; (b) promoting concrete support to the liberation movements and all others engaged in the struggle; (c) exposing those who collaborate with and sustain the apartheid regime; and (d) encouraging international actions of solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa.

Most third world countries have no correspondents in South Africa and are totally dependent on Western news media for information on developments in South Africa and Namibia. They seem to have misunderstood the scope and purpose of the boycott of South Africa as covering even the media and, as a result, there is little reporting of a revolution that is of vital interest to them.

I would suggest that third world news media send correspondents to South Africa to contact the movement inside the country and provide objective reporting which reflects the sentiments of the majority population and is not tainted by Western prejudices or preconceptions.

If the Pretoria regime refuses visas or work permits, as it well may, the media should utilise unorthodox means to send their representatives. They can also employ the many competent black journalists in South Africa. It may be noted that several Western newspapers, as well as television and radio networks, employ South Africans, but generally white liberals.

Coverage from neighbouring States, based mainly on South African press, is preferable to no coverage, but it is hardly satisfactory.

The freedom movement has been developing clandestine channels for sending information abroad and the media should establish contacts to obtain the information.

The struggles and sacrifices of black journalists in South Africa, as well as some white journalists who have identified with the liberation movement, deserve to be publicised.

Scores of journalists have been imprisoned or prohibited from pursuing their profession, and some were brutally tortured. Several are now in detention under the state of emergency. A few names are illustrative:

1. Ruth First. An editor of New Age. Kept in solitary confinement for 117 days in 1963. Assassinated by a parcel bomb in Maputo in 1982.
2. Peter Magubane. Prominent press photographer, known internationally. Arrested several times and spent over 600 days in solitary confinement. Was prohibited for several years from journalism.
3. Harry Mashabela. A senior reporter and former President of Union of Black Journalists. Detained for 16 weeks after the Soweto massacre of 1976.
4. Juby Mayet. A Johannesburg journalist who worked for an ecumenical newspaper. Detained in 1977.
5. Govan Mbeki. One of the editors of New Age. Sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 with Nelson Mandela. Restricted after release from prison in 1987.
6. Quraish Patel. A Durban reporter. Detained in 1977—1978.
7. Zwelakhe Sisulu. Son of Walter Sisulu, ANC leader in prison with Nelson Mandela. Editor of the weekly New Nation. Detained and restricted several times. Has been in detention since late 1986.
8. Joe Thloloe. Former President of the Union of Black Journalists. Detained for several months in 1976 and again in 1977 under the Terrorism Act and brutally interrogated.

Some of them have been honoured in the West and several black journalists have been Nieman fellows at Harvard University in the United States.

I would suggest that third world media should employ the black journalists as correspondents in South Africa.