President Jacob Zuma’s assertion that South Africa’s last white president, FW de Klerk, was as much a conservative Afrikaner leader as his predecessor PW Botha is absolutely right.
Both were born and raised by traditional Afrikaans families who believed in the approach of conservative, white South African politics.
What distinguished the two from one another was the ability of De Klerk to see the writing on the wall and thereafter adapt to the change that was becoming increasingly necessary.
No mean feat at a time when no compelling catalyst was evident.
How soon people forget that this “little exercise” required enormous guts and determination without which this country might well still be labouring under an apartheid government or recovering from — or even still fighting — a full-blown civil war.
Many would have us believe that there were leaders among the National Party queuing up to take on this role or that the writing was so marked that even the most conservative Afrikaner knew that the time had come. That the armed struggle was so intense that white South Africa was essentially hoisting the white flag.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Other than serving two years compulsory military service the vast majority of whites did not feel affected by the armed struggle at all. If anything their main fear at that time was that a multiracial South Africa would expose them to crime and as a result of the demographics they would become marginalised in terms of real political power.
The effects of sanctions, well known to the government, but not the ordinary voter — which was the compelling factor behind the National Party’s decision — meant that something had to be done and quickly. In global terms by standing still and isolated South Africa’s economy would have just kept falling further and further behind the rest of the world leaving it of no benefit to anybody.
Enter FW de Klerk.
He had been in the House of Assembly since 1969 and made a member of cabinet in 1978. Thereafter he served as a minister in various posts notably national education where he was a supporter of segregated universities. As Transvaal leader of the National Party he was certainly not known as verlig or an advocate of reform.
His brother Willem on the other hand was an openly liberal newspaperman and one of the founder members of the Democratic Party.
In 1989 De Klerk put himself at the head of the verligtes within the National Party which resulted in him being elected as its head in February 1989. In September of that year he became president after PW Botha had to step down following a stroke. In his first speech after assuming the party leadership he called for a non-racist South Africa and for negotiations about the country’s future. He lifted the ban on the African National Congress and released Nelson Mandela.
In 1989 the armed struggle and sanctions were very low on the priorities of white voters and the multiracial democracy — so long spoken about as swart gevaar and rooi gevaar — very much feared among the community. Among many Afrikaners — the unthinkable.
In terms of personal standing, FW de Klerk could have been the next president, lived in the lap of luxury and done what everyone else in his position did — hand the problems to his successors. The issues in 1989 were not even close to compelling enough to force his hand into following the path that he did.
Instead of being the all-powerful president he chose to live with the abuse of being called a traitor by his own and stand as the symbol of apartheid for the black community.
The worst of both worlds.
Undoubtedly as a member of the government during apartheid he too must accept responsibility for the atrocities that took place at that time just as we hold members of today’s ruling party accountable for things that go wrong under their care. In that regard Zuma is fully entitled to make the comparison.
Yet in the context of African leaders we need only have regard to the case of President Robert Mugabe who is happily putting 5 million of his own people on the brink of starvation rather than accept the will of his people. Twice he has lost elections and once a referendum and nothing short of an earthquake will ever convince Bob that the people of his country must come first.
FW de Klerk did what he did because he believed it was the right thing to do. The alternative was far easier — do nothing the good ship apartheid rolls on.
Accordingly a place in history is reserved for him as a man of unbelievable courage and self-sacrifice along with the iconic first president of the multiracial South Africa, Mandela.
Both were deserved winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Disagree. You forget just how bad things were in 1989 and how bad they were heading. You also forget how De Klerk tried to cling to power through terrorism and dirty tricks.
You can argue that he deserved the Nobel Prize; it depends on if you think the Prize is an honour or an embarrassment.
Now Traps, I always thought you wrote good articles. Now to put DeKlerk in the same pedestal as Mandela is really sinister. DeKlerk has always been in the national assembly for years, supporting atrocities to the majority of people. And that my friend can’t not be easily forgotten. He should come outright and accept that he was a full participant[ant in the old regime. What irritates me is the fact that you media people, are so quick to criticize the current government and yet you never ever criticized the apartheid regime in the same manner. You always find excuses to defend apartheid’s cruelty. For the sake of our children, can we just debate issues without any racial bias. Until De Klerk owns up to his role during apartheid, I CANNOT and WILL NOT equate him to Mandela or any other struggle icon (e.g Slovo, Hani, Mbeki, Suzman, Tambo e.t.c).
Methinks De Klerk “deserved” the Nobel Peace Prize, especially for his role (knowledge, approval, or endorsement) of the fatal raid in Mthatha in 1993 (or thereabout) in which the Mpendulo children and their friends were ambushed in the middle of the night.
No wonder you mention this ugly episode so many times in your blog, Trapido. Indeed, De Klerk was a deserving Nobel Peace Prize.
Duh? Tell me when you have woken up from your dream, Traps, so we can talk about the real De Klerk that so many, you included, have been brainwashed to glorify.
Agree,
Top 5 reasons:
(1) Berlin Wall – little ideological support left for SA gov / communism argument lost legitimacy / opened window for negotiations
(2) Sanction – was hurting the economy and the economic system was increasingly becoming unsustainable and would strugle to compete in the new 1990 economic order
(3) Internal white opposition both within and outside the NP, leading to the majority realising that the system was not working and morally wrong, leading to the successful referendum
(4) UDM campaign and internal resistance – put pressure on police and security services and attracked bad press for South Africa. This was very important from a moral/political point of view but did not threaten the security of the regime. A bit like MDC in Zim.
(5) MK/ANC armed struggle – Fairly irrelevant compared to the rest. Mostly consisted out of working the diplomatic cocktail circut. SADF fought Angolans, Cubans and Mozambiquans and not MK guerillas.
MK as a guerillas movement or armed movement never inflicted any casualties of note and mostly civilian – as far as liberation armed movements wings go – not very significant.
Covert campaign and support efforts were significant in terms of maintaining the link between ANC exile and UDM/ANC in SA. Campaign of black-black violence was successful in raising the bar especially after 1990 and strentghened negotiation position.
“The effects of sanctions, well known to the government, but not the ordinary voter — which was the compelling factor…”
Absolutely correct!
De Klerk was courageous – no doubt – and I don’t begrudge him his Nobel prize at all – he was definitely a major player in bringing apartheid down. Personally speaking, however, he doesn’t come close to the esteem in which I hold Nelson Mandela. Madiba was and still is a leader of gigantic proportions – one of the greatest the world has seen in my opinion. It’s hard to put a finger on any one leadership attribute, but great wisdom, breathtaking humility, integrity, dignity, forgiveness, self sacrifice and an absolute desire to serve South Africa and ALL her people are just some of the outstanding characteristics in his “portfolio”. He makes me want to be a better person generally and a better South African specifically. I consider he deserved to have a Nobel Peace Prize all on his own – but, taking into account his incredible generosity of spirit, I am certain he did not mind sharing it one little bit. And that is the greatness of the man!
Extract from David Blood’s article “F W and the abolition of Apartheid” on Richmark Sentinel
There was so much written about it being 20 years ago that FW De Klerk made his famous opening of parliament address on Friday the 2nd of February 1990 that forever changed the face of South Africa, that I thought my piece would be lost, so I held off until now.
I will never forget it, I was driving in Midrand and was nabbed in a speed trap because I so shocked by his announcement – not shocked that the Nats had eventually come to their senses 20 years too late – but shocked that he would make this announcement after having been returned to office by an electorate that had been deceived!
There was a general election in November 1989 and in the 3 months or so leading up to that election, I had interviewed everybody worth interviewing from all sides of the political spectrum on my 702 Talkshow – that was allowed to participate in that election.
During that period I had quizzed Ministers and MP’s, shadow leaders and ministers, opinion makers, et al, on their various party’s election manifestos and the Nat’s manifesto was one of: “A vote for the National Party is a vote for: Own Affairs, Own Schools, Own Areas” and included a poster campaign that attacked the opposition for having met with ANC members outside of the Republic under the heading “We will not negotiate with terrorists”
Zuma also said, when speaking of P W Botha “Next you will tell me that De Klerk killed no-one”
Yes I will do that, which is more than anyone can say for Zuma if the stories of the camps are accurate.
On Zuma’s own version, De Klerk knew nothing of Botha’s negotiations with the ANC (Mbeki and Zuma) until he became president, when he was informed and “carried on the process”.
Of course De Klerk did not know – he was not in the secret security cluster around Botha (who did not trust him). De Klerk was education minister.
Which is why DE KLERK COULD NEVER HAVE HAD A THIRD FORCE or known about one! Whereas the ANC has openly boasted about their own third force, Operation Vula.
And the Nats voted for De Klerk without ANY idea of what he was going to do, in fact expecting him to do the opposite.
Even John Scott wrote in the Cape Times that De Klerk could have lasted out till today if he had wanted to.
It was not multi racism that worried the Afrikaner (that was 40 years earlier, and even then the majority of whites did not vote for apartheid); but communism, especially seeing what was happening in the rest of Africa.
And of course the whites lost a lot – did you not have to do continual regular border camps? How did your business survive? What happened to your clients? Did none of your friends die?
I share your perspective, Mr Trapido, but I think you underestimate the constraints that forced De Klerk to take such responsibilities. As you say, white South Africans didn’t really care about the armed struggle, but the government did : FW’s february 1990 speech came only three months after the Berlin Wall fell. And this meant something huge for the SA government : when the Cold War is over, how can the nationalist Afrikaner leaders hope for the US to keep supporting their wars ? And then, who can provide arms, and especially aircrafts or helicopters which were such an advantage in Namibia, Angola or Mozambique ?
The fear wasn’t that the armed struggle would grow bigger. It was that the means to control it would soon be too small.
For the rest, I’ll agree with you…
The Christian West through Canon Collins and Christian Action in London contributed VAST sums of money to both the “liberation movements” of South Africa and Zimbabwe.
They paid for schooling for the children of the activists, sent monthly sums to the families through a secret network of hundreds of Christian Activists from the United Kingdom, Canada, Ireland, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Many of these were liberal Christian whites who had left SA to get away from apartheid, some were friends and family of Christians still in SA .
They paid for Mugabe’s wife in exile in London and Sweden, they paid for the education of Mandela’s children, they paid all the study fees of the political prisoners to study by correspondence in both the Zimbabwean and South African prisons. And they paid almost all the costs of the political trials (including the Rivonia and the Treason Trials)The biggest contributor by far was Sweden, who contributed more than the UN Trust.
Why these Christians could not be told that the ANC was communist(which had to be kept dead secret) is obvious from the following extract from the book(see part 2)
Part 2: Quote from the book “White Lies: Canon Collins and the SECRET war against apartheid” by Denis Herbstein”
”To be anti-apartheid was popular, almost fashionable among ordinary Swedes – the country’s 3500 Lutheran churches held an annual collection for the cause – but, with the Soviet-occupied Baltic States across the sea they, too, were touchy about communism. When the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, the ANC’s Secretary-General, Dumas Nuke, sent Moscow a message of fraternal solidarity….Tambo was horrified…The Social Democrats (Sweden) suspended aid to the ANC. Nuke lost his job and his position on the ANC executive. It took four years and much diplomacy by Tambo….before funding was restored”.
Marxist communism was atheist remember. You got sent to Siberia or a mental home if found practicing religion.
And if the Christian West had believed the Afrikaner that they were fighting the ANC because they were communists, and not because they were black – “apartheid” would never have been declared “a crime against humanity” in the UN, and all support for the “Free Mandela” campaign would have dried up.
In fact more White South Africans died in the war against communism, than Black South Africans died in the war for power (theoreticlly against apartheid)
I said South Africans please note – not Cubans, Angolans or Mozambicans.
The ANC was a VERY small group of people.
Ralph Waldo Emmerson in his essay “Self Reliance” wrote that our reading is mendicant and sycophantic to great man. While somebody else said to think is to suffer.
De Klerk does not need to be equated to Mandela in anyway but has his own place in history. Remember this guy is the same person who in Afrikaner prophet Van Rensburg’s phophecy the wagon of Afrikaner rule and nationalism derails. He has his own special place in history. Maybe you could equate him to Smuts who in answer to Merriman about their dereliction concerning the other race question (black and white as opposed to Afrikaner and English) trusted to future generations and enlightenment. Indeed human deevelopment is a journey of change some could say of enlightenment but others say it is necessity driven. From rule by conquest, feudalism to abolition of slavery, industrial revolution, mercantile capitalism, monarchy, democracy, colonialism, independence, etc it is about change. Human society evolves and demands changes that help it achieve more.
The far right will not label only De Klerk a traitor but the same paragraph will include the Afrikaner Ruperts,and the Jewish- capitalist conspiracy meaning the Oppenheimers etc as well as the Jewish communist conspiracy meaning the SACP etc who they accuse of aiding the struggle for converging ends.
To quote a Bushiism “It is good to learn history but it is also important to remember the true history”.
Traps,
You have laid out a lot of facts that do not sit well with the *opinions* of those that have selective memory, or would re-write history.
It is said that the victors always re-write history and the ANC are no exception.
As you point out, it was (Investment, not trade) sanctions that encouraged De Klerk to do the right thing, which took a great deal of courage.
It would have been very easy to bumble along with negative ecopnomic growth, increasing isolation and sanctions, high military and security expenditure and high inflation, as we did from the early 1980′s.
I have heard president Zuma opine that it was the armed struggle , not sanctions that forced De klerk’s hand.
That is simply untrue.
There were no conventional battles fought and won, no military victories, just some buildings blown up and civilians bombed.
De Klerk is an educated qualified lawyer – P W Botha was – well not!
The national Party leaders at the time AND the ANC leaders deserve praise and recognition for negotiating a political settlement and giving all South Africans an opportunity for a decent future.
For sure there is a lot of bllod on both sets of hands, but whilst acknowledging past wrongs, mistakes and injustices, is it not more productive to build a good future for all of us than to oint fingers and dwell on the past.
………..continued
By the way, as far back as the 1970 election, the majority of whites voted AGAINST the National party.
The Westminster “first past the post” electoral system and gerrymandering of constituencies ensured that the nats stayed in power and “won” that election.
Outraged South African on February 18th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
It was in de Klerks power to avert a situation too ghastly to comtemplate and Mandela was in the same position. Between them they averted possible civil war which could have claimed many more victims than apartheid or the armed struggle ever did. That is why he got the joint peace prize.
The armed struggle did not topple the Nats, nor the international sanctions. I think both men acted in accordance with their conviction at the time.
You might not be writing your comments today if they had not.
I find your article accurate viewed from the whites point of view. Although i just wrote matric when De Klerk made these announcements i knew he was right in saying that apartheid has to end. The average white also knew it and that’s why the referendum were in favor of change. But Trapido is right, in our minds this was voluntary and did not seemed a forced decision at all. It may seem strange now but we were used to sanctions and we were trained to fight in the bush and in our cities whether we wanted or not. I’m sure we could have kept on, business as usual for a very long time. The average Joe did make the right decision thankfully and this was made possible by De Klerk.
Well its nice to be a white south african who was not under siege from security forces in the townships during De klerk’s era. This people were killing blacks in the townships like nobody’s business. Those killers were De klerk’s dogs of war.We were terorised my man big time. Its shame to suggest that he was a man of courage. He had no choice but to succumb under pressure. The country was on fire only the people in the surburbs did not witness that. UDF was making a final push towards attainment of freedom.It sickens me to hear people equating De klerk to Mandela
I disagree Traps. The fall of the Berlin Wall changed everything. Study the findings of the TRC -and then consider how different our country would be, if we started holding our leaders accountable. Justice must prevail. You, as a criminal Attorney, must surely appreciate this? If we do not have justice, my learned friend, we will ultimately have revenge.
De Klerk is a murderer, period. Those of us who were in the townships after the release of Mandela know the wrath of the NP led government. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of the ebony and ivory mentality of the awarding committe. And was further declared a hero by SA media in order to perpetuate the rainbow nation fable.
Hi Traps
Good article. We have a complex history which is increasingly suffering from simplification at the hands of politicians in a corner (JZ)!
As far as I can recall, the efforts of MK were a bit Che Guevara. Irrelevant. No wonder they count him as a hero!
But before Zuma can comment on De Klerk, he needs to come clean on what he and his mates did in the camps and to their own as members of Mbokodo. De Klerk ain’t no saint, and I fundamentally believe that each and every National Party member should be liquidated and their estates sold to finance township education. If De Klerk did that, I’d be in his camp for the Peace Prize.
De Klerk was the right man in the right place at the right time.
Would he’d been earlier, but would he have managed the ‘coup’ any earlier? Would Mandela have been accepted by white South Africa any earlier, given his involvement in white deaths?
There are so many ifs and buts, but there is no doubt in my mind that De Klerk made history change and every black South African should be grateful, as should all white South Africans. Whether his other sympathisers in the Nat government would have managed the situation as well, is debatable. He was not alone and he knew it. The white team that brought down Apartheid is to be commended.
President Zuma said NOTHING (in his speech) about the role played (in the last 20 years) by ( the former) President Mbeki, but he had a LOT to say about Gatsha Buthelezi (not withsTanding his history with the NP led government).
So weird.
Traps I respect your view in the article, and I agree about the courage of FW. I also learned a lot about other views on which factor had the most influence on his decision… But still it is him (De Klerk) who convinced his counsel and made the speech. And I don’t think Traps is comparing FW to Mandela either, only that, for the decisions made at the time, they both deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
Have you ever fought as a boy (with fists of course) up until you are tired and both parties rest and you don’t wanna fight anymore, because you are both bleeding and no one wants to consent defeat, then you are so relieved when you both call it a day and go home??? I think both sides (the leaders) were feeling like that. Although some of us who were young at the time could have felt like the fight is intense and we are winning the battle, the leaders knew the war was way from over, and it would take more resources to maintain the war. So they made the right decision.
Mtimande on February 19th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Most black people revere Mandela as their leader but do not share his spirit and conviction of reconciliation. Thereby they tarnish the reputation, and eventually the memory, of a great man. History will say that Mandela was not able to instill this spirit and conviction into his people. Because his people preferred to rather bear grudges than reconciliation.
And where people bear grudges they do not build.
Grudges means looking backwards, reconciliation looks forward and opens up the future.
The choice is yours, as difficult as it may be.
Outraged South African: Helemn Suzman is not a struggle icon. She was a “liberal”.
Mr Trapido,
All that you have succeeded in doing with this article is affirm that the majority of white South Africans were happy with apartheid and would have loved its continuation had De Klerk not betrayed them.
Good going Sir! I suppose this will help our race relations thousands!
The ANC is not and never was a Communist organization – African Nationalists, people from all faiths and Communists made up its ranks. It was supported by Communist /Socialist and Christian regimes. The UDF became the “above ground” arm of the ANC which was forced to operate “under ground” and abroad – the UDF disbanded in 1991 after the unbanning of the ANC. The various groups in the struggle lost many cadres and thousands were beaten to within an inch of their lives – hundreds have never been found at all.
“The UDF had a Christian heritage, like the ANC, and in many ways looked like an internal wing of the ANC…….” (From the History of the UDF)”
“The Government has always sought to label all its opponents as communists…………. but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist organization…..
“The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism……
“Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party are the same. ……The allegation as to the ANC is false. This is an old allegation which was disproved at the Treason Trial and which has again reared its head….” (From Nelson Mandela’s “..I am prepared to die speech – read the full speech on the internet or in one of his various biographies)
Rose Morrow
To be on the National Executive Council of the ANC you also had to be a member of the SA Communist Party. It was the secret inner circle. In the exile days only O R Tambo was not a member (possibly a moral reason – so he did not have to lie to donors)
When Mbeki went to Moskow for training for a few years he was not allowed to tell anyone. His friends in London were told he was ill.
Read the book “Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred” by Mark gevisser (who researched that book for 9 years – it is a full record of the history of the ANC)
Rose Morrow
When Mandela went into prison he was a communist, and he was still one when he came out – as he told De Klerk months before he was released. De Klerk wrote in his autobiography that Mandela’s defiance did not worry him – the Berlin Wall was down and he knew that Mandela would find out that communism had failed, and why, once he was back in the world again.
AND the first thing that Mandela did was that “nationalization” speech that Malema keeps playing to justify his own “nationalization” stance.
Rose Morrow
My father was one of the editors of the Law Reports from a few years after he came back from fighting in the Second World War until his death in 1991, through most of the apartheid years
From the time I was 12, I used to help him with proofreading ( I would read the corrected draft to him while he checked the final copy).
He explained a lot about the judgements to me – also that the Nats tried to load the bench with right wingers but usually it did not work because “they grew into the job”.
But mainly he explained from the beginning of the Rivonia trial that Mandela would not get the death penalty – because no innocent civilians had been killed , only buildings blown up. Apartheid judges only gave the death penalty for treason AND MURDER (e.g. Robert MacBride).
My Dad believed Mandela knew this (being an attorney, and knowing the judges and courts) and that his “prepared to die speech” was pure theatre, stringing along the international observors and international press.
After Mandela’s trial the SA Judge President suggested to all the international observors and media that they might like to go home via Cuban where the ANC’s white supremacist pal, Fidel Castro, was executing all his opposition without trial, and check on Human Rights in Cuba.
Of course they did not do that!
Rose Morrow
Chief Luthuli was opposed to Pan Africanism which is anti-Christian, pro-Islam, pro- violence. It grew out of the American Civil Rights movement ( Malcolm X, The Black Panthers).
Sol Plaatjies, John Dube and Chief Luthuli wanted SAs borders closed (so that SAs black workers were not forced to compete with cheaper labour from accross the border). Pan Africans believe in One Africa with no borders.
It was Pan Africanism that lost the ANC the Western Cape – the coloureds got gatvol of being told they were “not black enough” and this is “a black country now”
When Chief Luthuli died – the Afrikaner suspected that his own people had killed him, because he was opposed to Nelson Mandela and the ANCYL plan for violent conflict.
Sly
All I have confirmed with this article is that whites had it cushy and yet still accepted that things had to change.
Mugabe is watching thousands die and world revulsion and the thought has never crossed his mind.
Phillipa
WHY don’t you read some biographies?
Mandela was allowed only one “Red Cross” visitor a year (as all prisoners were allowed). For ALL the years he was in prison he chose Helen Suzman. Read her biography if you want to know why.
Both may have been “raised by traditional Afrikaans families” but they were religious men who belonged to different churches. De Klerk was from a small group that represented about 5% of Afrikaners; Botha from a 92% majority. Though deeply puritanical the Doppers sometimes had their own, less conformist, take on things. And that can cut both ways: they may at times have been more likely to distil an outsider’s principle-based perspective. (Paul Kruger was the other prominent Afrikaner leader who was a Dopper.)
Lyndal – I have read The Dream Deferred and…….. I think I’ll go with Mandela on this one – I trust him!
Lyndall Beddy, rest in peace to your father but i’m disappointed that he himself couldn’t understand the reviews he compiled.
Mandela was on trial for treason my dear. Hence the term “The Rivonia TREASON trial”.
Sort your facts out before you come here acting like you know your history.
Oh, and on the point of the MK being insignificant, read De Klerk’s interview on why he did what he did. He basically said he couldn’t fathom a South Africa in a civil war. A civil war with whom?… You figure that one out.
James
What is your point?
Treason had either a sentence of life or death.
NO SA White Judge had ever imposed the death penalty UNLESS THERE HAD BEEN MURDER AS WELL!
Are you trying to say that Mandela, a trained attorney, was too stupid to know that?
Mtimande
There were no whites living in the townships. It was blacks killing blacks.
Winnie said she was “necklacing sell outs” to “liberate” the country.
They were not sell outs my friend – they were PAC and IFP supporters.
Why do you think Winnie’s house burnt down twice, and not a single local helped her – they just stood and watched.
And the whites went in to the townships to stop the ANC murdering their opposition, as they had been trained to do in Vietnam.
Read “Peoples War” by Anthea Jeffery.
I’ll have to do some research on whether anyone was actually sentenced to death for treason without murder – I have no facts on this. What I am sure of is that many who were considered by “the authorities” to be guilty of treason or related crimes and not sentenced to death in a court of law, were pushed to it – literally! They “fell” out of windows or over balustrades – or “hung themselves” with their belts, etc, etc, etc. Many were simply brutalized to death like Steve Biko. There are many ways of skinning a cat! So even if Mandela got off with the lesser sentence, there was no guarantee he would not be given the “death sentence” informally. I think he was more than aware of that.
Lyndall “And the whites went in to the townships to stop the ANC murdering their opposition, as they had been trained to do in Vietnam.” You can’t be for real!? I have a friend who regrets every minute of his life spent in the Special Services harassing, brutalising, maiming and even killing people in the townships – even children. Do you dispute that IFP was backed by the apartheid government? Most would not condone any kind of killing – much less necklessing – but let’s not live in a world of make believe – if the whites were protecting any blacks it would probably have been IFP supporters and activists – they were on the same side for the most part!
Rose
I totally dispute that the IFP was backed by the apartheid government. That was an ANC myth – and the reason for Vula infiltrating Natal.
It is typical communist tactics.
At the Boipatong Massacre there were whites (probabably rogue elements from the security forces, definately not an authorised force) helping the Zulus. But the whites thought all Zulus were IFP (who were democrats and anti-communist) which is why they helped.
They did not know, and no-one else knew either, that Zuma and Operation Vula had communist Zulus in Kwa-Zulu Natal who could pretend to be IFP!!!
I am still waiting for the book “Peoples War” to arrive – which I ordered 3 weeks ago.
I will quote from it after I have read it. From what has been in the press about the book, the author proves me right.
The violence ONLY started AFTER Operation Vula (which no-one knew about)
Rose Morrow
Read Sentletse’s post “The Politics of Hypocracy”
I give more detail on Operation Vula there – from Mac’s own account (he was in charge in the beginning)
@Lyndall Beddy
Are you on drugs? I ask sincerely, and am not presently being flippant.
My father was a school principal in DET in a black school in the mid 80s, and it was very much security forces that were torturing children, would come into school compounds with CASSPIRs and the like, shoot around freely, throw grenades, etc. Winnie’s people were easy to deal with – just arm the students with hand axes, but they weren’t a fraction as violent as the security forces.
Ask yourself a simple question: If the ANC was so violent in comparison to the security forces, how did they win elections repeatedly outside IFP strongholds? Intimidation? You yourself claimed that the ANC was a relatively small organization – and somehow they successfully intimidated 11 million people? (I’m referring to the voting population, excluding Zulus.) Let’s take Zulus. 1.2 million voters somehow cowed to vote ANC?
Perhaps your problem is that you ascribe superhuman abilities to communists. (Though the idea that the ANC was somehow a communist party is as laughable as the idea that the SACP should be seen as such. We actually had friends in the ANC, and it was patently obvious by the late 70s which way they were heading. But then, you know that, don’t you, given your comments about Mandela’s relationship with Suzman.)