|
|
South Africa's Future: Violence or Negotiation?
| Article
# : |
12766 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1987 |
3,087 Words |
| Author
: |
Mangosuthu G. Buthelezi
|
The idiom of the American media and the content of American debate on South Africa indicates to me that people in the United States just have not grasped the extent to which the politics of negotiation is under siege in South Africa. Some would report: What politics of negotiation? And they would point to white political recalcitrance and the refusal of the state president to actually get going with meaningful reform. Such people have to understand that the politics of negotiation starts a long time before people actually sit around a negotiating table. The actual negotiations around that table will be a culminating event of the politics of negotiation. It is the process that leads to negotiations that is now so threatened in South Africa.
Americans are aware of the fact that, when it comes to the final negotiations about who is actually going to form a government in any country, negotiations invariably fail. If this were not the case you would not have Beirut-type situations and you would not have many of the revolutions that take place across the length and breadth of the world. Revolutionaries in South Africa already are just not interested in negotiations. ZANU and ZAPU leaders did not enter negotiations until they had in fact already defeated the Smith regime in all but final deed. The collapse of Smith's government was inevitable by the time he went into negotiations, and this inevitability made the Lancaster House negotiations possible. Frelimo leaders did not negotiate before they had won the fight against the Portuguese colonial administration in all but final deed. The ANC Mission in Exile see themselves moving to a similar position, so they do not want negotiations now.
The final kill
What prospects are there, then, for negotiations to get off the ground in South Africa? This is not my question. It is a skeptical American question. There is pessimism about the politics of negotiation now in South Africa because these Americans I am referring to are drawing parallels between what happened in Mozambique and Zimbabwe and what is happening in South Africa. People like Randall Robinson already in fact believe that if the ANC is not the central negotiating party on the side of blacks, there is no prospect for successful negotiations. This was also the view of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. They, too, persist in seeing the ANC Mission in Exile as a prime negotiating partner, or perhaps the only black negotiating power, and they retain some kind of idealistic belief that, if Pretoria started to move toward the negotiating table, the ANC would soften its approach and participate in black democracy which must surround negotiations. They fail to see that those in the ANC have now smelled blood and are driving in for what they think will be the final kill, and they are totally convinced that they will be a government returned from exile to establish a one-party socialist state in South Africa. They see negotiation as something that will rob them of that final reward of their revolutionary endeavors.
Americans must necessarily make their own judgments about what kind of an organization the ANC is and what its real intentions are. I do not want to use this platform to mount a personal attack on the ANC. I am simply being analytical and telling Americans what happens in our African circumstances. I am laying before you the facts of the matter, and the facts of the matter are that the ANC's stand is that the only thing to negotiate about is the handing over of power to the people, that is, to
...
Read Full Article
|
|
