17 June 19912
It is a singular honour and privilege for me, on behalf of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and in the name of the people of South Africa, to address this solemn meeting marking the International Day of Solidarity with the Struggling People of South Africa. I am particularly pleased on this occasion - known to our people as South African Youth Day - to share with the participants in this meeting the hopes, anxieties and concerns of South Africa's embattled youth, as reflected in the ANC Youth League and on whose behalf I am privileged to speak.
I wish, however, at the very outset to express our profound gratitude for the invitation extended to us by the Special Committee against Apartheid. During the many years of arduous and very often tragic struggles against apartheid tyranny, we, the youth of South Africa, as an integral part of the anti-apartheid contingent, have undergone the most brutal forms of oppression. In all our endeavours we have always drawn strength from and taken comfort in the knowledge that people of conscience world-wide are fully behind us. That support has always been epitomized by the United Nations and especially the Special Committee against Apartheid. We would therefore like to place on record our heartfelt appreciation of this invaluable support.
It is now 15 years since the uprisings of Soweto and elsewhere in South Africa which resulted in the tragedy that saw thousands of people, mainly youths, being mowed down with ruthless abandon by the Pretoria regime's army and police. To commemorate that sad episode of our history, as we do today, is not only to pay tribute to the memory of our heroes and heroines, but also to underscore humanity's utter revulsion at the system of apartheid. But more important, in our view, this commemoration serves as a clarion call for concerted action by the international community to end for all the time what has been aptly described as a crime against humanity.
With that in mind, I should like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to make some brief observations on the situation in South Africa, in the hope that doing so will contribute towards an international consensus leading to the speedy demise of apartheid and the creation of a non-racial democracy in our country.
The first and foremost point we wish to make is that the destruction of apartheid and the creation in its place of a non-racial democracy is a reality that is going to be realized sooner rather than later. This is the reality of contemporary South African politics, which is dictated less by the subjective desires of the De Klerk regime than by the objective reality reflected in the offensive launched by anti-apartheid forces both in South Africa and internationally.
Indeed, whilst it may appear that the Pretoria regime is in charge of political events, in reality South Africa's political agenda is dictated by the forces of liberation. To elaborate, at the heart of the anti-apartheid struggle there has always been a total rejection of the regime's philosophy and political practice of racial superiority. The anti-apartheid forces have espoused political positions which have now been enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on Apartheid and its Destructive Consequences in Southern Africa. Those positions include support for principles of a new constitution which are predicated on racial equality. These have now been accepted by the regime, as reflected in its recently published manifesto. Pretoria also agrees thereby that its own constitution is unacceptable to the majority of people in South Africa.
Another requirement is the removal of obstacles to negotiations. Through both the Groote Schuur and Pretoria Minutes the regime has accepted the responsibility imposed on it by the United Nations Declaration: that for negotiations to proceed it must create a conducive climate by removing obstacles.
By agreeing to place on the agenda of the All-Party Congress the question of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution, the Pretoria regime acknowledges that its own rejection of such an assembly does not preclude discussion and even adoption of this concept by the majority of the participants in the All-Party Congress.
The consequences of the regime's conceding the notion of transitional mechanisms to govern the country represents the prevalence of the position of the anti-apartheid forces asserting that the Pretoria regime cannot be both player and referee in the negotiation process.
In all this it is patently clear that Pretoria cannot and has not imposed its own agenda but has, rather, been compelled to adopt ours.
To say that the forces of liberation shall triumph over apartheid is not to ignore or minimize the numerous obstacles that lie in the path of such an outcome. Indeed, the euphoria that was generated by De Klerk's speech of February last year, resulting in, inter alia, the release of Nelson Mandela, the unbanning of organizations and the release of political prisoners, has now been dampened by the sad reality that the regime has chosen to exhibit bad faith in its relations with the ANC. Whereas the ANC has strictly adhered to the letter and spirit of the solemn agreements reached with Pretoria, the same cannot be said of the regime. The following will illustrate this point.
Whilst Pretoria committed itself to release all political prisoners by 30 April 1991, to date, according to the Human Rights Commission and other independent sources, only 993 prisoners have been released, against a thousand or more still in prison, including some on death row. This situation has led to a countrywide hunger strike by political prisoners in an effort to back their demand for release. There are currently 400 political trials under way.
Similarly, the regime has not fully met its obligations with regard to political exiles under the agreements with the ANC. Moreover, some of the returned exiles have, despite indemnities, been subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.
In spite of the utterances and undertakings by the minority regime vis-a-vis the Internal Security Act, the reality is that Pretoria, using the pretext of curbing the on-going violence, has been able to resort to its huge arsenal of repressive security legislation, with the object of rendering the ANC totally ineffective.
It therefore cannot be gainsaid that the negotiations process leading to a democratic South Africa is being held up by Pretoria's failure to honour its solemn commitments.
Allow me now, Mr. Chairman, to turn to one of the most serious and intractable problems facing all those that yearn for a speedy resolution of the South African conflict. I refer to the question of violence.
Addressing the question of violence has been a major preoccupation of the ANC. Indeed, this problem has been so acute that in itself constitutes a serious obstacle to negotiations. Since the outbreak of this violence in the mid-1980s, 10,000 people have lost their lives. In 1990 alone 3,000 people died - an average of 10 people per day. During the first three months of this year 800 people died.
It is our considered view that the solution to this problem lies in the ability of all to grasp the complexities of this question and thus come up with workable solutions. There are therefore a few points that require examination.
Glibly to refer to this violence as merely "black-on-black" violence, inter-ethnic violence, or even ANC versus Inkatha, is not very helpful. To do so is to focus attention away from the source of this violence. Moreover, such a characterization perpetuates the erroneous notion that presents the question as though there was a sociological determinism that made inter-ethnic conflict inevitable.
Similarly, to continue to call this "black-on-black" violence is to feed the perception that black people are not capable of managing issues relating to public policy and practice and therefore cannot be allowed to rule themselves.
That the conflict, correctly understood, is not merely inter-ethnic is borne out by the fact that this violence does not cover the entire territory of South Africa where such ethnic groups coexist. In truth, this violence occurs not even in the entire province of Transvaal, but specifically in a given area around Johannesburg. This therefore suggests that there must be a more adequate explanation of this phenomenon.
Whilst it cannot be denied that when it broke out the violence was among supporters of Inkatha and the ANC in Natal, after a series of mediation efforts by both the ANC and Inkatha leadership the violence in Natal has all but died down. What has made it difficult to deal with the violence in the Transvaal is precisely that its origin is more complex than otherwise presented.
It is our contention that there is a hidden hand, particularly within the security apparatus, that has a vested interest in scuttling the negotiation process. The recent revelations by one Major Nico Bassom that as a functionary of Military Intelligence within the South African Defence Force he actively participated in planning and executing attacks on residents in and around Johannesburg, mobilizing the hostel-dwellers, is a case in point. It is therefore not accidental that this violence spread into the Johannesburg area immediately after agreements were reached in Pretoria between the regime and the ANC.
It stands to reason that the party that really stands to lose in this violence is the ANC, which has staked its credibility on the peace process, because many years of operating in clandestine conditions requires conditions of peace, so as to build itself and strengthen its organs. The charge levelled against the ANC, of allegedly shifting the goalposts when it refuses to proceed with negotiations unless the regime acts decisively to stop this violence, cannot stand.
The ANC has not only denounced the violence, but has undertaken a number of measures aimed at ending it. These include a series of consultations with the various political parties across the board, including Inkatha, the PAC and others. Such consultations have wherever relevant resulted in the setting up of working committees designed to defuse the explosive situation at the local level.
The ANC has also advocated a peace conference with the participation of all interested parties, to be convened by an impartial party. Leaders of the religious community have already advanced plans for the earliest convening of this conference.
The ANC has insisted that the regime, instead of allowing the violence to continue, thus attaining their objective of weakening the ANC, should carry out its responsibility to end the violence. The decision not to participate in further talks on the constitutional dispensation unless the regime responds positively to this demand should be seen in that context.
From all that has been stated, it is quite clear that the issue is not whether South Africa will be free from the tyranny of apartheid. The real question is: how soon, and therefore at what cost? The answer to this question lies, in the main, with the people of South Africa themselves. It cannot be denied, however, that the role of the international community is pivotal.
The combination of the struggles by the people of South Africa and international pressure has forced the regime to acknowledge that apartheid must go. The United Nations consensus Declaration on South Africa has been an important affirmation of that fact. We are therefore greatly concerned by the indecent haste with which some countries are beginning to lift sanctions and establish links with the apartheid regime. We wish to commend all those countries that have maintained the pressure on South Africa in order to ensure profound and irreversible change in South Africa. All those who cherish democracy should see this process through to its logical conclusion - namely, the establishment of a democratic South Africa.
We maintain that keeping the pressure on the regime and encouraging the process of change remain important and fundamental duties of the international community. Pressure should be exerted on the regime in particular to attain the following objectives: the removal of obstacles to negotiations; the establishment of an interim arrangement to oversee the transition from apartheid to a democratic South Africa; and the adoption of a democratic constitution and the installation of a democratic government.
Even as South Africa proceeds towards the establishment of a new political dispensation, there are a number of very grave socio-economic questions that simply cannot await the outcome of negotiations. They cry out for urgent attention. These include the delivery of educational services among blacks, where education is in a state of perpetual chaos; the provision of housing, thereby correcting the thorny problem of homelessness, which will be greatly aggravated by the return of thousands of political exiles; the provision of land for the dispossessed millions of blacks, which has become more urgent since the repeal of the Land Acts, which will not by itself change the present pattern of land ownership in our country; and health care for the majority of South Africans, which is still a luxury - diseases such as small pox and tuberculosis, which have been successfully treated in most countries, still claim hundreds of lives in South Africa.
The areas that I have just listed pose an important challenge for the international community and the United Nations. Providing assistance not only will address a real need but will in fact contribute to the process leading to a democratic future in South Africa. We therefore trust that we can continue to count on your support.
In conclusion, we have done our utmost to present our situation as we understand it. We are looking to the people of conscience the world over for assistance. For our part, we shall not rest until we rid ourselves and the world of the scourge of apartheid and create in its place a fully democratic South Africa.
Footnote
1. She was then Assistant Secretary for Political Education, ANC Youth League