I’ve just read Alan Boesak’s recently published “reflections” on the anti-apartheid struggle and the challenges that continue to confront us as a society. While he reflects some interesting perspectives on the nature of the struggle, the resolution of the political conflict and the character of post-apartheid South Africa, it seems to me that the esteemed reverend also engages in wholesale distortions of the historical record. As always, recording history is very much in the eye of the beholder and therefore disparate interpretations of events is not an unusual occurrence. Some of the issues raised by Boesak deserve critical scrutiny though.
Chief among these is his characterisation of the ANC in exile as an essentially Leninist organisation committed to some sort of socialist project, as distinct from the struggling masses at home, who, according to Boesak, were fighting for something radically different. It seems the ANC and Communist Party flags, the songs about socialism during the 1980s were all a mirage. In order to explain the influence of Leninism and the SACP over the ANC he refers to phrases such as the “National Democratic Socialist Revolution”, a concept that, as far as I know, has never been used by either the ANC or SACP to describe its political position or characterisation of the struggle.
Boesak’s characterisation of himself as an “accidental politician” ignorant of so much of the ANC’s ideological positioning during the 1980s sounds rather implausible, to say the least. For someone who studied abroad, frequently met ANC leaders and quotes extensively from political and philosophical texts in his book to claim “unawareness of these political traditions” sounds more like a rejection post-facto than an insight occurring at that moment.
Boesak’s attempt to write history to fit his contemporary political positions does a great disservice to others who struggled, with him, against the apartheid system. It is also a refusal to share in the responsibility of what has become of the ANC. If the ANC has deserted its principles as outlined in the Freedom Charter (and that question remains an open one) the responsibility for it is shared equally between the leadership of the ANC in exile, those of the mass democratic movement and the trade union movement. To blame a bunch of Leninist exiles (again a question mark) will not do Dr Boesak.
It is not surprising that Boesak finds much wisdom on the wickedness of the ANC in the words of Phillip Dexter and Terror Lekota, both fellow leaders of his Cope, though both longstanding members of the ANC — and at least in Dexter’s case a Leninist of note too!
Given Boesak’s crucial role in the anti-apartheid struggle, he is uniquely placed to bring a wealth of historical reflection on the struggle and its consequences. Instead he has chosen to subordinate this to the interest of narrow party politics. Boesak’s reflections sound like post-Polokwane blues emanating from the losers of that particular political battle. Marx’s maxim that “History always repeats itself: first as tragedy; then as farce” seems apt here …
For those who know Boesak distortion and dissembling are traits with which he is well versed.
His preferred version of his misdeeds at his Foundation for Peace and Justice was going to be explained in this book.What happened?
“Chief among these is his characterisation of the ANC in exile as an essentially Leninist organisation committed to some sort of socialist project, as distinct from the struggling masses at home, who, according to Boesak, were fighting for something radically different.”
I’m sure that, if you read Boesak’s reflections within the context of other reflections on the ANC and its key exile figure heads you would have seen the same basic line of thought. I am assuming you have read After the Party by Feinstein? Gevisser’s Dream Deferred? Gumede’s Thabo Mbeki and the Battle for the Soul of the ANC?
The ANC have always explicitly used the term “the National Democratic Revolution” as a synonym for “the struggle”. Boesak might have slipped in the word “socialist” among all the adjectives, but that the ANC’s agenda is indeed a socialist one cannot be seriously doubted — after all, they are in a formal tripartite alliance with the SACP and Cosatu, both of whom are purely socialist in ideology. Let’s not split hair and nitpick, shall we? It would appear that your antipathy to Boesak derives entirely from his public abandonment of your beloved ANC. I have no affection for him either, but then an ANC-aligned fraudster who lives large on money meant for orphans was never going to be on my Christmas card list, no matter what his highly-exaggerated, self-glorified “struggle” credentials might be in proper reality.
Boesak’s a publicity-junkie, just like all the other political priests.
I have not read Boersak’s book, but I have read many others.
All the ANC NEC (except OR) were communist, but it was a deeply hidden secret. If it had been known the sympathy of the west for the “Free Mandela” and “Anti Apartheid” movements would have been lost, together with fortunes of funding.
Which is why Mbeki’s studies in Russia were kept secret and his friends in Britain were told he was ill.
I presume you have read “Thabo Mbeki: A Dream Deferred” by Mark Gevisser?
You should also read “White Lies” by Dennis Herbstein. It shows the vast sums of money the ANC got from Christians in the West – none of which would have been donated to communists.
This is as disappointing as it is understandable.
One of the first things you learnt as a young politician in the 80s was the basic tenet the “struggle” hinged on.. the NDS.. which many called the National DEmocratic Revolution or the National Liberation Offensive. Be that as it may, I am not sure the reverend can plead “not guilty” on that account. He was with his nose in it on a daily basis.
On the flipside, fast-forward to post “liberation” South Africa. My first disappointing experience with the “movement” immediately after ’94 was that except Comrade Trevor, most of our Coloured comrades were only good enough to don blazers, earpieces and “gats” as MP “babysitters”. There were of course others like yourself who chose to continue studying (I was so happy when I found out via facebook that Oscar van Heerden is studying towards a PHD in something) and become intellectuals.
Boesak of course weas given a 1st class carriage on the gravy train and messed it up (BIG TIME). And only when he was reduced to the rungs of the “common citizenry” did the veil lift. Now he’s crying foul.
Like I said. Disappointing. Yet understandable.
Would not trust this guy as far as I can throw him.
There are very few, if any, commentators that would claim anything else about the post-exile inner circle. This is an observation made even by African journalist Richard Dowden in “Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles.”
The post-Mandela ANC under Mbeki closed rank, suppressed debate, and did so in a truly Stalinist manner. Of course Boesak may be accused of twisting this to suit his own agenda, but the fact of the matter remains: There are, widely accepted, three strains in the ANC – the UDF / MDM ‘camp’ built on mass mobilisation and inclusion; the Robben Islanders, and the Exiles.
Of course, as I’ve said before, a reading of Boesak’s book cannot and should not be undertaken devoid of any contextualisation. But I’m sure you know that, right?
Also, please draw a distinction between Leninist ideological thinking and Stalinist tactics (in the case of Dexter), and remind yourself that Lekota was not initially associated with the ANC, but rather with the Black Consciousness Movement and then the ANC via involvement in the UDF.
I heard Boersak being interviewed on the radio. He said he was guilty of not being able to PROVE when he had spent the donated money because he had not kept records, but that it had been spent on the UDM.
Which makes him ONLY as guilty as every ANC Ministry or Municipality with a qualified balance sheet showing they can’t prove where their money has been spent, and that is every one of them.
To simplistically divide the ANC into inziles/exiles/Robben Islanders does not do justice t the complexity of the organisation. many people circulated through these three ‘elements’ of the ANC, eg activists working in legal organisations, sent to Robben Island and then proceeding to exile thereafter (Tshwete, Maharaj, Zuma for example). Dexter was a member of a party officially calling itself a “Marxist-Leninist” party until his suspension and subsequent resignation a year ago, hence the label is one he chose himself. To say that Terror was Black Consciousness and hence not ‘real ANC’ betrays a lack of understanding both the BC movement in its particular historical context and the ANC as a changing organisation. many ANC leaders ‘from exile’ were involved in the BC movement and joined the ANC from exile. The point I am making is that these categorisations are all rather meaningless if strictly applied.
My reference to Boesak’s use of the “National Democratic Socialist Revolution’ is not nitpicking by any means. As Arthur says above, even youth activists were steeped in these elementaries and Boesak’s use of the phrase is intended to make (or rather score) a political point. It therefore deserves to be pointed out.
The argument that the ANC has always been socialist is so ignorant of the organisation’s history that it deserves no further comment. The influence of socialists within the ANC was never intended to make it socialist.
Too much digging up the past, posturing and finger pointing. There is a big part of the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance that wants a socialist SA, no problem just spell it out and don’t creep in on ANC election coat tails.
What socialist SA is wanted:
- like the USSR and its E. European allies that was rejected by its own people
- Maoist China that eliminated over 70million people
- Scandinavian socialism that lives well off a private sector which owns over 70 % of the economy that makes the money that pays the taxs
- Cuban that has had a dictatorship for over 50 years with zero freedom and collective happiness based on shared poverty?
Easy, just spell out at elections the planned future so we can all make informed decisions before voting.
Brent
Boasak clearly has an agenda now, and it involves ruthless criticism of the ANC (something that is not totally undue). Post liberation political parties are clearly different from liberation parties: the latter usually lack the democratic culture due to the constricted environment within which they operated, while the former are built on the notion of human rights and openness. What are expectations? Liberation parties have a challenge to transform themselves into organisations capable of operating in an open environment: some kind of space rehabilitation, if I may call it. Boesak would err if he explains the perceived Leninist chapter of the ANC as inherent, it is much a matter of conditions. We need context and some level of sophistication when dealing with this kind of topic, not paper-thin politicking fro a disgruntled party member!
Another post Polokwane blues… It is not surprising to get these kinds of historical distortions from hipocrites like the honorable Dr. Boesak. Come on Dr. Boesak, spare us some decency! Haven’t you learned from Polokwane and the April elections that our people are not interested in this Pull ANC Down Syndrome (PANCDS)? The sooner you and your ilk learn this the better. Reverend Boesak, ANC blah blah blah… Give me a break… Oh come on, smell the caffeine material..
I honestly don’t believe the UDF and Robben Islanders(other than the Inner Circle) knew the ANC was Stalinist/Marxist communist. It was a closely guarded secret.
The Afrikaner Nats told the world that, but the ANC always denied it, and they were believed.
I have read Allan’s book. Boesak’s main points cannot be faulted: 1. The principle of non-racialism has been seriously weakened by the ANC and Steve Biko’s legacy in this regard has been undermined; 2. The importance and role of the UDF should be afforded its rightful place in history. It’s not so much a matter of inziles vs. exiles, but about the fact that the contribution of the UDF has not been sufficiently acknowledged as if the transition was only to be credited to the ANC. The burial of the UDF by the Mandela government was a mistake, because party political channels proved to be inadequate to bring the aspirations and dreams of the ordinary citizens to fulfillment; 3. People’s faith played a bigger role than what the historians are trying to make us believe; 4. There is still a need for independent voices that can raise the alarm when justice is undermined. 5. Boesak did not tesitify in his own defence because he believed that he was innocent and he did not want to subject witnesses, who are in high positions today to the public square of the trial. Lastly, and this is my own two cents: Isn’t it time that we honour Boesak for the role he played during a crucial time in our country? I too am saddened by how things turned out for him. Neither he, nor anyone of his critics is perfect. At least he spoke up!
Hi Chris,
I agree with many of the things you say, including the fact that Boesak (and many others like him) should be honoured for the role they played in the struggle. What I have difficulty with is his distortion of the historical record, as if the ANC was a party completely external to the ‘real’ struggle here at home.
I was amongst many who were impressed by Boesak’s immanent critique of the ANC when he re-entered the political discourse around 2006-2007 (his Ashley Kriel lecture at UWC for example) but it seems to me that his engagement with COPE nullified a lot of his argument and raised questions about his intent in raising these. I would have loved to see the earlier drafts of the book and to get a sense of how the content and orientation of his argument has been influenced by the post-Polokwane dynamic.
Boesak, like all his detractors, are imperfect but that does not excuse him from our criticism.
David Africa
The ANC has “not always been socialist”?
Alan Paton and the Liberal Party refused to sign the Freedom Charter, although they were at Kliptown, because of the communist clauses.
Mbeki and pals were secretly “educated” in Russia. Why the secrecy?
Is that far back enough for you?
Dear Lyndall,
You are evidently oblivious to the debates that has peppered the history of the ANC pretty much since the late 1920s (and continue today) about socialism and the ANC’s attitude to it. The fact that Paton and others refused to sign the Freedom Charter because it ‘was communist’ means nothing either. Remember how the call for ‘one person, one vote’ was a communist plot until about 1994 too?
Do read the Charter yourself and see if its communist.
The fact that ANC people were trained in the Soviet Union might have something to do with the fact that Western governments did not want to give the ANC any support, let alone military training. And yes, many of these things were done in secret. When you have an enemy who roams the globe assassinating your people , you don’t really advertise where your leaders are located. The fact of Soviet military support, including training of ANC members was never a secret. I suggest a cursory glance at “ANC: The View from Moscow” by Shubin, or any ANC publication of the 70s and 80s, where this relationship is publicly stated.
David Africa,
Don’t confuse the Liberal Party with the Nats, the United Party or the Progs.
My grandfather, Advocate Douglas Mudie Buchanan, was a founder member of the Liberal Party, and he lost his seat as coloured representative in 1948 to the communist, Khan.
My grandfather said he was not prepared to lie to the people about what he could achieve – but the communists would lie for votes. They still do!
AND the reason the “education” of Mbeki and others in Russia was secret was to prevent the VAST SUMS of money the west was donating to the ANC from drying up. O R Thambo even fired one of the fools who congratulated Russia on the invasion of Chechoslovakia – and it took OR a year to get the donations back from the suckers in the west.
Read “White Lies” by Denis Herbstein.
R.W. Johnston [2009] notes that: “the whole movement knew that all that was wrong with Boesak was that he had started stealing a bit too soon. A year or two later it would have gone unnoticed in the general stampede” (p.19); “Boesak had quietly siphoned off a great deal of [Danchurch - Danish Church Aid] their money to operate a whole portfolio of businesses … [Boesak] had relieved many other donors of large sums [incl. Swedish development agency SIDA] … but Danchurch, infuriated at Boesak’s cleverness in hiding his crimes and at his use of threats and racial slurs against them, pressed doggedly ahead with their case (pps. 62-3). A liar, a thief and a racist! “But he had brokered Malayian donations of millions of rand to ANC election funds” (p.68) – now a financial fixer. “The ANC had not reckoned with the force of Protestant conscience [Danchurch, SIDA]” (p. 68) – now apostate! This is in line with the ‘criminalisation of South African society’ [Prof. Achille Mbembe, “A government for all South Africans?”, Le Monde Diplomatique, June 2009, and the Arms Deal Scandal – rising to 50% from R12bn. to now c. R52bn. – a kickback to bra Joe Modise, “The Godfather of the ANC” of R10m. [see Paul Holden’s excellent: “Arms Deal in Your Pocket” (2008) and my review of it at http://www.politicsweb.co.za: “The arms deal: Ten years on”. Thieves, embezzlers, gangsters and (drugs and arms) merchants are respectable now, and liars write history! What next folks?
Last reply to Lyndall – below is a statement by ANC president OR Tambo about ANC-Communist relations. It was released to the media, not spoken at a secret society, and if you read old ANC journals, the relationship is clear and public.
“The South African Communist Party supports and actively fights for the realisation of the demands contained in the (Freedom) Charter. It accepts the leadership of the ANC and therefore cannot but be an ally of the ANC as would be any other organisation that adopts the same position.
“Official contact between the ANC and the Soviet Union goes back as far as 1927, when a delegation of the ANC, led by its president, Josiah Gumede, visited the Soviet Union and came back convinced of the support that our struggle enjoys from the Soviet government and people. Practical experience has shown our people and the ANC that President Gumede was not wrong in his assessment of 55 years ago. We stood together with the Soviet Union and the allied forces in fighting nazism during the Second World War. True to those positions, the Soviet Union . and other socialist countries stand with us to this day fighting the apartheid system, itself and its leaders pawns of nazi ideology and practice”.
Of course the Communists always lied to the people. thats why so many of them sacrificed their lives in the struggle against the apartheid government – from Vuiysile Mini through Ahmed Timol to Chris Hani.
David Africa
Give us a date and an identifiable verification for that quote of O R’s
If they had already taken control, and no longer needed to con the west to milk them for cash , then it is meaningless.
“Of course the Communists always lied to the people. thats why so many of them sacrificed their lives in the struggle against the apartheid government…” – Sorry, David, but I don’t buy into this and suggest some further readings into South African political history for a more balanced view, like: Allison Drew’s “Discordant Comrades – Identities and loyalties on the South African Left (2000) also her vols. from (1996); Stephen Clingman’s “Braam Fischer: Afrikaner Revolutionary” (1998); Baruch Hirson’s “A History of the Left in South Africa” (2005), as starters.
I could add more titles but space does not permit! Any careful reading of these works will show that your frame of reference and maybe your historical imagination is limited to only the Simonses work or the ‘official’ SACP publications.
But “in the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King”, eh?
In fact the SACP – before its total Stalinisation in the 1930s and its subserviance to the ‘Moscow-line’ in the Comintern, was the first ‘non-racial’ radical organisation in South Africa to accept ‘Blacks’ or ‘Coloureds’ (even at Leadership level, viz Jimmy La Guma, Johnny Gomas, Cissy Gool, my aunt, or Alfred Nzula, Edwin Mofutsanyana, Moses Kotane, etc) – long before the pretensions of the NEUM or Liberal Party, or the subsequent movements (or splits) emerging from these in the 1960s till now.
“History repeats itself(?)” … Only as “farce” if you are unaware of the proper history itself – or are ‘blinkered’ by reading it backwards maybe?
O.K. David (et al) let’s see if we can give you a glims of your own history in this short space:
1) In the aftermath of the Comintern’s [Third Communist International] Sixth Congress in Moscow in 1928, propaganda for an independent ‘Native Republic’ filled the CPSA’s [fore-runner of the SACP] journals and propaganda. In 1929 the CPSA had a membership of 3,000. By 1933, after years of fraticidal infighting ["Bolshevization of the party"], expulsions and resignations, it had dropped to a few hundred.
2) The black republic ["Native Republic"] slogan was forced on the CPSA – but the party had already turned its attention to the black workers and Africans then constituted the majority of the party.
3) This external pressure pushed the CPSA towards a painful re-interpretation of the relationship between the socialist and the national liberation struggles, and between the urban working class and the rural majoritity.
4) Both the ICU and the ANC were then distancing themselves from the party because of its apparent radicalism. At the ANC’s second annual convention of chiefs in Bloemfontein in 1928, any mention of the CPSA caused uproar.
Gumede’s sympathetic stance towards Communists was clearly atypical within Congress – re his trip to Moscow in 1928 after a League Against Imperialism meeting in Brussels.
5) It was only after the next “turn” in policy of the Comintern, the Popular Front period after 1935, that there was an attempt to systematically “enter” the ANC!
David Africa
the help the “communists” gave the ANC was peanuts compared to the help the west gave them.
And all this excessive gratitude for “Africa” housing what was never more than 6000 refugees in camps (our “war vets”) hardly means we have to accommodate 3-5 million refugees and allow every criminal to cross our border or to get a passport.
Well, I guess that you did not know the following either David:
The impact of the first defeat of the armies of the apartheid regime. Cuba’s victory at Cuito Cuanavalin e, 1988, led to the fall of apartheid!
…”the latest phase in Southern Africa’s war opened with the dramatic series of military defeats inflicted on South Africa by Cuban, Angolan and SWAPO forces in the first six months of this [i.e. 1988] year. On the 16 November 1987, the Cuban Central Committee made the decision to reinforce its troops in Angola to counter a massive new South African commitment of infrastructure and logistics in northern Namibia , begun in March in preparation for the most ambitious offensive since 1975. That decision in Havana is likely to be seen in the future as equal in historical importance to the arrival of the first Cuban fighting contingent on 4 October 1975, which prevented South Africa (encouraged by Washington) from installing a client FNLA/UNITA government in Luanda.” p. 119
source: Victoria Brittain: ‘ Cuba and Southern Africa ’, New Left Review, nr 172, Nov/Dec 1988
The South African defeat obliged its army to withdraw from Angola . This in turn was followed by the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia, leading to a diplomatic solution – orchestrated by Chester Crocker, the United States secretary of state for African affairs – that followed both the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and Namibian liberation movement SWAPO to power!
Selim Gool
Scroll back on David Sak’s blog to the post “What really happened at Cuito Cuinavale”
The Cubans were defeated, and Castro even later had the general in charge executed.
SA was not “invading” Angola – it was a “hot pursuit” hit and run, to avoid the Cubans wiping out the opposition – which SA did.
Both Russia (Cuba’s paylords) and SA then settled and withdrew, and the 2 sides kept fighting it out till a few years ago.
Read Van Zyl Slabbert’s book “The Other Side of History” and see how very uncomplimentary the Russians were about the ANC at the settlement talks.
“On the 16 November 1987, the Cuban C C made the decision to reinforce its troops in Angola to counter a massive new South African commitment of infrastructure and logistics in northern Namibia
Thousands of Cuban troops were still stationed in Africa …. In the early weeks of 1988, with the arrival of the first 9,000 Cuban reinforcements, the military tide began to turn against the South Africans.
The total Cuban contingent was now more than 50,000. The Cubans moved inland to the misty hills and forest of Malange in the north, to distant Luena near the border of the Congo and Zambia , and to Cuito Cuanavale in the south, where they soon were to be notably engaged … The Cuban reinforcement operation in January rapidly changed the mood among the Angolan military.
The extent of the South African military crisis is more acute than has been generally understood. … the defeat at Quito and the politically unacceptable loss of superiority to the Cubans and Angolans in the air (led to) the outclassing of many of the Armscor weapons such as the G5.”
Sources: Victoria Brittain: ‘ Cuba and Southern Africa ’, New Left Review, nr 172, Nov/Dec 1988; her book, Death of Dignity: Angola’s Civil War [1998]; Piero Gleijeses: Conflicting Missions – Havana, Wash [2002]ington and Africa 1959-1976 and
Tariq Ali’s Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, London,2006.
For the record:
“…… The long-awaited South African attack came on 14 February, and their soldiers, and their soldiers, with the support of the CIA-funded guerrillas of UNITA, penetrated the suburbs of the town (Cuito C.).
The Cuban forces fought back and Cuito Cuanavale soon turned into a resounding Cuban victory. After several weeks of heavy fighting the South African advance was halted.
Cuito Cuanavale was to become a symbol across Africa , indicating that apartheid and the SADF army was no longer invincible…. This strategic collapse in southern Africa was eventually to lead to the end of the apartheid itself……
The Battle at Cuito Cuanavale of the SADF/SAAF vs. the Black/Mulatto/’Mixed Race’ troops of MPLA/FAPLA, SWAPO/PLAN and the 40, 000 Cuban Internationalists who beat the sh**t out of the SAAF/SADF on the ground and in the air (with far superior MIG-23′s for instance), get’s overlooked by the chief Afrikaner Revisionist Historian, Gilliomee et al.
The real reasons that the ANC had to “make these compromises” are well know: Gorbachov’s new Perestroika line and Defensive Nationalism, which meant a change in the international climare of renewed ‘Detante’; the crisis in the ANC/MK in Angola in 1984-86; the utter exhaustion of the internal resistance after the township uprising of 1984-86 and a ‘stale-mate’ …. and the deaths of thousands of young Boertjies on foreign soils …” (sources as above)
But then Cleo is a strange Muse, eh?
Selim,
I am fully aware of developments relating to Cuito and the stunning Cuban/FAPLA victory there. Don’t see the relationship with the point of this particular blog though. I have no qualms and in fact agree entirely with what you have to say about Cuito. Lyndall’s (mis)reading of Cuito is shaped by her bigotry, so clearly exposed in her comment about us allowing other Africans into SA.
No problem really David!
I just think that many of our brothers out there do not know their own history and the racist eurocentric version gets too much space in our ‘censored’ media!
Hope you forgive my ‘arrogance’ but I am a writer and was a full time teacher/lecturer also!
Selim
David Africa
SA can’t afford to support all the poor of Africa because of some myth about “the struggle” which myth includes “Cuito”.
The Nats were not invading Angola – they were protecting the opposition from a wipe out by the Cubans. They did not “loose” an invasion, because there never was an intention to invade. The SA public were not even told they were in Angola at all, till it was over. War would have had to be declared by parliament.
The ANC myth is that the Cubans prevented an invasion.
So why then did Castro execute the Cuban general in charge?
This ignorant (“illerari”?) should FIRST read those articles/books I suggested in the first place BEFORE more of these inane atterances.
I have no time for these caucasian defeatist denialists who continue to spew out rubbish.
The Orchela case is deal with in the Tariq Ali Book: Pirates of the Carribean.
Dr Selim Gool
Selim,
I’ve given up:-) Some people are not interested in facts and what is worse is that one cannot even accuse them of ignorance. These are evidently educated people with access to information who choose to ignore the weight of facts at the expense of spewing out unsubstantiated rubbish because it suits their bigoted views of the world
Dr Gool
The details of the battle are of no interest to me.
My point is that the SADF obtained their objective – which was NOT to invade Angola, but to stop the Cubans from wiping out Unita by preventing them getting there. The SADF achieved their objective and retreated home.
Which is why, I repeat, Castro executed the Cuban general who had been in charge.
David
You can even check it on Wikipedia. The result of the battle was “the withdrawal of all foreign troops” which was what SA was after.
The war only finished in 2003.