< Back

WHERE FREEDOM IS TREASON

 

Thirty years ago, in December 1956, one hundred and fifty-six leaders and activists of
the freedom movement in South Africa were arrested in pre-dawn raids all over the country
and charged with high treason, an offence punishable by death.

The charge was based on the "Freedom Charter" - adopted by a multi-racial
"Congress of the People" in 1955 - which proclaimed that "South Africa
belongs to all those who live in it, Black and White" and called for a democratic
state, based on the will of the people and ensuring equal rights for all the people,
without distinction of colour, race or belief.

The prosecution tried to prove that "the holding of the Congress of the People and
the adoption of the Freedom Charter are steps in the direction of the establishment of a
Communist State and the necessary prelude to the revolution."

If the apartheid regime hoped to intimidate, discredit and disrupt the liberation
movement through this mass trial, it failed miserably.

In fact, it brought together leaders and militants of all racial origins and of varied
ideologies and virtually organised a convention in which they could become better
acquainted, discuss the strategy of the struggle and attain greater unity.

The great majority of the accused were, as the regime well knew, not affiliated to the
Communist movement. They included the late Chief Albert Lutuli, who was to receive the
Nobel Peace Prize; the late Dr. Z.K. Matthews, the prominent educator; Oliver Tambo, the
present President of the African National Congress; Nelson Mandela, the Volunteer-in-Chief
of the 1952 non-violent Defiance Campaign; the late Dr. G.M. "Monty" Naicker,
the Gandhian leader of the Natal Indian Congress; Helen Joseph, the White trade unionist
and women`s leader; and Archie Gumede, now leader of the United Democratic Front.

They also included a number of Communists like Moses Kotane, the ANC delegate to the
Asian-African Conference in Bandung; Joe Slovo, now chairman of` the South African
Communist Party; the late Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, leader of the South African Indian Congress;
and Alex La Guma, journalist and writer. Moosa Moolla, now ANC representative in India,
was one of the accused.

The long trial contributed immensely to the building of a multi-racial national
liberation movement. It also led to closer cooperation between African nationalists,
pacifists and Communists.

The trial itself proved abortive. In 1958, after a protracted preparatory examination,
the prosecution was obliged to drop charges against 65 of the accused, including
Chief Lutuli and Oliver Tambo. The indictment against 61 others was quashed in 1959. After
listening to hundreds of witnesses and studying tens of thousands of pages of
"evidence" in the marathon trial, Justice Rumpff acquitted the remaining 30
accused in March, 1961. He declared that the prosecution had failed to prove that ANC
advocated violence or that it had become a Communist organisation or had been infiltrated
by Communists.

Meanwhile, the Sharpeville massacre of March, 1960 had outraged world opinion and ANC`s
call for a boycott of South Africa found ready response among newly-independent States.
ANC itself was banned in April 1960 and was forced to go underground.

Soon after the end of the treason trial, Nelson Mandela led a campaign in May, 1961,
against the move to proclaim a White racist republic and for a national convention of
representatives of all the people of the country. When that was put down with the
mobilisation of the armed forces and massive repression, leaders of ANC took the fateful
decision to prepare for an armed struggle and to build a multi-racial military wing - Umkhonto
we Sizwe -
with the cooperation of the Communist Party. Nelson Mandela became
the leader of Umkhonto, which made its appearance twenty-five years ago on Heroes
Day, December 16, 1961, with simultaneous acts of sabotage in Johannesburg, Durban and
Port Elizabeth. Leaflets appeared in all major cities proclaiming that Umkhonto had
been established, since government violence necessitated a new road for liberation. They
added:

"We hope that we will bring the government and its supporters to their senses
before it is too late, so that the government and its policies can be changed before
matters reach the desperate stage of civil war."

The apartheid regime learnt nothing .from the treason trial or its aftermath and
continued to rely on violence against the entire freedom movement which it persisted in
branding as Communist. Since June this year, when it decided to reject the Commonwealth
efforts for a negotiated solution, it launched an extensive propaganda campaign that it
cannot negotiate with ANC as it is Communist and terrorist. It has found little support
for its propaganda except among the ultra-conservative cold warriors in the United States,
but it is among them that it has sought dependable allies for many years.

When it came to power in 1948, the apartheid regime was unpopular in the West because
of the pro-Nazi antecedents of its leaders, the rabid racism of its election campaign and
its hostility to English-speaking capitalists. It tried to join the Western alliance by
taking advantage of the Cold War and the McCarthyism in the United States and by
participating in the Berlin airlift and the Korean War.

It enacted the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950, with an eye on American opinion,
not only to outlaw the Communist Party but to silence all leaders of the freedom movement,
including opponents of the Communist ideology. The result was to bring the victims of
repression closer. African leaders, who disagreed with the Communist ideology, were
persuaded to work with the Communists and were impressed by the diligence and sacrifice of
many Communists. The equivocation of the West as regards international action against
apartheid, and the constant support of the Communist States, increased sympathy toward
Communism.

If the apartheid regime is incapable of learning from experience, will it be able to
persuade the United States to be equally short-sighted?

The "Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act", enacted by the United States Congress
in September, not only imposes selective sanctions against South Africa but calls for
active American intervention to ensure that the liberation movements break any ties with
the South African Communist Party. The amendments which the conservative Senators managed
to insert in the law will only divert attention from the crimes of the apartheid regime.
They may lead the United States to promote groups like Chief Gatsha Buthelezi`s Inkatha
against ANC and its allies, giving solace to the regime for which freedom itself is
treason.

The task of the international community is to exert concerted pressure to bring the
apartheid regime to its senses and promote a transition to a democratic society. It cannot
afford to be diverted from that urgent task.

 

UNITED NATIONS AND
APARTHEID: FORTY YEARS

Four decades of discussion and action on the problem of racism in South Africa provide
perhaps the best illustration of the limitations as well as the potentialities of the
United Nations for the promotion of freedom and human rights in the world. They are also
indicative of the response of the community of nations to the aspirations of the African
continent — above all, for the dignity of the African person — which has
emerged from centuries of humiliation and oppression.

The United Nations has been seized with the problem since the first General Assembly
session in 1946, when India complained of discrimination against people of Indian origin
in the Union of South Africa, and particularly since 1952 when in the wake of the
non-violent defiance campaign in South Africa, Asian and African states requested UN
consideration of the "question of race conflict resulting from the policies of
apartheid." Since then, the matter has been discussed in many organs of the United
Nations and its specialised agencies, resulting in a record number of debates, reports and
resolutions.

Apartheid is far from abolished. Indeed, there has been no diminution of racist
oppression, but growing tension and polarisation in South Africa, resulting from the
stubborn determination of the authorities to consolidate and perpetuate white domination;
the forcible removal and resettlement of 3.5 million Africans, Coloureds, and Indians; and
the enactment of draconian repressive laws. Massacres of peaceful demonstrators at
Sharpeville in 1960, Soweto in 1976, and Uitenhage in 1985 have shocked the world. The
freedom movement in the country, which inspired the world by its non-violent resistance
against a ruthless regime and was honoured by the award of two Nobel Peace Prizes in a
generation - to the late Chief Albert J. Lutuli in 1961 and Bishop Desmond Tutu in 1984 -
was reluctantly obliged to resort to armed struggle.

Moreover, South Africa has been engaged in a colonial war in Namibia since 1966 when
the United Nations terminated Pretoria’s mandate over that territory. It has
committed aggression, terrorism and subversion against neighbouring independent African
states, causing enormous human and material losses and undermining the hopes of the newly
independent countries for economic and social development.

White Domination

It has built up a powerful military machine, increasing its military budget a
hundred-fold since 1960 and acquiring nuclear capability. It seeks not only to maintain
white domination in most of the country by creating caricatures of independent states for
the African majority, but also to be recognised as the dominant power in the region.

The achievements of the United Nations in dealing with the problem are less tangible.
Apartheid is now universally condemned, but there has not been sufficient international
pressure even to persuade the regime to initiate discussions with the genuine leaders of
the black majority on transition to a non-racial system. But it would be
short-sighted to conclude that the United Nations has failed.

The United Nations has been a significant factor in ensuring that the balance of forces
steadily turned against the racist regime and in favour of the movement for freedom and in
enabling the latter to secure the widest international support from governments and
organisations. It has helped avert a bloody racial conflict which would have shattered all
hopes for a non-racial society in South Africa.

Despite its military power, the Pretoria regime has been unable to suppress the
resistance of the black majority or enforce its master plan for perpetual white
domination. It has been forced to recognise the need for a change of course, although it
resorts to manoeuvres to preserve the essence of white domination. It is now confronted
with a grave political and economic crisis, while the resistance is stronger and more
determined than ever.

There is a grave danger that in its desperation the regime may precipitate a
catastrophic conflict. But this crisis also represents an opportunity and a challenge to
the United Nations which has helped over the decades to develop an international consensus
for the elimination of apartheid.

An Affirmation of International Concern

The United Nations is an organisation of sovereign states, created primarily to deal
with disputes and conflicts among states and maintain international peace and security.
Only in the case of threats to peace, breaches of peace and acts of aggression is the
Security Council authorised to decide on coercive measures, with the concurrence of its
five permanent members, and make them binding on all member-states.

Although born at the end of a ghastly world war amid hopes for a new world order and a
desire to eliminate the causes of war, the Organisation could only promote economic and
social development, freedom and human rights through the slow and laborious process of the
development of norms of international law and cooperation. The principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of states has remained almost sacrosanct.

South Africa was a founding member of the United Nations and its Prime Minister, Jan
Christian Smuts, played a significant role in drafting the UN Charter. It was influential
in the British Commonwealth and had developed extensive economic and other relations with
Britain and the U.S., as well as with other colonial powers in Africa. Africa, on the
other hand, was mostly under colonial rule and had little influence within the
international community.

The National Party, which came to power in South Africa in 1948 with apartheid as its
policy, tried to overcome its unpopularity in the West by participating in the Berlin
airlift in 1948 and the Korean War in 1950. It was invited to discussions on military,
economic and other cooperation in Africa and the Middle East, and signed the Simonstown
military agreements with Britain in 1955. It could thus count on the Western states as
dependable allies.

When India’s complaint against South Africa was brought up in the United Nations
in 1946, many countries supported the South African contention that the question should be
referred to the International Court of Justice. Even in 1952, a number of countries were
wary of specific criticism or condemnation of the South African government and preferred a
general declaration against racial discrimination.

Jurisdiction of the UN

For many years, therefore, the main task was to affirm the jurisdiction of the United
Nations to consider the situation in South Africa as a political problem of international
concern rather than one of many human rights violations in the world, and to develop an
international consensus against apartheid. While Asian and African states argued that the
situation was bound to lead to internal conflict and international friction, they asked
for no more than universal condemnation of apartheid and diplomatic pressure by the
Western states on the South African government. The annual discussions in the United
Nations, however, played an important role in promoting sympathy and support for the
freedom movement in South Africa.

The Sharpeville massacre of 1960, followed by a nation-wide upsurge of the black people
and massive repression by the regime - including the outlawing of African liberation
movements, the declaration of a state of emergency, and the detention of thousands of
people - aroused world opinion and heralded a new stage in the UN deliberations. For the
first time, the situation was considered by the Security Council as one likely to cause
international friction. With the admission of many African states to the UN, there was
pressure for a move from appeals and condemnations to concrete measures against the South
African government.

A turning point was General Assembly Resolution 1761 of November 6, 1962, sponsored by
the African states, which urged member states to impose economic and other sanctions
against South Africa and established a Special Committee (now the Special Committee
against Apartheid) to keep the situation under constant review.

Many African, Non-aligned and Socialist states had already imposed diplomatic measures
against South Africa, which was obliged to leave the Commonwealth in 1961. Since then,
their main role has been to provide material assistance to the liberation movements, to
promote wider support to the liberation struggle and, above all, to press for action by
the Western states and other main trading partners of South Africa.

Threat to International Peace

The debates in the United Nations became increasingly focused on demands that the
Western powers and Japan recognise the situation as a threat to international peace and
support universal sanctions against South Africa. Behind the assertions that those states
were responsible for the perpetuation of apartheid through their "business as
usual" relationship with the racist regime was recognition that only they could exert
sufficient economic and other pressures to oblige the Pretoria government to seek a
peaceful solution and thereby avert immense suffering.

At the same time, the UN has been actively engaged in promoting a variety of measures
to develop international norms against apartheid, to isolate the authorities in South
Africa, and to assist the victims of apartheid and their liberation movements. It has done
this not only through resolutions, declarations and diplomatic measures, but also by
efforts to reach public opinion and encourage action by public organisations all over the
world. In fact, on no other issue has the UN been as activist and its initiatives on
apartheid have created many precedents for the functioning of the organisation. Its
efforts have been supplemented by those of many of its specialised agencies.

The failure to reach agreement on mandatory economic sanctions, primarily because of
the opposition of the three Western permanent members of the Security Council, has tended
to obscure progress in other areas and undermine the image of the UN. While sanctions are
the strongest measures under the UN Charter, it should be recognised that they cannot by
themselves solve the situation. Sanctions should rather be seen in the context of other
means to lend encouragement and support to the struggle in South Africa.

Progress in International Action

In a series of unanimous resolutions, the UN has condemned apartheid as a crime and
recognised that the elimination of apartheid is of vital concern to the international
community; called for the release of Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners and
for an end to repression; and recognised the legitimacy of the struggle of the oppressed
majority for its inalienable rights. It has denounced the so-called
"independence" of bantustans and no state has recognised those entities, thus,
undermining Pretoria’s plans to deprive the African majority of its citizenship and
create a fait accompli. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council
have declared the 1984 constitution, which excludes the African majority, invalid.

The United Nations has defined its objectives as the total elimination of apartheid and
the establishment of a non-racial democratic society in an unfragmented South Africa in
which all its people would enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms, irrespective of
race, colour, sex or creed. It has called for consultations among the genuine
representatives of all South Africans and offered appropriate assistance toward that end.
In resolutions adopted by large majorities, it has recognised the right of the liberation
movements to resort to armed struggle, declaring that "freedom fighters" are
entitled to prisoner-of-war status.

The South African government has been excluded from the General Assembly since 1974
when its delegation’s credentials were rejected. It is also excluded from other UN
organs and conferences, as well as from most specialised agencies and inter-governmental
organisations. Only about a score of the 157 members of the United Nations maintain
diplomatic missions in South Africa.

On the other hand, the liberation movements of South Africa were granted Observer
status by UN organs in 1974 and recognised by the General Assembly in 1975 as the
authentic representatives of the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. They
attend UN meetings and other international conferences, and exercise considerable
influence on decisions concerning South Africa.

The United Nations and its specialised agencies have developed extensive information
programmes to inform public opinion of the inhumanity of apartheid and to promote support
for the struggle against apartheid. The persistent efforts of African and other states in
the UN have led to some progress even on sanctions and related measures.

The Security Council called for an arms embargo against South Africa in a non-binding
resolution in 1963. In the aftermath of the Soweto massacre, the death in detention of
Steve Biko, and the banning of black consciousness organisations, it decided unanimously
on a mandatory arms embargo.

Many Types of Boycotts

Several smaller Western countries began taking action to prohibit loans and new
investment in South Africa. Sweden has also banned the transfer of technology to South
Africa. Most of the oil-exporting countries, including Norway, have prohibited the supply
of oil to South Africa. Beginning with the Nordic states in 1966, some Western countries
began to support sanctions in principle and they now constitute a large majority of the
Western and other states.

The non-economic measures — especially the sports and cultural boycotts —
have been effective in demonstrating abhorrence of apartheid. They have involved millions
of people in many countries and have helped to educate public opinion.

Equally important is assistance to the victims of apartheid and their liberation
movements. The United Nations has set up funds and programmes for this purpose and has
constantly encouraged bilateral and multilateral assistance through other appropriate
channels.

Set up in 1965 to assist political prisoners and their families, the United Nations
Trust Fund for South Africa now receives nearly $2 million a year in voluntary
contributions from governments. The United Nations Educational and Training Programme for
Southern Africa, which provides scholarships for higher education abroad, receives over $3
million a year. Both programmes have unanimous support in the General Assembly. Assistance
programmes have been established by the United Nations Development Programme, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNESCO, the International Labour Organisation and
other agencies.

Assistance by governments, through national programmes and non-governmental agencies
and direct grants to liberation movements, encouraged by the UN, is even larger in scope,
as is assistance to the African frontline states which have suffered grievously because of
their support for the liberation of South Africa and Namibia. No freedom movement has ever
received moral and material assistance from so many governments and organisations all over
the world.

Unanimity has been achieved at three levels: the condemnation of apartheid, the arms
embargo and humanitarian assistance to the victims of apartheid. Overwhelming support,
including that of a majority of Western countries, has been given to the principle of
sanctions against the apartheid regime and on non-military assistance to liberation
movements. Lastly, a number of states — although not the Western powers — have
endorsed the legitimacy of armed struggle by the liberation movements and supported
assistance to that struggle.

Growing Crisis

International action, however, has proved far from adequate in dealing with the
determination of the South African regime to defend and consolidate white domination.
Utilising its control over the economic and other resources of the country and the
continued cooperation of various foreign interests, it has been able to build up its
military repressive apparatus and resist demands for the abandonment of apartheid.

The international community, moreover, missed opportunities to exert decisive influence
when the South African regime was confronted with serious problems with the independence
of Mozambique and Angola in 1975, the independence of Zimbabwe in 1980 and the resurgence
of resistance by the black majority.

Hopes that the mandatory arms embargo of 1977 would be followed by other sanctions were
frustrated as the major Western powers opposed any coercive action on the grounds that
they sought to persuade the Pretoria government to facilitate the independence of
Zimbabwe. Expectations that the independence of Zimbabwe would help focus attention on
pressure against the South African authorities to secure the independence of Namibia and
the elimination of apartheid proved illusory with the espousal of the policy of
"constructive engagement" by the new American administration in 1981.

This policy is essentially antithetical to the UN strategy of pressure against the
minority regime, support to liberation movements and encouragement of world public opinion
toward these ends. It has been a source of distress to those who had expected the United
States to be more responsive to appeals for action against apartheid than the major
Western European powers because of its own historical experience with racism. Instead,
they see a new "American dilemma."

The U.S. has not hesitated in opposing many resolutions on apartheid. With the support
of conservative governments in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, it
has retarded progress on international pressure against the authorities in Pretoria.

The South African regime proceeded to blackmail neighbouring African states with
impunity in an effort to establish its hegemony in the whole region and undermine the
liberation movements. While professing readiness to abandon some apartheid measures in
response to persuasion by the U.S., it imposed a new racist constitution in the hope of
dividing the blacks and consolidating white supremacy.

In fact, the new constitution led to the unprecedented mobilisation of the black people
against the regime, an escalation of repression and resistance, and large-scale violence.
The unwillingness of the major powers to exert the strongest pressure on Pretoria appears
to have increasingly persuaded blacks that their only hope is massive and violent
resistance.

Explosive Situation

The regime has been unable to control the situation despite its recent imposition of a
state of emergency, its show of force against the townships and its mass detentions. There
is a grave danger that unless the UN can respond with a new level of international action
against apartheid, the situation in South Africa will become explosive.

Fortunately, the recent developments have led to greater public support and pressure in
the West for effective measures to persuade the South African regime to end repression and
seek a solution by negotiations with the genuine leaders of the majority of the
population.

At the 1985 General Assembly session, several Western countries joined African and
other states in co-sponsoring a resolution calling for sanctions and other measures
against South Africa, which obtained an overwhelming majority of votes, including a
substantial majority among Western states.

More recently, after the state of emergency was proclaimed in South Africa in July,
1985, France took the initiative to convene a meeting of the Security Council to decide on
a series of voluntary sanctions against South Africa. A number of Western countries —
Australia, Canada, France and the Nordic countries — have announced concrete, albeit
limited, measures without waiting for mandatory decisions by the Security Council.

At the same time, pressure for divestment and other measures has greatly increased in
the US, reflected by the actions of a number of states and cities, as well as legislation
in Congress. It is most encouraging that proposals for such action have received
bipartisan support. While limited sanctions that are not universally implemented are
hardly adequate, these initiatives give hope for concerted international action.

Cooperation in All Measures

The potentialities of the UN as a forum for harmonising the attitudes of states must be
utilised with a sense of urgency to prevail upon the major Western powers to cooperate in
all appropriate and feasible pressures on the South African regime to persuade it to end
repression, release political prisoners and negotiate with the genuine representatives of
the black majority on a programme for the elimination of apartheid and the establishment
of a state in which all of the people will enjoy equal rights. So-called changes or
reforms by that regime, imposed unilaterally or with the support of its hand-picked black
leaders, are totally irrelevant.

There should be no illusions that change will come easily, even with economic
sanctions. But the South African regime is highly vulnerable to pressure, especially from
the United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany on which it has become dependent.
It is also dependent for its economic strength on black labour. With the rising resistance
of the black majority and effective international action, a negotiated solution in the
interests of all the people of South Africa may come sooner rather than later. The United
Nations may contribute not only to the demise of an evil system, but also to averting
immense bloodshed and suffering in the process of change.