Home

A Document To Create a Climate of Understanding – 1989

Reading Time: 16 minutes

v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Document forwarded by Nelson Mandela to F.W. De Klerk on 12 December 1989

This
document was forwarded to F W De Klerk the day before the two met. It presents
a process as conceived in the guidelines formulated by the ANC for a genuinely
negotiated end to apartheid. These principles were incorporated in the
Organisation of African Unity’s Harare
Declaration

of 1989. Mandela states in this document that the ‘two-stage’ approach
suggested in his document prepared before his meeting
with PW Botha

on 5 July 1989 had been his own thoughts at the time. Having become aware of
the attitude of the ANC on the matter he decided to adopt the formula indicated
by the organisation for the resolution of the obstacles to negotiation.

Mr.
President,

I hope
that Ministers Kobie Coetsee and Gerrit Viljoen have informed you that I deeply
appreciate your decision in terms of which eight fellow-prisoners were freed on
15 October 1989, and for advising me of the fact in advance. The release was
clearly a major development which rightly evoked praise here and abroad.

In my view
it has now become urgent to take other measures to end the present deadlock,
and this will certainly be achieved if the government first creates a proper
climate for negotiation, followed by a meeting with the ANC. The conflict which
is presently draining South Africa’s life blood, either in the form of peaceful
demonstrations, acts of violence or external pressure, will never be settled
until there is an agreement with the ANC. To this end I have spent more than
three years urging the Government to negotiate with the ANC. I hope I will not
leave this place with empty hands.

The
Government insists on the ANC making an honest commitment to peace before it
will talk to the organisation. This is the pre-condition we are required to
meet before the Government will negotiate with us. It must be made clear at the
outset that the ANC will never make such a commitment at the instance of the
Government, or any other source for that matter. We would have thought that the
history of this country’s liberation movement, especially during the last 41
years, would have made that point perfectly clear.

The whole
approach of the Government to the question of negotiation with the ANC is
totally unacceptable, and requires to be drastically changed. No serious
political organisation will ever talk peace when an aggressive war is being
waged against it. No proud people will ever obey orders from those who have
humiliated and dishonoured them for so long.

Besides,
the pre-condition that we should commit ourselves to peace is inconsistent with
the statement you made in Nigel shortly before the last general election, in
which you appealed to black leaders to come forward to negotiate with the
Government, and to refrain from setting pre-conditions for such negotiations.
It was generally assumed that the appeal was addressed to blacks as a whole and
not, as now appears, only to those who work in apartheid structures.

In the
light of subsequent Government policy statements, the perception has deepened
that the Nigel statement was no more than mere rhetoric. Although the
Government called on blacks to set no pre-conditions, it considers itself free
to do exactly that. That is the reason why it prescribes to us to make a
commitment to peace before we can talk.

The
Government ought to be aware that readiness to negotiate is in itself an honest
commitment to peace. In this regard, the ANC is far ahead of the Government. It
has repeatedly declared its willingness to negotiate, provided a proper climate
for such negotiations exists. The organisation has recently published a clear
and detailed plan to this effect, which has already been approved by the
Frontline States, the Organisation of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement
and by almost all the members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Equally
relevant is the fact that on many occasions in the past, the ANC has explicitly
acknowledged its commitment to peaceful solutions, if channels for doing so are
available. As recently as 24 October 1989, the Star reported as follows:

‘The ANC
says it is committed to a peaceful solution in South Africa but accuses the
Government of rhetoric . . . At present there is really no serious indication
from the Government itself about a peaceful solution to the political crisis .
. . Five years ago, President P W Botha spoke virtually the same words but
nothing happened. It is history now that the ANC has made impassioned overtures
to every single Government of South Africa in vain. Every manoeuvre was met
with a negative response, and at times violence.’

This and
similar other previous statements clearly show that the ANC has an established
record of commitment to peace, and that its armed struggle is a purely
defensive measure against the violence of the Government. This point was
stressed by Mr. Oliver Tambo. President of the ANC, during an interview with Cape
Times editor, Anthony Heard, on 4 November 1985, when he said: ‘The
unfortunate thing is that people tend to be worried about the violence that
comes from the oppressed . . . Really, there would be no violence at all if we
did not have the violence of the apartheid system.’
There is
neither logic nor common sense in asking the ANC to do now what it has
consistently done on countless occasions before. It is the Government, not the
ANC, that started civil war in this country, and that does not want
reconciliation and peace. How does one work for reconciliation and peace under
a State of Emergency, with black areas under military occupation, when people’s
organisations are banned, leaders are either in exile, prison or restricted,
when the policy of apartheid with its violence is still being enforced, and
when no conditions for free political expression exist?

Tuesday 14 June 2011 14:20

Really, there would be no violence at all if we did not have the violence of the apartheid system.’

Serious
doubts have also been expressed as to whether the Government would be prepared
to meet the ANC even when it fully complied with your demand. Political
commentators point out that, during the series of discussions you and other
Government members held recently with the ‘homeland’ leaders and their urban
counterparts, you avoided meeting the very organisations which, together with
the ANC, hold the key to peace in the country. The United Democratic Front and
its main affiliates, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, Natal Indian
Congress and Transvaal Indian Congress, are all non-violent and peaceful
organisations. Why then did the Government ignore them if commitment to peace
is the only qualification for participation in negotiations?

In your
inaugural address on 20 September 1989, you made an important statement which
must have had a formidable impact inside and outside the country. You said: ‘There is
but one way to peace, to justice for all, that is the way of reconciliation, of
together seeking mutually acceptable solutions, of together discussing what the
new South Africa should look like, of constitutional negotiation with a view to
a permanent understanding.’

The
cornerstone of that address was the idea of reconciliation, in which you
pleaded for a new spirit and approach. By reconciliation, in this context, was
understood the situation where opponents, and even enemies for that matter,
would sink their differences and lay down their arms for the purpose of working
out a peaceful solution, where the injustices and grievances of the past would
be buried and forgotten, and a fresh start made. That is the spirit in which
the people of South Africa would like to work together for peace; those are the
principles which should guide those who love their country and its people, who
want to turn South Africa into a land of hope. In highlighting this theme in
your address, you sparked off a groundswell of expectations from far and wide.
Many people felt that, at last, the South Africa of their dreams was about to
be born.

We also understood
your appeal for reconciliation and justice for all not to be directed to those
blacks who operate apartheid structures. Apart from a few notable exceptions,
these blacks are the creation of the National Party and, throughout the years,
they have served as its loyal agents in its various strategies to cling to
minority rule. Their principal role has been, and still is, to make the
struggle for majority rule in a unitary state far more difficult to achieve.
For the last three decades, they have been used to defend the NP’s policy of
group domination – now referred to as group rights – and they have no tradition
of militant resistance against racial discrimination. There is thus no conflict
to be reconciled between the NP and these people.

The appeal
could not have been directed to any of the opposition parties in Parliament
either. Although the NP has made positive initiatives here and there, its
public image is still tarnished by a cloud of distrust and suspicion, and by an
inherent vagueness and indecision as far as the really basic issues are
concerned. Many people see no fundamental difference between its policies and
those of the Conservative Party. Both are regarded as apartheid parties, the
only difference being that one is more blunt than the other in its defence of
white privilege.

Although
the Democratic Party is the most progressive parliamentary party, and despite
the existence of important policy differences between that party and the NP,
the relations between the two parties are not so bitter as to justify a call
for reconciliation and peace by a head of state. The fairly even relations
between the two parties is clearly illustrated by the fact that the DP is not
banned, none of its leaders are restricted, imprisoned, driven into exile or executed
for purely political offences, as is happening to our people.

The
conflict which we believed you wanted to settle was that between the
Government, on the one hand, and the ANC and other extra-parliamentary
organisations, on the other. It is the activities of these organisations which
have turned South Africa into a land of acute tensions and fear. It is on this
level that the country desperately yearns for reconciliation and justice for
all. As pointed out on another occasion, dialogue with the ANC and the mass
democratic movement is the only way of stopping violence and bringing peace to
the country. It is, therefore, ironical that it is precisely these
organisations with whom the Government is not at all prepared to talk.

It is
common knowledge that the Government has been sharply criticised, and even
condemned, in the past, for squandering precious resources, and for wasting
much energy and time discussing with people who can play no significant role in
the resolution of the current conflict in the country. Past experience shows
that the Government would prefer to make peace with those who accept its
policies, rather than those who reject them, with its friends rather than its
opponents. It is to be hoped that this time, the Government will not repeat
that costly mistake. To continue to ignore this criticism, and to confine
consultations on the political crisis almost entirely to those individuals and
organisations which help the Government to maintain the status quo, will
certainly deepen the distrust and suspicion which impede real progress on
negotiations.

In my
lengthy discussions with the team of Government officials, I repeatedly urged
that negotiation between the ANC and the Government should preferably be in two
stages; the first being where the Government and the ANC would together work
out the pre-conditions for negotiations. The second stage would consist of the
actual negotiations themselves when the climate for doing so was ripe. These
were my personal views and not those of the ANC, which sees the problem quite
differently. It seems to me that now that I am aware of the attitude of the ANC
on the matter, an attitude which is perfectly sound, we should work on the
formula indicated by the organisation for the resolution of the present obstacles
to negotiation.

The
principal source of almost all our problems in this country is undoubtedly the
policy of apartheid, which the Government now admits is an unjust system, and
from which it claims to be moving away. This means that organisations and people
who were banned, restricted, driven into exile, imprisoned or executed for
their anti-apartheid activities were unjustly condemned. The very first step on
the way to reconciliation is obviously the dismantling of apartheid, and all
measures used to enforce it. To talk of reconciliation before this major step
is taken is totally unrealistic.

The
five-year plan of the NP, with its outdated concept of group rights, has
aggravated the position almost beyond repair. It is yet another example of the
Government’s attempt ‘to modernise apartheid without abandoning it’. What the
plan means, in effect, is that after resisting racial oppression for so many
years, and after making such heavy sacrifices during which countless lives were
lost, we should at the height of that heroic struggle, yield to a disguised
form of minority rule. In a nutshell, the plan means that blacks will taste
real freedom in the world to come. In this one, whites will go on preaching
reconciliation and peace, but continue to hold firmly and defiantly to power
and to enforce racial separation, the very issues which have caused so much
agony and bitterness in the country. Insistence on such a plan will render
meaningless all talk of ‘reconciliation and justice for all; of together
seeking mutually acceptable solutions, of together discussing what the new
South Africa should look like, of constitutional negotiation with a view to a
permanent understanding’.

We equally
reject, out of hand, the Government’s plan to hold racially based elections to
determine those who should take part in negotiations. Commentators of different
political views consider it absurd for the Government to advocate essentially
racist procedures, where the overwhelming majority of the population is
striving for a non-racial system of government.

The
Government argues that our situation is a complex one, and that a lasting
solution will only be found after years of consultation and planning. We
totally reject that view. There is nothing complicated in replacing minority
rule with majority rule, group domination with a non-racial social order. The
position is complicated simply because the Government itself is not yet ready
to accept the most obvious solution which the majority demands, and believes
that a racial solution can still be imposed on the country.

The
Government claims that the ANC is not the sole representative of black
aspirations in this country; therefore, it (the Government) cannot be expected
to have separate discussions with the organisation. It can only do so in the
presence of other organisations. We reject this argument as yet another example
of the Government’s intransigence. All those who resort to such an argument
make themselves wide open to the charge of using double standards.

It is now
public knowledge that the Government has on numerous occasions held separate
discussions with each of the ‘homeland’ leaders and with their urban
counterparts.

For the Government now to refuse us this privilege would not only
be inconsistent with its own actions, but would seriously undermine the
confidence-building exercises on which we have embarked, compelling all those
involved to seek mutually acceptable solutions under very grave difficulties.
Equally important is the fact that there is a war between the ANC and the
Government, and a cease-fire to end hostilities will have to be negotiated
first, before talks to normalise the situation can begin. Only the Government
and the ANC and its allies can take part in such talks, and no third party
would be needed.

I must now
refer to a different but related matter, which I hope will receive your urgent
attention, that is the release of four fellow-prisoners who were sentenced to
life imprisonment by a Natal court in 1978, and who are presently held in
Robben Island. They are:

Mr. Matthew Meyiwa (66 years)
Mr. Elphas Mdlalose (66 years)
Mr. Anthony Xaba (56 years)

Mr. John Nene (approx. 56 years)

They were
first sentenced in 1964, Mr. Mdlalose to 10 years’ imprisonment and the rest to
eight years. In 1978 they were again convicted and sentenced, this time to life
imprisonment. For reasons which were carefully explained to Ministers Gerrit
Viljoen and Kobie Coetsee on 10 October 1989, and to the Government team on 16
November 1989, I had expected Messrs Mdlalose and Meyiwa to be freed together
with the eight fellow-prisoners mentioned above. I was indeed extremely
distressed when the two were not included. Bearing in mind all the surrounding
circumstances to the case, the fact that these four persons are not first
offenders should be regarded as a mitigating, and not as an aggravating factor.

I would
like to believe that my exploratory efforts during the last three years have
not been in vain, that I have an important role still to play in helping to
bring about a peaceful settlement, that the initiatives you have already taken
will soon be followed by other developments on the really fundamental issues
that are agitating our people, and that in our life-time our country will rid
itself of the pestilence of racialism in all its forms.

In
conclusion, Mr. President, I should add that, in helping to promote dialogue
between the ANC and the Government, I hope to be able to avoid any act which
may be interpreted as an attempt on my part to drive a wedge between you and
the NP, or to portray you in a manner not consistent with your public image. I
trust that you and other members of the Government will fully reciprocate.

Author

MOST READ