By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Oct 8 2007 (IPS)

The 2007 UN General Assembly will have to make the honest admission that the world community of nations has not lived up to the solemn undertakings it made to the poor in Africa and the rest of the world in the 2000 Millennium Declaration, writes Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa. In this analysis, Mbeki cites the grim assessment made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) about how many of the 53 African countries are likely to achieve the MDGs by the 2015 target date. The ECA says only 13 African countries are likely to reduce poverty to the required degree, 14 to achieve universal primary education; just 7 are likely to achieve gender parity at the level of secondary school education; a mere 8 are likely to reduce child mortality. The ECA tells the dismal and distressing story that the overwhelming majority of countries on our continent will, for the foreseeable future, remain mired in deeply dehumanising poverty, misery, and underdevelopment.

The General Assembly will therefore have to pose the critical questions – what progress has been made towards the achievement of the MDGs, and what more should be done to ensure that the world community of nations realises this objective? Correct and honest answers to these questions are of vital importance to the billions across the globe who continue to suffer from the terrible scourges of poverty, hunger and underdevelopment.

When it was adopted in 2000, the Millennium Declaration brought great hope to these masses. It communicated the message that the international community, combining both developed and developing countries, had, at last, resolved to make poverty history, everywhere in the world.

In moving words, the Millennium Declaration said: “We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanising conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want. We resolve therefore to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.”

Of great importance to us as Africans, the Millennium Declaration made it a point specifically to recognise and acknowledge the special needs of the African continent. In this regard it said: “We will support the consolidation of democracy in Africa and assist Africans in their struggle for lasting peace, poverty eradication, and sustainable development, thereby bringing Africa into the mainstream of the world economy.”

These pledges were fully in keeping with the objectives set by the African Union and its development programme, the Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). We therefore welcomed them as a firm signal that the peoples of the world were fully committed to walk the long and hard road to Africa’s renewal, side by side with us. This commitment was further confirmed when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to formally support NEPAD, which has been followed by practical steps to give effect to this resolution.

However, it is commonly agreed that between now and 2015, the second half of the period the General Assembly had set for the achievement of the MDGs, far more will have to be done than was the case during the first half. Indeed, the 2007 General Assembly will have to make the honest admission that the world community of nations has so far not lived up to the solemn undertakings it made to the poor in Africa and the rest of the world.

A clear sense of the challenge ahead of us can be found in the assessment made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) about how many of the 53 African countries are likely to achieve the MDGs.

With regard to MDG 1, to halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, the ECA says only 13 African countries are likely to reduce poverty to the required degree;

-only 14 countries are likely to achieve MDG 2 of providing universal primary education,

-only 7 countries are likely to achieve MDG 3, promoting gender parity at the level of secondary school education and promoting women and equality of women;

-a mere 8 are likely to achieve MDG 4 of reducing child mortality;

-just 9 countries are likely to achieve MDG 5, cutting the maternal mortality rate;

-for MDG 6, only 8 countries are likely to meet the HIV and AIDS reduction targets, and only 13 with regard to malaria;

-only 11 countries are likely to meet the water requirements in rural areas and only 7, the urban sanitation requirements of MDG 7, ensuring environmental sustainability;

-MDG 8 targets the development of a global partnership for development.

The Economic Commission for Africa thus tells a dismal and distressing story: the overwhelming majority of countries on our continent will, for the foreseeable future, remain mired in a deeply dehumanising state of poverty, misery, and underdevelopment. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Apr 10 2007 (IPS)

We must continue to debate honestly and fearlessly the scourge of racism that permeates so much of the fabric of our society, writes Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa. In this analysis, Mbeki refutes the argument of some that discussion is inimical to the task of achieving national reconciliation. The truth is the opposite: the racism that remains a daily feature of our lives is a demon that must be exorcised precisely to achieve national reconciliation. Those who are determined to avoid confronting these difficult issues seek to divert attention away from discussing the relationship between racism and the perception of crime by falsely and dishonestly claiming that I am trying to deny or minimise the seriousness of the incidence of crime in South Africa. It remains to be seen whether we have the will to know one another and to debate with one another, to educate ourselves not to be too quick to judge as illegitimate the concerns and expressions of any group; and whether we have the courage to engage in a truth and reconciliation process even with regard to the challenge of openly confronting the cancer of deeply dehumanising racist stereotypes that developed over many centuries.

The scourge of racism that permeates so much of the fabric of our society is one we must continue to debate honestly and fearlessly. The preferred expression used to close down and prohibit any discussion on racism in our country is, ”Don’t play the race card”. It is also argued that such discussion is inimical to the task of achieving national reconciliation.

The truth is the opposite: the racism that remains a daily feature of our lives is a demon that must be exorcised precisely to achieve national reconciliation. It must be confronted openly and continuously if we are to achieve the Constitutional imperative of a non-racial society, as we must.

Recently I received a report prepared by a group of independent investigators who had been asked to assess the cause of a labour dispute, as well as conflicts within management. The report says that one of the white managers affected by the investigation, Mr X, ”admitted that he and other white managers used the term ‘kaffir’ (an offensive ethnic/racial label) generally in the everyday conversation, and he saw nothing wrong with this. However he always made certain that he did not use this word when Africans were present, and also avoided calling anybody ‘kaffir’ to their face. Another manager sometimes flattened his nose with his finger as a derogatory reference to Africans.”

The report says that the African workers ”fear Mr X, who always threatens to fire them, and does not listen or care for them. Failure to take action against Mr X for his racist remarks could well raise the levels of conflict and dissatisfaction amongst workers and lead to further disruptions at the workplace.”

This account corroborates that racism is alive and well at the workplace and that this racism does not just amount to bad language, to which we must be opposed. It has a direct, negative, material impact on the lives of our people, especially the working people, and sends the message that apartheid is not dead. It is not something we should put out of sight, and therefore out of mind, by responding to all attempts to confront it as “playing the race card”.

In the period immediately preceding the transition in 1994, our movement grappled constantly with the phenomenon in our country then characterised as “white fears”. President Nelson Mandela again addressed this issue in his Political Report to the 50th National Conference of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1997, saying: “The prophets of doom have re-emerged in our country. In 1994, these predicted that the transition to democracy would be attended by a lot of bloodshed…(Now) their task is to spread messages about an impending economic collapse, escalating corruption in the public service, rampant and uncontrollable crime, a massive loss of skills through white emigration, and mass demoralisation among the people either because they are white and therefore threatened by the ANC and its policies which favour black people, or because they are black and consequently forgotten because the ANC is too busy protecting white privilege.”

As Nelson Mandela observed, we have continued to express our own serious concern to dramatically reduce the levels of crime and have acted consistently to achieve this result. The fact of unacceptably high levels of crime in our country is not in dispute. Nevertheless, in the light of what follows, none among us should be surprised when, as is customary, those who are determined to avoid confronting these difficult issues seek to divert attention away from discussing the relationship between racism and the perception of crime by falsely and dishonestly claiming that I am trying to deny or minimise the seriousness of the incidence of crime in South Africa.

The fact of the matter is that we still have a significant proportion of people among the white minority, though by no means all of them, that continues to live in fear of the black, and especially African majority. For this section of our population, which does not “find it too difficult to revert to the accustomed world of fear of the future”, every reported incident of crime communicates the frightening and expected message that – the kaffirs are coming!

It remains to be seen whether we have the will to know one another and to debate with one another, to spend more time listening to one another, educating ourselves not to be too quick to judge as illegitimate the concerns and expressions of any group; and whether we have the courage to engage in a truth and reconciliation process even with regard to the challenge of openly confronting the cancer of deeply dehumanising racist stereotypes that developed over many centuries. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS/ANC Today)

Excerpt:

By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Apr 30 2006 (IPS)

May 5 seemed to be yet another day of good news for our continent, signalling that we were indeed advancing towards the realisation of the goal of Africa\’s renaissance: Sudan took a step forward towards the restoration of peace in Darfur, as the government of Sudan and one faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria, after a protracted process of negotiations, writes Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa. In this article, Mbeki writes that it is most unfortunate that another faction of the SLM/A, led by Abdel Wahed Mohammed al-Nur, as well as the second Darfur rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), decided not to sign the peace agreement. The negative impact of the Darfur conflict on inter-state relations, as between Sudan and Chad, as well as Eritrea to the east, which Sudan accuses of supporting the Darfur rebels, must communicate the strong message to the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja that, truly, the resolution of the Darfur crisis and the overall challenges of Sudan, would make an important contribution to the resolution of Africa\’s problems. A just resolution of the conflict in Darfur must indeed be based on the repudiation of any winner-takes-all approach, which makes it impossible to build the inclusive societies that are the only condition for the achievement of peace, stability and national unity and reconciliation in all African countries.

As Africans we are always thirsty for good news about all the countries of our continent to assess the progress we are making towards the renewal of Africa. It is therefore always very distressing to hear news that recalls the painful past of violent conflicts, wars, military dictatorships, and famines, against which our continent is trying to turn its back.

May 5 seemed to be yet another day of good news for our continent, signalling that we were indeed advancing towards the realisation of the goal of Africa’s renaissance.

On this day, Sudan took a step forward towards the restoration of peace in Darfur, as the Government of Sudan and one faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria, after a protracted process of negotiations.

We must salute Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the African Union (AU) Mediator, Salim Ahmed Salim, and others who have been involved in the process to assist the Sudanese parties to conclude a comprehensive agreement that would end the costly conflict in Darfur, as well as the government of Sudan and Minni Arcua Minnawi and his faction of the SLM/A for taking the critical step to sign the negotiated agreement.

It is most unfortunate that another faction of the SLM/A, led by Abdel Wahed Mohammed al-Nur, as well as the second Darfur rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), decided not to sign the peace agreement.

The agreement includes critically important elements: · a comprehensive ceasefire; · a programme to disarm all non-statutory forces and integrate them in the national security forces; · a resource-sharing formula; · a power sharing agreement; and, · dialogue and reconciliation within Darfur.

These issues parallel similar issues contained in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in Nairobi, Kenya, in January 2005, concluding the similarly protracted negotiations between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, then led by the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior.

Though the CPA is a product of negotiations between two Sudanese players, the predominantly Arab and Moslem government of Sudan and the SPLM/A, representing the black and non-Moslem Southern Sudan, it is of central relevance to the whole of Sudan.

Obviously, anything agreed about Darfur cannot and should not result in unravelling the CPA. Rather, it should help to give meaning to the people in Darfur of the provisions contained in the CPA.

These include precisely the same issues contained in the Abuja Agreement on Darfur, such as equitably sharing political power and the country’s wealth, and respecting the national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of Sudan.

The conflict in Darfur has resulted in strained relations and heightened tension between Sudan and Chad. The latter is now faced with the threat of a civil war. The government of Chad has openly blamed the government of Sudan for supporting the armed groups that have engaged in military campaigns to overthrow the government of Chad.

Similarly, the government of Sudan has accused elements within the Chadian government of supporting the rebels in Darfur. The situation is of course complicated by the fact that Sudan and Chad share some ethnic groups, such as the Zaghawa who live both in Sudan and Chad, and move freely across the boundary between these two countries drawn by the colonial powers.

The negative impact of the Darfur conflict on inter-state relations, as between Sudan and Chad, as well as Eritrea to the east, which Sudan accuses of supporting the Darfur rebels, must communicate the strong message to the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja that, truly, the resolution of the Darfur crisis and the overall challenges of Sudan, would make an important contribution to the resolution of Africa’s problems.

One of Sudan’s eminent sons, Mansour Khalid, a distinguished politician, international diplomat and writer, published a book in 2003, entitled “War and Peace in Sudan: A Tale of Two Countries.” Mansour Khalid makes an important observation that the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja should take to heart:

“In the case of Sudan, the mainspring of war has been iniquitous attempts by one group to gain immoderate advantage over a presumed rival under the pretence of enhancing ‘national’ acquirements narrowly perceived.

“In this light, Sudan’s war may fairly be traced to a sense of perverted nationalism that never cared to keep the mean between two extremes. Invariably, perverted nationalisms are driven by a winner-take-all inclination. On no account do they put up with relinquishing a little; they always hunger for taking all.

“This acquisitiveness invites, as a matter of course, retortion by those who suffer most from its consequences either to reparate injuries or end injustices (real or perceived). Those root causes of conflict, if not identified, recognised and dealt with, inescapably fester and burst.”

A just resolution of the conflict in Darfur, and all the other historic tensions that have affected Sudan, must indeed be based on the repudiation of any winner-takes-all approach, which makes it impossible to build the inclusive societies that are the only condition for the achievement of peace, stability, and national unity and reconciliation in all African countries.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Sep 1 2004 (IPS)

South Africa has never enjoyed the peace it enjoys today nor been as stable and as free of the risk of unacceptable political conflict. The extent and depth of reconciliation within our diverse nation have never been as pronounced, writes Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa. In this analysis, the author writes that in his country, change came about as a result of a settlement negotiated by antagonists that had stood at the barricades for 350 years, each unable to defeat and destroy the other. This peaceful outcome culminated in the equally peaceful general elections of 1994, which surprised the cynics and sceptics, who were convinced that our people, black and white, were incapable of solving their problems peacefully. But the doomsters had not understood that as the first and principal victims of violence and war, the masses of our people, black and white, would be the first and best guarantors of the peace they won in 1994. This has been confirmed by the virtually total disappearance of political violence in our country, even during election periods. Despite, and perhaps because of our history, we stand in the front ranks of the group of countries across the globe that are truly peaceful, stable, and not consumed by the threat of terrorist bombs.

South Africa has never enjoyed the peace it enjoys today nor been as stable and as free of the risk of unacceptable political conflict. The extent and depth of reconciliation within our diverse nation have never been as pronounced.

In sharp contrast, the 350-year period from the arrival of the Dutch settlers in the Cape, in 1652, to the liberation of South Africa in 1994, was characterised by uninterrupted conflict and permanent uncertainty about the future of our country. During the last few years of the system of white minority rule introduced by the Dutch settlers, our country experienced greatly heightened levels of violence as the apartheid regime did everything it could to retain power.

Nobody emerged as the winner during those 350 years. The oppressed did not succeed in overthrowing the oppressor regime and denying it the possibility to continue to mete out violence against the people. But nor did the oppressor regime succeed in defeating the oppressed and rendering them incapable of continuing the struggle for their liberation.

With this struggle unresolved, there was a persistent risk that bloody conflict could break out, with neither side willing to give up, both determined to fight to the bitter end. Change finally came about as a result of a settlement negotiated essentially by the historic antagonists that had stood at the barricades for 350 years.

This peaceful outcome culminated in the equally peaceful general elections of 1994, which surprised the cynics and sceptics, who had convinced themselves that our people, black and white, were incapable of solving their problems peacefully.

Amazed that our first democratic elections were peaceful, the cynics and sceptics were determined not to abandon their dim view. Thinking that the peaceful transition from apartheid to a non-racial democracy was too good to be true, they convinced themselves that sooner or later our country would be consumed by the terrible racial conflagration they had expected in 1994. As the peace continued with no sign of an Armageddon, they said, Wait until tomorrow! Having frightened themselves about what tomorrow would be like, some among them packed their bags and emigrated to other countries they had convinced themselves were the safest in the world.

But the doomsters had not understood that as the first and principal victims of violence and war, the masses of our people, black and white, would be the first and best guarantors of the peace they won in 1994. This has been confirmed by the virtually total disappearance of political violence in our country, even during election periods.

In 1994, areas such as KwaZulu-Natal and the present Ekurhuleni (East Rand), had been at the epicentre of the violence that claimed thousands of lives as the apartheid system approached its demise. As we held our 10th Anniversary elections in 2004, the masses of the people in both these areas would not allow anybody to drag them backwards into a situation of violence and war.

Similarly, some among our white compatriots have continued to harbour false ideas that they could address their problems with bombing and assassination campaigns. But as they have set off a bomb here and there, it has been perfectly clear that those who constitute this lunatic fringe have absolutely no support among the white people of our country and are incapable of inspiring it.

More recently, the cynics and sceptics sought to frighten the people with unfounded allegations of an intention to amend the constitution to increase the number of terms a person could serve as President of the Republic. This was part of the scare campaign designed to suggest that ours was becoming a one-party-state, which would result in the collapse of democracy and our system of human rights and rule of law and lead to the installation of a dictatorship — and so on.

Undoubtedly, for selfish and narrow partisan –and other– reasons, the cynics and sceptics in our midst will continue their mischievous campaigns that are based on lies, regardless of what the millions of our people of all races and colours are doing together to build the South Africa of their dreams. Our democratic system is firmly entrenched. No force exists anywhere that could undermine it or put it at risk. Despite, and perhaps because of our history, we stand in the front ranks of the group of countries across the globe that are truly peaceful, stable, and not consumed by the harrowing threat of terrorist bombs. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Mar 31 2004 (IPS)

The people of South Africa recently voted overwhelmingly for national unity and reconciliation by renewing the mandate of the African National Congress, writes Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa. In this article, Mbeki writes that South Africans rejected the ANC\’s opponents\’ assertion that the country\’s challenges could only be met if the people separated into antagonistic camps, defined by race, colour, and ethnicity. They also rejected the claim that the same movement that has led and leads them in the struggle to eradicate poverty and underdevelopment is the cause of the poverty and underdevelopment they continue to experience. Today we must work together in a people\’s contract to take our country further forward towards the eradication of the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. This will include the creation of more jobs and the reduction of poverty, the building of a non-racial and non-sexist South Africa with sustained reduction of the racial and gender disparities that continue to disfigure our country, and the reinforcement of national unity and reconciliation.

The people of South Africa recently voted overwhelmingly for national unity and reconciliation by renewing the mandate of the African National Congress (ANC). They thus voted to unite in action in a people’s contract, to create jobs, to fight poverty, and build a better life for all, together.

In celebration of our First Decade of Liberation, the majority of South Africans voted against the perpetuation of the racial and ethnic divisions of the past and repudiated attempts to persuade them that they belong to separate compartments, with competing interests.

Our country’s central challenge during its First Decade of Democracy was the eradication of the 350-year-old legacy of colonialism and apartheid. This entailed and entails all aspects of human activity, the political, economic, social, and cultural. To eradicate this legacy we had to break with our past by, among other things:

-ensuring that our people live and work together without tension and conflict, regardless of our racial, colour, ethnic and religious diversity, with each guaranteed his or her human dignity;

-securing the territorial cohesion of our country as one united entity, with everybody entitled to work and live anywhere within our borders;

-translating our democratic victory into a properly functioning democracy that promotes equality for all and enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority, if not all our people;

-rescuing our economy from an endemic and worsening crisis of permanent stagnation, depression, and regression;

-restructuring the economy so that it achieves sustained growth, becomes internationally competitive, and generates the resources to address the needs of all our people;

-changing the state machinery so that it works to advance the political, economic and social developmental interests of all our people;

-eradicating poverty and underdevelopment, and closing the racial and gender disparities in wealth, income and opportunity; and

-normalising the relations between our country and the rest of Africa and the world, regaining our place among the community of nations as a force for peace, democracy, mutually advantageous cooperation and development for all.

Our political opponents deliberately underplayed our country’s achievements in all these areas. They attempted to make the people oblivious to the sustained effort this work has required and to the advances we have made. They did their best to persuade the people to forget the ugly reality of the apartheid society from which we have been working to escape over the last 10 years.

As part of this effort, the opposition constantly argued that to refer to the continuing impact of the apartheid legacy is to ”play the race card”. By trying to obliterate the memory of our racist past and denying its sustained impact on the present and the future, they seek to attribute to the ANC and the democratic order all the problems we have inherited from the past. Unashamedly, they pretend that these problems that are many centuries old could have been solved in a mere 10 years, and that failure to solve them constitutes an avoidable failure of our movement.

But South Africans firmly rebuffed these desperate efforts to mislead them because their own experience has taught them the truth that some sought to deny. The long and arduous history of political struggle left them well prepared to distinguish illusion from reality.

The poor of our country, the millions of working people and the unemployed, constitute the bedrock of the support of the ANC. They carried the democratic struggle on their shoulders, ensuring that they became their own liberators. At the same time, they bore the brunt of the poverty, the deprivation and suffering imposed on our people by the brutal system of colonialism and apartheid.

Because of this supremely painful experience, these masses, more than any other section of our population, had the greatest and most intense interest in the victory of the democratic revolution. They became the most steadfast and principled members and supporters of the ANC, because this was the movement that constantly stood at the head of the people in struggle, uncompromising in its search for freedom and determined never to be terrorised or bribed into betraying their aspirations.

The masses have rejected the assertion that the country’s challenges could only be met if the people separated into antagonistic camps, defined by race, colour, and ethnicity. They have refused to accept the claim that the same movement that has led and leads them in the struggle to eradicate poverty and underdevelopment is the cause of the poverty and underdevelopment they continue to experience.

Today we will and must work together in a people’s contract to take our country further forward towards the eradication of the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. This will include the creation of more jobs and the reduction of poverty, the building of a non-racial and non-sexist South Africa with sustained reduction of the racial and gender disparities that continue to disfigure our country, the reinforcement of national unity and reconciliation, the further extension of the frontiers of knowledge and culture, a heightened contribution to the victory of the African Renaissance and the emergence of a just world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Mar 31 2004 (IPS)

On the eve of South Africa\’s third general election and the celebration of our second decade of liberation, one of the major contestants at the polls is a right-wing coalition that would have opposed much of the progress our country has made since 1994, including ending apartheid, writes Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa. The Coalition for Change is a right-wing group comprised of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) of Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, and the Democratic Alliance (DA), a merger of three right-wing parties. It is opposed to many of the initiatives we have taken since 1994, especially to address the interests of the poor at home and abroad, Mbeki writes in this article. The ANC will continue to put forward its own policies, focused, among other things, on the vigorous intervention of the democratic state to ensure a better life for all our people, both black and white. We will continue to encourage the formation of a people\’s contract among all those, including the overwhelming majority of our population, who are committed to the building of a non-racial and non-sexist people-centred society.

On the eve of South Africa’s third general election and the celebration of our second decade of liberation, one of the major contestants at the polls is a right-wing coalition that would have opposed much of the progress our country has made since 1994, including ending apartheid. The Freedom Alliance, or ”Coalition for Change” (COSAG), comprises the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) of Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, and the Democratic Alliance (DA), a merger of three right-wing parties including the Democratic Party (DP), which claimed in election advertisements it had the greatest support among the white, coloured and Indian national minorities. The book ”A Marriage Made in Heaven”, published in 2001 and authored by leading members of the African National Congress (ANC), describes the DP’s attempt to win white votes by ”opposing as loudly as possible every piece of legislation targeted at wiping out the apartheid legacy and creating the legal framework for the fundamental social transformation of our country” . The Inkatha Freedom Party has a long history of allying itself with right-wing forces. In 1992, as South Africa was engaged in negotiations to end apartheid rule, the IFP joined the Conservative Party, the Bophuthatswana and Ciskei Bantustans, and right-wing Afrikaner groups to form an alliance called Concerned South Africans Group (COSAG), whose goal was to derail the process of negotiations and impose, by force if necessary, a settlement on the country that would result, among other things, in an independent ”Kingdom of KwaZulu-Natal” and an Afrikaner homeland. The IFP later formed yet another alliance of similar nature. The truth regarding the formation of the Coalition for Change is reflected in comments made in an interview with IFP leader Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi in the March 19-25 ”Mail & Guardian”, in which he spoke of his dedication to the protection of ”white interests”: ”I’ve never disappointed them in any way… In 1979 when [ANC president] Oliver Tambo urged us to join the armed struggle, we refused. If the Zulu nation had taken up arms, South Africa would have easily been in ashes. I protected white interests…” However, the liberation struggle never threatened ”white interests” but sought the establishment of the non-racial and non-sexist democracy that our people are now building. It was for the defeat and destruction of the apartheid system of white minority domination. Accordingly we must conclude that the words ”white interests” are a mere euphemism for apartheid, for white minority rule and privilege. The DA has been claiming that together with its allies it will win 30 percent of the votes in the forthcoming elections, thus constituting a credible opposition to the ANC, allegedly in the interest of democracy rather than the promotion of the agenda of this opposition. So keen is the DA to see itself emerge as a stronger and more credible opposition to the ANC that it has not hesitated to denigrate the other opposition parties. Earlier this year, at the National Assembly, one of its leaders said the DA, and none of the other parties, offered the possibility to constitute a credible opposition. The party has gone so far as to assert openly that a vote for the other opposition parties, excluding its coalition partners, would be a vote wasted. Whether the DA and its allies will receive the electoral support they claim they will is a matter that will be resolved at the polls. However, we must note the sustained effort of the DA and the IFP, at least since the end of 2000, to form a right-wing coalition that sees itself as potentially capable of forming a government in the medium term. There is absolutely nothing wrong with entertaining this hope. The Coalition for Change presents itself as the best guarantee of democracy in our country and the only barrier to the emergence of a one-party dictatorship. However, it is our duty to tell the truth about what the Coalition for Change really stands for. It is a right-wing group opposed to many of the initiatives we have taken since 1994, especially to address the interests of the poor at home and abroad. I have no doubt that the South African electorate has the capacity to see the reality behind the disguise of seemingly seductive words and recognise the Coalition’s scare tactics for what they are. It will decide freely whether it wants our country to have the kind of right-wing opposition envisioned by the DA. For its part, the ANC will continue to put forward its own policies, focused, among other things, on the vigorous intervention of the democratic state to ensure a better life for all our people, both black and white. We will continue to encourage the formation of a people’s contract among all those, including the overwhelming majority of our population, who are committed to the building of a non-racial and non-sexist people-centred society. In this regard, we will continue to work with the NNP and others, respecting their independence and appreciating their commitment to the construction of a new South Africa that truly belongs to all who live in it. This is what our country needs to eradicate the terrible legacy of apartheid. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS/ANC Today)

Excerpt:

By Thabo Mbeki and - -
PRETORIA, Jul 1 2003 (IPS)

It has been 90 years since the government of the newly-formed Union of South Africa passed the infamous Native Land Act, which gave legislative effect to a process of land seizure by white settlers that had been going on since 1652, writes Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa. Adoption of this law has brought untold suffering to generations of black people, the author writes in this article for IPS. Through this and other racist legislation, millions of our people were uprooted from their land, their homes bulldozed, and their dignity destroyed. Recognising the importance of the land question to many of our people, the democratically-elected post-Apartheid government passed the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, which provided a legal framework to address and resolve land claims through negotiations. Land acquisition and its productive use are critical to the success we must achieve in pushing back the frontiers of poverty. We are on the way towards meeting the demand contained in the Freedom Charter, drafted by the ANC in 1955: that the land shall belong to those who work it.

It has been 90 years since the government of the newly-formed Union of South Africa passed the infamous Native Land Act, which gave legislative effect to a process of land seizure by white settlers that had been going on since Jan van Riebeeck set foot on the shores of the Cape of Good Hope in 1652.

Adoption of this law has brought untold suffering to generations of black people. Through this and other racist legislation, millions of our people were uprooted from their land, their homes bulldozed, and their dignity destroyed.

The history of land dispossession in our country is inseparable from the brutal system of colonialism and apartheid. Three years before passage of the Land Act, in 1910, Britain had formed a whites-only government that combined the whites-only republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, as well as the Natal and Cape colonies.

The formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910 represented the political consolidation of the military defeat of the African kingdoms and the legalisation of white minority rule by British imperialism. The new Union government was a government by white people for white people. There was not even a pretence that any of the rights of the black majority would be respected.

In 1912 representatives of the African people formed the African National Congress (ANC) to fight for the freedom of the black people and reverse the negative consequences of the colonialism and apartheid pursued by successive white regimes.

The next important step in consolidating the military victory of the settlers regarded land. In 1913 the new government passed the Land Act, designed to reserve most of the territory of South Africa for exclusive ownership and use by the white minority. Other laws, including the Group Areas Act, further restricted the possibility of blacks to own land and denied them freedom of movement.

In the post-World War II period, in yet another round of the process of land dispossession, an estimated 3.5 million people were forcibly removed. Most of the dispossessed were dumped in the Bantustans, the labour reservoirs originally called native reserves. Though they comprised at least 80 percent of the population, the Africans ended up occupying at best 13 percent of their motherland.

The loss of land led to among other things widespread homelessness, the absence of security of tenure, overcrowding, unstable families, rural-urban migration, the degradation of the soil, and severe limitations on the possibility of Africans to pursue meaningful agricultural and agro-industrial activities. The denial of Africans the right to own land in urban areas, coupled with the migratory labour system, led to family break-down and dysfunction and the spread of slums.

Because Africans were regarded as temporary migrants, no essential services were provided for them in the residential areas designated for blacks within the white areas, and no property rights were accorded to them. This was because it was decreed that their permanent homes were in the Bantustans.

However, our people did not meekly submit to these inhuman practices. Under the leadership of the ANC they mounted many heroic struggles to resist forced removal and the imposition of the various laws that sought to make blacks foreigners in their own country.

The more repressive the laws the white minority governments passed and enforced, the more resistance they encountered.

In 1994 our people, who had placed their confidence in the ANC from its foundation, crowned their heroic struggles with an overwhelming victory in the elections that brought to an end centuries of colonialism and apartheid, beginning a new era of transformation and the undoing of the damage caused by the racist policies of the past.

One of the main challenges facing the new democratic government was and remains the urgent redress of the centuries-old legacy of land dispossession.

Recognising the importance of the land question to many of our people, the government passed the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, which provided a legal framework to address and resolve land claims through negotiations.

Today, through the restitution, redistribution, and land tenure reform programmes, more than 1.3 million hectares have been transferred to the formerly dispossessed, including the more than 590,000 hectares under the land restitution programme.

Since 1994, the government has built more than a million houses for the poor, mainly black, and handed over to the people the houses that they rented for many years but were denied the right to own because it was said that these properties were in ”white South Africa”. The new owners of both new and old houses also own the land on which these houses stand. Many others have been given tenure rights in places in which they were born and had worked for all their lives.

Land acquisition and its productive use are critical to the success we must achieve in pushing back the frontiers of poverty.

Ninety years after the passage of the 1913 Land Act, we are on the way towards meeting the demand contained in the Freedom Charter, drafted by the ANC in 1955: that the land shall belong to those who work it. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: