FocusNigeria.com
 

HomePage

New Articles

Submit Articles

About Us

Community

Politics & Govt

     

Nigeria

     

BEFORE THE FIRST WHISTLE IN THE 2010 SOUTH AFRICA WORLD CUP

By: PROFESSOR DR EMMANUEL OMOH ESIEMOKHAI
PRESIDENT OF THE PROPOSED AFEMAI UNIVERSITY, FUGAR, EDO STATE, NIGERIA

 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.



Custom Search

   Join Nigerian Social Network!