If Jan Christiaan Smuts was the white politician who might have prevented apartheid, (Blog: Smuts: The Man Who Might Have Prevented Apartheid, 1/22/14), Frederick Willem De Klerk was certainly the white politician that ended it nearly 50 years after its ignominious start. This all came to light, once again, in his acceptance speech of an honorary degree at the University of Haifa, Israel, at the end of last month. While Smuts,was already a major figure on the international stage and was a likely candidate to oppose apartheid’s introduction, De Klerk was one of the most improbable of any Afrikaner Nationalist leader to be the initiator of what has to be the most peaceful and inconceivable changes of a regime in the twentieth century. It is not often that a government voluntarily negotiates itself out of power and that is exactly what happened under the initiative of De Klerk.
DE KLERK’S UNLIKELY COUP OF WHITE RULE
To the extent that De Klerk would be, on the face of it, the last partisan on earth to effect such an historic event, his election to the South African Presidency by the Nationalist Party in 1989, narrowly defeating all the moderates in the process, resulted in a deep despondency by opponents of apartheid that there could ever be a shift to sanity. He was put into power by the Conservative wing of the Party, having come from a fundamentalist apartheid background. There had been nothing in his resume that could have foretold the bold decisive strokes he was about to make on the South African canvas. Just perhaps one clue was evident as to what was going on behind the scenes. His brother Wimpie De Klerk was the editor of a progressive Nationalist newspaper and had in the past attacked him with the rest of the hierarchy for being inflexible. Wimpie had “laid off” his brother for some time and shortly after De Klerk’s assumption to power it became obvious why.
De Klerk was the very antithesis of the Mandela personality. He was quietly spoken not given to flamboyance and drama. He was a party “apparachnik” having steadily worked his way through the ranks. Yet not only did he announce Mandela’s release, the unbanning of the ANC and other anti government parties and organizations as well as the Communist Party in conjunction with the oppressive apartheid apparatus, he unequivocally, without any preconditions, set into motion the end of apartheid and white domination.
He was then able to win a referendum with 70% of the white voters endorsing his bold initiative. A remarkable feat by any standards and a miracle to anyone who truly knew the South African scene. Also a little known fact is that he terminated the South African Nuclear program as early as 1991.
De Klerk would be the first to acknowledge the role of several other white leaders who paved the way for his coup de grace. There were those in his own Party such as Pik Botha and Roelf Meyer who made pivotal contributions. The latter negotiating tirelessly with Mbecki, as head of the exiled ANC, in London. Then there was VanZyl Slabbert, who as head of the opposition party, left “white” politics to help lay the groundwork for what was to happen. There were business men too as well as the icon and grand poobah of South African sport, the rugby God Danie Craven, all who were ferrying backwards and forwards with meetings with the ANC. (Not to mention the literally thousands of whites, in all capacities and positions, that had fought apartheid from the word go lending credibility to the fact that not all the whites were responsible. Several of those in opposition paid a heavy price, including loss of liberty, harassment, abuse and financial sacrifice for their efforts).
De Klerk was criticized by Hermann Giliomee, the renowned Nationalist commentator, for not being able to stand up to Mandela in the drawn out negotiations for a new South Africa. However, in reality, the President was totally dependent on Mandela’s largesse as any failure of the negotiations would have been laid at De Klerk’s door, having made the opening unconditional gambits. He was thus a sitting duck to be criticized that he would not “walk the walk”.
As might be expected there was tension between the two of them but De Klerk acknowledged Mandela from the beginning to the end and said that he was, “The greatest living South African that ever lived”. At the end of the day Mandela never let him down in so far as there was the creation of the Constitutional Court with wide reaching powers that might curtail the excesses of power that a future government might be seduced into taking. Also with Mandela’s support the Truth and Conciliation Commission was put into place that would rather result in confession, healing and redemption than revenge and retribution. Mandela, to the chagrin of his followers, agreed that the ANC’s violations could be examined by this Commission as well.
Margaret Thatcher in her biography compared De Klerk to Gorbachev as being a leader with vision and boldness. De Klerk is truly one of the greats of the twentieth century, a fact at least acknowledged by the Nobel Committee when they awarded both him and Mandela the Peace Prize in1993.
Thus it is fair to say that his opinions and advice in areas of conflict and tension have a tremendous amount of weight and influence. It is in this context that his remarks on the current situation in Israel bear a great deal of significance.
DE KLERK, HONORARY DEGREE FROM HAIFA UNIVERSITY AND ISRAEL
At a time when a solution to the Israeli - Palestinian crises seems unattainable, (Blog: Abbas and Arafat - The Same DNA - So Lets Get Real, 5/6/14), and Israel is being accused of being an apartheid State and Israeli Universities are being boycotted, (Blog: The New Anti - Semitism in Europe and the Boycott of Israeli Universities,1/3/14), the acceptance by Mr. De Klerk of an honorary degree from the University of Haifa was dripping with symbolism. In a short acceptance speech and a few brief interviews De Klerk, laid bare, as no-one else has, the situation Israel finds itself in and what its options are.
Firstly, De Klerk is not short of offers for honorary degrees. He could have easily ducked the Haifa proposition as he periodically has his “freedom fighter” credentials questioned. So why did he need to show which side of the Israeli debate he is on by going there? De Klerk’s imprimatur as well as his counsel is highly valued.
Secondly, no-one better than De Klerk should know what constitutes an apartheid state and his assertion, “that it is unfair to call Israel an apartheid State”, had to be of comfort to the beleaguered supporters of Israel.
Thirdly, he stated in an interview, and Jay H. Ell will deal with this later, that Israel has found itself in the position where the onus will be on them to “to take the window of opportunity” when it presents itself, otherwise they will risk becoming, (a de facto), apartheid state. The latter view is current in Israel at the moment and getting more and more oxygen. Kerry “misspoke” the same assertion that Israel’s reluctance to act may lead to apartheid.
DE KLERK’S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH
As contrasting as their personalities are, Mandela and De Klerk shared one feature in common - humility. De Klerk’s acceptance speech was a tribute to everyone else. He was just an accident of history that had “Greatness thrust upon him”. De Klerk laid out the variables that made the tumultuous event possible. There was the gigantic upheaval on the world scene with the breakdown of Communism and disintegration of the USSR. This he regarded as the key factor in the “window of opportunity” coupled with the realization that apartheid had failed and it was morally unjustifiable.
Jay H. Ell has blogged previously that the central reason for the formation of the Afrikaner Nationalist Party, that was ultimately to introduce apartheid, was their desire for economic equality and political power for the Afrikaners. Their fight was against the British. At the turn of the twentieth Century the principle reason they were against black rights was their fear that the English would gang up with the black races and further keep them under their thumb.
The Afrikaners were a rural population that were totally dominated by their urban English counterparts in the civil service, the educational system, the media, the financial houses and banks. By 1980 this state of affairs had been almost completely reversed. To many the apartheid system and the disgraceful authoritarian apparatus that propped it up was an embarrassment. To bolster this brutal system the Government had made a mockery of the rule of law. The rationalization for this legislation was that all opposition to apartheid, was at best pink and at worst Communism. The main law that sustained the unworkable system of apartheid was entitled “The Suppression of Communism Act” that now, with the fall of Communism, had become an untenable rationalization.
De Klerk makes another point that sanctions played a role in the outcome and he then immediately qualified that assertion, maintaining that they were largely counter - productive. They had the effect of making the establishment more defensive. Then it is never the regime leaders that are impacted as they are protected by wealth and stealth. It is the people that they are supposed to help that suffer. (In this context it is interesting to note who Obama is hitting in the sanctions campaign against Russia).
However the principle message De Klerk espoused in regard to the reversal of who would take the reins of power in South Africa was a willingness of leadership to negotiate in good faith and to seize upon the moments in history, when they presented themselves. If you miss the window of opportunity you may never have another, he argued.
ELABORATION OF THE MECHANISM OF CHANGE.
The former South African President elaborated on the process needed for a possible break in the Middle East deadlock and the result that failure to achieve it might mean to Israel.
It takes leaders with guts who are prepared to distance themselves from their hard core. Mandela asked for seclusion from his colleagues during the process. De Klerk said he and Mandela sat down and tried to imagine each others position. (A Rogerian principle where you try to unconditionally accept the “clients” position). They then wrote down what they agreed upon and found that they were far more in sync than they imagined. The “hard parts” were left for last.
With regard to the Israeli/Palestinian situation he had this to say. Israel, as a country, was a democracy in that had the highest values for human rights for all. However if the current situation continues indefinitely they will in fact become a country encompassing Palestinians who would be deprived of Israeli rights and this, by his definition, would make Israel an apartheid country. (As fashionable as this argument is at the moment, Jay H. Ell cannot buy it in full and much has to depend on the circumstances).
He implied that the onus was on Israel to find a way out of it and seemed to forget that on the one side he had taken the plunge and he already had a committed Mandela on the other. He could commit as Mandela already had.
Israel no longer had Rabins, Pereses, Baraks, Begins and Sharons for example. To make matters worse the cast of the opposition leadership, where it exists, seems to be less interested in solving the problem and more resolved on sitting it out and propagandizing that the Israel is committing crimes against humanity, even though it ostensibly doesn’t exist!
However, times change and hopefully leaders can change with them.
HOW CHANGE?
If Abbas and Netanyahu were to sit and write out what they agreed upon and what they wanted it might be a fascinating exercise. However, the cookie still has to crumble in the now “unified” Palestine. What will elections bring? Will Abbas triumph over Hamas and if he does, so what?
Jay H. Ell has long believed that the major international variable that needs transformation for an Israeli - Palestinian solution lies in Iran. (Blogs: Iran Behind the Israeli conflict, 11/17/12; Obama, Rouhani, Netanyahu, and the Nuclear Negotiations, 11/13/13; Obama, Netanyahu, Peres and the Ayatollahs - an Exercise in Futility, 12/11/13, and Netanyahu, Double Standards and the Middle East Negotiations, 2/8/14.)
Iran pulls the strings in the Middle East mess. Hezbollah, who has bailed Syria out, and Hamas, who periodically punctuate the brittle cease fire with rockets, are Iran’s surrogates. Palestine has no real support from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, its original natural allies. For practical purposes it is Iran that is Palestine’s loan ally in the Middle East. Iran is under economic siege while holding talks on nuclear weapons that appear to be going nowhere. Or maybe they are going everywhere and we don’t know. In the meantime the Arab world is being split along Sunni -Shiite lines. The Saudis and company have had enough of Iran’s attempt to dominate the Muslim world and as such would be aligned with Israel. So if there is going to be outside transformation it will come from there and this will change the whole Middle East scenario.
Then the question arises if this does transpire are the current leadership up to seizing the moment or will it slip by? The onus to lead and therefore risk will be, as it has always been, on Israel. Also there has to be more of the cross pollination between well intentioned Israelis and Palestinians on various levels who want to see an end to this madness. There are already groups of parents that meet who have lost children in the struggle. All this would help lay the foundation for a peaceful solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment