|
 Published
June 8th, 2010
Under the vicious,
heartless and pernicious, inhuman, political and economic
systems of APARTHEID, there could not have been a World Cup
competition in South Africa, 2010. There would have been no
first whistle or handing the cup to Spain, Brazil, Nigeria
or Argentina.
The bigoted, white racists of South Africa would still have
been in, demonic control in South Africa as they were for
over two centuries.
We applaud the Hand of JEHOVAH ADONAI for overturning the
evil forces that ruled South Africa with its demonic leaders
and followers from the UNIVERSE OF FALLEN ANGELS.
It is very sad to hear that the young Romeos and Juliets of
Independent South Africa are not interested in the History
of Apartheid.
This is exactly why I am writing this short historical
account of some of the events that happened under the
APARTHEID regimes of South Africa before the first whistle
is blown, so that the youth are not carried away by social
festivities and forget the sufferings of Dr. Nelson Mandela,
Jo Slovo, Alfred Nzo, Jack Simons, Nyamuza, Mbeki, David
Ivon Jones, Ruth First, Eddie Roux, Albert Nziola, Edwin
Mofusanyana, his wife Josie Mpama, John Gomas, S.P Bunting,
Makabeni, Khaile and Thabedi, Alex La Guma, Olivia Thambo,
Walter Susulu, Jacob Zuma etc. All these anti-apartheid
fighters, organized to smash apartheid, an inhuman political
and economic system, which enhanced national oppression and
economic exploitation. They were the revolutionary forces
that destroyed the Apartheid system. They will remain South
African heroes till time indefinite.
The unprecedented predicament of South Africans during
Apartheid should not be trivialized nor played down by South
African youth. It will be a monument of tragedy, if that
were to be the case. They can forgive but they should not
forget. I sent notes to Comrade Oliver Thambo in March 1986, when
he paid an official visit to Nigeria. He met President
Ibrahim Babangida and other leading government leaders at
the Headquarters of the Nigeria Labour Congress and
expressed support for the fighting people and revolutionary
forces in South Africa.
The great poets Aeschylus and Goethe defended the rights of
people to freedom. People must shape their own destinies and
not be subjected to foreign domination.
The South African writer Campbell Archibald Jordan used his
position as Professor of African Languages at the University
of Wiscons to sensitize the African-Americans about the
evils of apartheid and racism in America.
Produced below is an essay I wrote in 1988 entitled, “HUMAN
RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA: NIGERIA AND EXTRA-AFRAICAN RESPONSE
TO APARTHEID”: A modest contribution to the struggle against
apartheid.
From the “Reflections of a Zen Buddist, Epigrams from the
Ming Dynasty, we learnt that “when a man, with a jar of wine
besides him, takes the heaven as a tent and the earth as a
mat, he is in harmony with the life-giving forces” The South
African minority white settlers seem to be in the state of
inebriety, otherwise, they would have reacted more
realistically to the whirlwind of revolt which has engulfed
the apartheid enclave in the last few years and especially
in 1988.
Injustice, no matter with what might it is perpetuated and
no matter how long it lasts, will come to an end. This is
the lesson which we have learnt after a study of struggles
for human rights protection and promotion through the ages.
The Stoics criticizing the injustice of Hellenistic tyranny,
declared a belief in a natural law ruling over God as well
as men, which directed what was just from what was unjust.
The Early English men curbed the excesses of the Stuarts by
forcing King John 1,on June 15,1215,to sign the Magna Carta
(or the Great Charter) which spelt out the peoples’
liberties. The most famous of the sixty-three clauses read:
No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseissed or
outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will go upon
him nor will we send upon him save by the lawful judgment of
peers or the law of the land. To no one will we sell, deny
or delay right or justice.
Human rights received legal sanctification in the
declaration of Human Rights which the French Revolutionaries
introduced after deposing their king. Man is born free and
equal in rights and that the purpose of political
association was the confirmation of the natural and
inalienable rights to security and resistance of oppression.
They stressed in particular freedom of the press, and from
arbitrary arrest. All these and other universally accepted
human rights provisions have found their way into all
constitutions of civilized nations as well as all human
rights conventions concluded in the last sixty years in
Europe and America.
When the Americans decided to revolt against the dark morass
of British colonialism, their long struggle against
violation of human rights led Thomas Jefferson, who drafted
the Declaration of American Independence to affirm, “We hold
these truths to be self-evident that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed”.
Apartheid in Crisis
The system of apartheid, a “manifestly inhuman legal and
political order” which is, as of now, facing “the greatest
onslaught from progressive makind” is in crisis. To
understand this crisis better, it is necessary to link the
despondent political situation in South Africa with the
deepening depression of the world capitalist economy.
Economic growth there has slowed down inexorably in the last
three years. This has fractured the affluence of the South
African Ruling class. This injury has also been transmitted
to Europe/American centers of finance that sustain fiduciary
relations with apartheid South Africa which explains
American, British and West German refusal to impose economic
sanctions against the apartheid government in Pretoria. All
these nations have acted in defiance of the robust
protestation of world public opinion. Some ‘whites’ who
could read the hand-writing on the wall of history have long
fled from South Africa as a result of the radical changes
that took place in Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe in the
1970’s and early 1980’s. They calculated that these would
also come about in South Africa in no distant future. Their
exit led to a flight of capital which further worsened the
South Africa monetary economy.
Besides, the economy itself had taken on the characteristics
of a war economy because the industrial sector had been
geared towards war efforts when South Africa stepped up its
aggression and brutality against Angola, and other frontline
states.
It has long become evident to political observers that the
South African system was heading for the rocks when the
South African government, while aiming at high profits
through the exploitation of black labour, frittered same
away in fighting an expansionist war in the sub-region and a
repressive war at home. Added to this madness is the
continued sustenance of racism through mindless violence.
The employment of vicious methods of suppression inevitably
resulted in violation of human rights in South Africa.
Although issues relating to human rights can be studied from
different disciplinary viewpoints, we hold that a juristic
approach assists tremendously in exposing the essentially
repressive and discriminatory nature of the manifestly
inhuman system of apartheid. The United Nations
International Law Commission had spear-headed many draft
resolutions which later became universally accepted
conventions by the community of states in the world, these
legal documents would be referred to in due course, so that
we can win some insight into the UN struggle against
apartheid.
“Human Rights represent demands or claims which individuals
or groups make on society, some of which are protected by
law and have become part of lex lata while others remain
aspirations to be attained in future”. From Professor Osita
Eze’s definition above, it comes off clearly that South
Africans who suffer from deprivation have the right to make
demands. Also since no law in South Africa operates to
protect them from oppression by a minority, the oppressed
majority are justified in seeking even extraordinary
measures to defend their rights. These rights, Eze writes,
are generally grouped under five sub-headings: Civil,
political, social, economic and cultural. It is very apt to
examine the content of civil and political rights which
include the right to life, the right to self determination,
freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, freedom from
slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and
security, right of fair trial, freedom of thought,
conscience and religion, freedom of movement and choice of
residence, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to
marry and found a family, the right to participate in one’s
government,either directly or through freely elected
representatives, the right to nationality and equality
before the law.
Economic, social and cultural rights involve the right to an
adequate standard of living, the right to work, the right to
just conditions of work, the right to fair remuneration, the
right to organize, form and join trade unions, the right to
collective bargaining, the right to equal pay for equal
work, the right to social security, the right to property,
the right to education, the right to participate in cultural
life and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress.
As can be seen from this exhaustive list of human rights,
the South African apartheid state represents a complete
negation of all that is decent, just and humane. The
majority of the black populations do not enjoy the right to
self-determination since they are dominated by a clique of
austere and wicked human beings who herd them into the rural
wilderness’ otherwise known as “Bantustans”.
As reported in the African Communist, in 1960, “In
Bophuthatswana for example, over a million Africans whose
crime is that they are non-Iswana, are being chased and
viciously persecuted by the Bophuthatswana administration
and its police force in an attempt to uproot them from their
homes and force them to go to their countries. In
Winterveldt, 800,000 non-Tswanas face continuous raids for
permits, passes and trespass. As can be seen, nearly all
guaranteed human rights are violated in South Africa, to
wit: freedom of movement and choice of residence, freedom
from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and
security and so on. For black people, there has not existed
in South Africa, the right to just conditions of work nor
have they had fair remuneration on the basis of equal work
for equal pay since whites with the same educational and
professional skills are paid higher. Repressive labour laws
and wanton intimidation make it difficult to exercise the
right to collective bargaining. In sum, the black majority
in South Africa are denied fundamental human rights. As a
result, their struggle and resistance are justified in law.
International Legal Developments: Response By The United
Nations Organization.
One of the most notable aspects of legal development at the
international level in the past thirty years has been the
development of norms to combat and whereby possible, outlaw
racism and racial discrimination on a world-wide basis.
Since 1952, when 12 member states requested that the
question of race conflict in South Africa, resulting from
the policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa
should be placed on the agenda of the General Assembly, the
Assembly and other United Nations bodies have been concerned
with this question. Indeed, the abolition of the racist
domination and exploitation in South Africa and assistance
to the South Africa people in their efforts to establish a
non-racial society, have become primary concerns of the
entire United Nations systems of organization and of the
international community as a whole. There had been
segregation of races under the Notorious Group Areas Act,
complete segregation in public services, suppression of
democratic movements advocating racial equality under the
suppression of democratic movements advocating racial
equality, the suppression of Communism Act, barring of
non-whites from combat service, withholding of voting or
other political rights from non-whites except in the Cape
Province, restriction of Africans to reserves and
restriction of their movement under the Mines Workers
Amendment Act, and provision of vastly inferior education
and housing conditions for non-whites.
The aim of the memorandum was to prevent further
deterioration in the situation in South Africa and expedite
a solution to the problems of apartheid in the country.
Other efforts were made by various UN organs between 1957
and 1988 to promote the observance of human rights in South
Africa.
In addition to adopting more than twenty-five resolutions on
the racial situation in South Africa, the General Assembly
drew the attention of the Security Council of the UN to the
problem on more than five occasions, informing the Council
that the situation constituted a threat to international
peace and security and urged the Council to take appropriate
measures including universally-applied mandatory measures to
secure South Africa’s compliance with the resolutions of the
United Nations organs.
A special Committee Against Apartheid was created in 1962
“to keep the racial policies of the Government of South
Africa under review” and to report either to the Assembly or
to the Security Council initiated measures in response to
apartheid. It had passed a number of resolutions condemning
apartheid. Member States of the UN had been urged not to
sell or ship arms to South Africa. Also, ammunition of all
types as well as military hardware were recommended for
prohibition. The UN Secretary – General and a group of
experts appointed by him have regularly visited South Africa
and other states to intensify pressures on the South African
government.
The UN commissioned a study on apartheid which was finished
in 1967. The experts studied “the ill-treatment of
prisoners, detainees and persons in police custody in South
Africa”. The reports that emanated from these studies, the
conclusions and recommendations made were forwarded to the
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and other
bodies concerned. The Working Group of the Commission set up
in 1967 made a special study of the question of apartheid
from the point of view of international penal law, paving
the way for the suppression and punishment of the crime of
apartheid. This Working Group also made available to the
thirtieth -session of the UN General Assembly. In 1977, a
report on the deaths of detainees and police brutality in
South Africa since the Soweto massacre of June 1976 was
discussed at the United Nations in New York.
In its recommendation to the government, the General
Assembly called upon South Africa:
- To terminate diplomatic, consular and other official
relations with the racist regime of South Africa or to
refrain from establishing such relations.
- To implement arms embargo against South Africa without any
exception or reservation.
- To terminate all economic collaboration with South Africa.
There were other sanctions recommended including refusal to
landing and passage facilities to South African aircrafts
and companies registered in South Africa, prohibition of
airlines and shipping lines registered in the countries from
providing services to vessels flying the South African flag,
and encourage public collections in the country for
assistance to the South African liberation movements,
encourage the implementation of all United Nations
resolutions on apartheid in sports, etc. The General
Assembly in its recommendation to non-governmental
organizations, including trade unions, churches and
anti-apartheid movements in 1977, urged them to cooperate
with their governments and other international bodies to
ensure that maximum pressure was exerted on the apartheid
regime.
As can be seen from the foregoing, there have been serious
responses by the United Nations Organization to the
injustices of the system of apartheid. However, the major
question is, “why has the position remained for so long
without much change in the UN attitude to the minority white
settlers? Before we examine Nigerian and other responses to
apartheid, we may need to address the above question since
the facts set below here would enlighten us about successes
and failures in responding to apartheid.
Big Business and Apartheid
Emmanuel Urhobo, in a seminar paper entitled “the United
States of America Policy for Africa” wrote,
“The power of the big business and its influence on US
internal and particularly foreign policy formation, cannot
be understood unless one understands the close relationship
between American capitalism and American political,
legislative and administrative processes”.
Also a viewpoint expressed by Michael Parren is worth
examining before we draw the conclusions that flow from
Urhobo’s comments. These will help us in assessing responses
to apartheid. Parren wrote:
“First, the United States gives priority consideration to
its economic interest in its dealings with African Nations;
second, the United States is more interested in preventing
communist influence in Africa than in supporting
self-determination; third, we as a nation do not have a
moral, ethical commitment to the liberation of Africans in
Southern Africa as exemplified by Secretary of State
Kissinger’s famous National Security Studies Memoranda No.
39 of 1970. And finally, for reasons of ethnic
considerations, America finds it necessary to safeguard the
interests of a white minority in Africa”.
As a result of the fact that the studies contained in
memorandum No. 39 of 1970 were commissioned by the
republican administration under Richard Nixon, it was no
surprise that American responses to apartheid in the 1980’s
were rather negative under Ronald Reagan until recent events
induced a mild change of attitude. The weak responses to
apartheid by the United States of America, Britain, France
and West Germany in the 1960’s – 1980’s were dictated by
these countries’ national economic interest.
In a book published in 1984, entitled, “In whose Interest?,
Kevin Danaher wrote,
“U.S. Companies profiting from apartheid, as well as the US
Government, refrain from any reference to apartheid as a
system of exploitation rooted in class structure of a
capitalist economy. ……Since US national interests are served
by apartheid, it is understandable why American responses
are ambivalent.
Danaher wrote;
- “United States corporate and government leaders claim that
American investment is a “progressive force” for change in
South Africa. The author lists the argument which generally
includes the following elements.
- Race prejudice is anachronistic, an irrational hold over
from pre-industrial society that will be dissolved gradually
by market forces. This assumption finds support in the
social science literature on modernization.
- American corporate involvement will help spur growth in
South Africa economy, creating more jobs and income for
blacks.
- As the economic situation of blacks improves, they will be
better equipped to press for full social equality. With a
greater stake in the system, they will be more likely to
rely on peaceful, orderly methods of social change.
A discerning reader of these apologetic reasons would draw a
“rewarding” conclusion from these banal positions adopted by
“U.S. officials” to fend off UN initiatives for economic
sanctions against South Africa. There have been major
obstacles in the way of extra-Africa responses to apartheid
because these other entities draw policy inspirations from
the United States government sources and these seem to be
informed by the following rationales:
1. Fundamental change can come about via the existing
political institutions.
2. Euro-American businesses operating in South Africa “can
be a force for democratic change”.
3. Only black groups that rely on peaceful methods of change
deserved Euro-America support.
4. Communism is a greater danger than apartheid.
5. Most Euro-American mineral imports are strategically
dependent on the Cape Sea Route and since these are crucial
to the defence of the western world, the US government “has
limited leverage over the white minority”.
In sum, national interests shape extra-African responses to
apartheid rather than considerations of legality, morality
or ethics.
One comment must be made in response to the call for
peaceful methods of change, at least to show its hollowness.
Protagonists of this view-point often lull us into the
examples of Mohandes Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
As Charles Krauthammer wrote,
“It is no accident, however, that these two exceptions, the
movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jnr. took place
within the political and moral boundaries of liberal
democratic politics steeped in constitutional values, and
thus susceptible to the constraints of law and the power of
shame. Where law and shame are less easily mobilised,
non-violence has not fared well”.
Those who advocated non-violence died themselves through
violent means. In discrediting the viewpoint that
Euro-American business in South Africa ‘can be a force for
democratic change’ Elizabeth Schmidt in her book, “Decoding
Corporate Camouflage, US Business Support for Apartheid”,
wrote
“In the decade that followed the Second World War, South
Africa’s cheap labour economy and mineral wealth attracted
billions of dollars in foreign investments. Although the
‘good investment climate’ was due, in large part to the
racist structure of the economy, the United State government
adopted a neutral policy vis-à-vis American investments in
South Africa. Urged on by American government connivance
with those companies that had invested in South Africa
during the Carter administration, ‘American corporations
rapidly expanded their investments in South Africa without
remonstrance from the American government. Between 1943 and
1978, US direct investment in South Africa grew from $50
million to $2 billion, an increase of 4,000 percent”.
Those in Europe and America who propagate the progressive
force theory that increase in investments does strengthen
the national economy have been disproved by Elizabeth
Schmidt when she said:
“History has exposed the weakness of the corporate argument.
The “trickles down” theory has not worked. While the South
African gross domestic product has increased by more than
2,000 per cent since the end of the Second World War, very
little of that increase has benefited South Africa’s black
majority. Most of the black population continues to subsist
below the poverty line”.
Elizabeth Schmidt further intimated that in spite of the
supposed affluence that Euro-American business was expected
to bring about, all was not so rosy. Other authors who have
written on South Africa’s apartheid agree. For example
writing in the “South Africa Fact Sheet” Harrel, Joan and
Rothmyer, Karen said, “In 1975, when the officially
recognized absolute minimum for a black family of six was
set at $127.65 per month, the Financial Mail reported that
63.5 percent of the black households earned monthly income
less than $92. In 1976, South Africa blacks who constitute
71m percent of the population, took home only 23 per cent of
the national income. The white minority which accounted for
16 per cent took home 67 per cent of the earned wealth.
While the income of the blacks is overwhelmed by inflation,
that of the whites is cushioned by their high incomes. E.
Schmidt noted that during the 1976 period of tremendous
economic growth, the ratio of white to black per capita has
increased, rather than diminished. The white to black per
capita income ratio was 16 to 1 in 1966; it reached 17 to 1
in 1975. 200 in 1978, white workers were still paid an
average of 5 to 20 times more than black workers.
Apart from economic well-being, “there are denials of social
and political rights, which for long have failed to
materialize”. There has been widespread repression of
blacks. Thousands of blacks have been imprisoned under an
increasing number of South African security laws – statutes
so comprehensive that activities likely “to endanger the
maintenance of law and order” can be construed as terrorism
and punished by prison or death.” For example in April 1978,
Dr. Monflana told the New York Times: “If I said that the
only way to bring change would be total economic sanctions,
I would be liable to go to jail”. So, let’s just be cagey.
Let’s just say I support “pressures” and leave it at that.
All these repressions in South Africa and the attendant
crisis they precipitated drew world-wide responses.
Reflecting upon the role of big business in South African
politics, it became a generally held view that only economic
pressure would hurt apartheid.
In the fall of 1978, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Peace
Prize winner, said to the Press:
“We ask our friends to apply economic pressure…. Our last
chance for peaceful change lies in the international
community applying political, diplomatic and especially
economic pressure….”
It is important to underline a principal issue. Whatever
responses have been made by external forces, has come
initially from the people of South Africa. No organization,
save those that accept apartheid and work within the system,
has supported continued foreign investment in the apartheid
economy”.
The South African people, it is, who have taken on apartheid
and whatever Nigerian responses or the lack of them may do,
whatever extra-African responses may influence or not spur,
seem secondary to the struggle.
Nigerian Responses to Apartheid
One observes that Nigeria often plays more active roles in
opposition to apartheid when she operates at the United
Nations level, when she operates at Conferences and in other
international fora than when on her own. The work of the
various Nigerian chairmen on the U.N. Committee for Action
Against Apartheid like Ambassador Edwin Ogbu, Alhaji Yesuf
Maitama Sule, Major-General Joseph Naven Garba, stand out
prominently. Also, the Nigeria Committee for Action Against
Apartheid which propagates the evils of apartheid has
achieved limited success too. However, if we consider the
external environment of a country, “then we might readily
see why Nigerian responses to the Southern African problems
are limited to chest-beating, sloganizing and promises until
the Muritala Administration showed some teeth during the
Angolan crisis. Nigeria’s foreign policy was ineffective
herself, being a neo-colonial state. Our leaders, both in
government and the civil service were subservient to
Anglo-American dictate. This curious situation does not seem
to have changed much in spite of the posturing we have
witnessed since August 27 1985, when General Ibrahim
Babangida came to power.
The attitude of Nigeria to apartheid is fractured by the
need for the country to ensure that tribalism and nepotism
do not shameless thrive in the country. Externally the
environment is not conductive to responses that would be
taken seriously. Nigeria simply has no military capability
to back its responses.
On the other hand, as a result of the U.S South African
atomic energy agreement signed in 1967, South African has
produced enriched uranium for its atom bomb. Secondly, giant
c.130 Hercules fighter planes and c-142 star lifer transport
planes are in the racist’s war arsenal and the U.S still
supplies spare parts. Thirdly, there is formidable military
and intelligence cooperation between Israel and South
Africa. All these are bound to overwhelm any Nigeria
responses to help in the protestations against apartheid.
Nigeria hosted in Lagos from 22nd to the 26th August; 1977,
the conference organized jointly by the United Nations
Special committee against apartheid and the Federal Military
Government of Nigeria.
The Conference proceedings were not reported in South Africa
this was understandable, however, the event was important to
the morale of those who were and are still engaged in the
fight against apartheid.
The solidarity with oppressed South Africans which
encouraged outspokenness against apartheid discouraged “the
forces of the white oppressors”.
The conference offered an opportunity to participants to
receive first-hand evidence of political trials, torture and
death in detention camps in the apartheid enclave. The
activities of international bodies and other institutions
which maintained links with apartheid were exposed and
condemned.
We, however, suggest that the Nigerian government should
mobilize Nigerian public opinion so that the people may
boycott the goods and services of apartheid.
- We should trade more with the USSR, China India and the
North. European states that oppose apartheid, e.g. Norway,
Sweden, Finland and Denmark.
- We should grant scholarships to enable young South
Africans study in Nigerian universities.
- We can undertake information dissemination on the evils of
apartheid and must increase our support for freedom fighters
in Southern Africa.
Commonwealth Responses to Apartheid
The Commonwealth is made up of a group of former colonies
and other dependent states which, as a result of the
colonial heritage, have strong “indissoluble “links with
Britain. Apart from offering Britain and her former colonies
the opportunity to meet periodically and exchange
courtesies, the commonwealth had not been effective against
apartheid.
The Commonwealth Conference (1985)in Nassau frustrated
British attempt at diversions. It urged, not selective
sanction against Pretoria but “comprehensive and mandatory
sanction against apartheid system”.
This was a marked departure from earlier position adopted by
the Commonwealth.
However, it is in the implementation of these sanctions that
the Commonwealth lacked the capacity to monitor the
effectiveness of sanctions that had been imposed.
At Nassau, a ten-nation ad hoc Committee was set up to draft
a Declaration on a new world order. From what one could
grasp from the exercise, it was one of those diversionary
exercises at international conferences which end up throwing
up clichés which urge nations (for as long as the conference
lasts) :to reinforce the commitment of nations to global
peace and security. “Nassau, Cancun and Ottawa all belong
together there was some heart-warming news about moves by
nations and democratic bodies in Australia, ports unions
threatened to boycott South African goods and measures aimed
at crippling apartheid .These measures were very effective.
Other Responses to Apartheid.
In Canada, Britain, France, West Germany and Italy, many
democratic bodies, for example trade unions, student’s
organizations and left wing political groups engaged in open
revolt against apartheid. As one would expect, conservative
and ultra-conservative forces within the ruling classes in
these countries maintained studied silence.
At the World Conference for Action Against Apartheid,
extra-African responses were documented as follows:-
The Indian delegate to the Conference said that his
country’s commitment to the eradication of apartheid and
racial discrimination was total. India, he said maintained,
scrupulous sanctions against South Africa, “at considerable
cost to itself but no cost was too great when it came to
fighting apartheid .
Mr. Ghafoorzai representing Afghanistan called “for the
publicity campaign against apartheid, the treatments of
black Africans and political prisoners, the struggle of the
liberation movements and the activities and decisions of the
United Nations and the Organization of African unity. He
said that sufficient financial support should be given to
South African liberation movements.
Mr. Terzi, of the Palestine Liberation Organization called
apartheid “a malignant phenomenon”. The President of
International Committee of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU),Mr.
Narayanan urged investors in South Africa to withdraw
because they were only instruments of human greed. He
claimed that his organization had assisted African workers
to organize their trade union movement in South Africa “
Declaring that his country supported “a mandatory arms
embargo “ on South Africa, Professor Kooymans, State
Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands said “the
sustained opposition to the apartheid system demonstrated
beyond question that the system had gone bankrupt from a
moral as well as a practical point of view”
The People’s Republic of Mongolia promotes the position that
the Security Council should adopt a mandatory arms embargo
on South Africa. Mr.Pavicevic, member of the Federal Council
of Yugoslavia ,said “South Africa was cooperating with some
Western countries, in the nuclear field. He said that this
was dangerous”.
The Argentine representative said that his country opposed
racial discrimination and regarded apartheid as evil and as
morally and politically unacceptable. New Zealand said that
the world could not credibly call for “peaceful solutions to
South African problems without taking action to prevent the
transfer of arms to South Africa “Mr. Arieff of Malaysia
said that one had only to look at the wave of repressive
measures that had been unleashed following the barbaric
Soweto massacre of June 1976 to realize that apartheid was a
dastardly system. Syria condemned racist settler regimes and
said that the appearance of nuclear weapons in South
Africa’s arsenal was further evidence of her collaboration
with Israel. Iraq said African states should nationalize
multinational firms operating in their countries which dealt
with South Africa.
Greece rejects racial discrimination, apartheid and the
Bantustan policy. The Republic of the Ukraine said that “the
struggle against apartheid and racism had entered its
decisive stage he accused the NATO countries of supporting
apartheid.”
Olavi Martkainen, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Health of
Finland, stated that the cruel and inhuman system of
apartheid was poisoning the Southern part of the Africa
continent. He said that the tragic events of Soweto and
Sharpeville were enough to prove that apartheid was based on
a structure of violence and could only create further
violence. He said that the Finish government had
consistently given humanitarian aid to the victims of
apartheid.
The Chairman of the Senate Council of Bulgaria in a message
to the world conference on action against apartheid held in
Lagos, Nigeria, said that” the act of suppression of the
basic rights and freedom of the people in Southern Africa by
the racist regimes of South Africa and South Rhodesia (now
Zimbabwe), the violent enforcement of the system of
apartheid, the armed provocation of these regimes against
sovereign Africa states, are aimed at perpetuating the
policy of racial oppression.
A resume of both Nigerian and Africa Reponses reflects the
agreement that: apartheid is a crime against humanity and is
incurably wicked and evil.
- it is an insult to human dignity and a serious threat to
international peace and security (Mwedor,1977);
- The possession by South Africa of Nuclear weapons is
dangerous not only to that region but the entire world ;
- Imperialist powers support apartheid.
- Human rights are not respected.
In order to remedy these wrongs, the community of states
insist that changes cannot come about in south Africa until
the fascists in South Africa.
- free all political prisoners
- end all violence against anti-apartheid demonstrators ;
- lift bans on anti-apartheid movements;
- stop frivolous trials of political activists;
- refrain from terrorizing the frontlines states;
- lift the state of emergency now on in most cities and
recently extended to the Cape province.
Apartheid is sustained by international capitalism
.apartheid serves capitalism both in South Africa and
elsewhere. The system ensures cheap labour and abundant
investment opportunities to Euro-American capitalism, a call
for the destruction of apartheid is a call for
destabilization of capitalism in South Africa which will, in
turn, affect capitalism in Western Europe and America. This
explains why capitalism aids apartheid.
The knowledge on the need to respect human dignity, protect
and promote human rights cannot flourish under the
capitalist mode of development. The injustices inherent in
the apartheid system are the reasons why the Africa National
Congress aims at creating a democratic society where racism
and exploitation by capital would hopefully, diminish
considerably.
What is going on in South Africa is a revolt against
criminal folly, white charlantry, self-interest and callous
insensitivity. Apartheid must be destroyed!
My book entitled, “Human Rights in International Law” 1992
was published in the United States, while I was a visiting
Senior Scholar Research Scholar at the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
AFRIKANER COLONIALISM DEFECTED
The major issues in the imposition of Afrikaner colonialism
on the people of Azania are the pass laws, the Sharpeville
massacre, the rivonia trial, the Soweto uprisings by school
children and other unreported brutalities imposed on them by
the racist regime between 1980-88.
In June 1988, South Africa’s largest black trade union
movement demonstrated its organizational ability and
organized strikes which brought large sectors of business
and industry to a halt. Over two million workers had
abstained from work. Unlike the 1987 strikes which the
Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) organized,
the 1988 strike was not challenged indicating the state’s
increasing powerlessness to what (COSATU) described as
“widespread anger and resentment at the government
restrictions to labour legislations which severely hampered
its activity”.
Unlike in the 1970’s when the exposition of the evils of
apartheid were covered up by the western media or given
slanted report, the1980’s have witnessed a world-wide
awareness of the inhuman system of apartheid and its
unchristian and uncivilized excesses. The existence of
apartheid contradicts the Euro-American claim to
“civilization” and exposes beliefs in Vatican virtues to
ridicule and scorn.
In order to redeem its image, the church has taken measures
against apartheid and Euro-American government have declared
apartheid a violation of the human rights of the people of
South Africa though they still resist the imposition of
economic boycott on South Africa. This has been a major
hindrance in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
South Africa has now existed for over a decade and is making
tremendous programe at both integration and statecraft. It
is regrettable that the under -privileged South Africans are
still under the weight of poverty. The ANC has not redeemed
its pledge at independence. The young South Africans must
not forget their fathers’ struggle against Apartheid. We
salute all those gentle souls who fought against apartheid
world-wide at the time.
By the time the world cup is delivered to the winners and
the lights go off, let us forgive but not forget. KE NAKO!!!
PROFESSOR DR. EMMANUEL OMOH ESIEMOKHAI IS THE PRESIDENT OF
THE PROPOSED AFEMAI UNIVERSITY, FUGAR, EDO STATE, NIGERIA.
|
