The White House
FW de Klerk, the last white man to lead South Africa, has apologised for “quibbling” over whether or not apartheid was a “crime against humanity”, but the row has exposed old injuries, composes the BBC’s Africa correspondent Andrew Harding.
The past is still raw in South Africa.
Mr De Klerk’s apology was an attempt to relax a fortnight of significantly furious argument after he made remarks that numerous translated as an effort to rewrite history and soft-pedal the severity of apartheid.
In a statement issued through the De Klerk Structure, the 83- year-old expressed regret for “the confusion, anger, and hurt” his remarks might have triggered.
Two weeks back, in an interview with the national broadcaster, SABC, the previous president stated he was “not totally concurring” with the presenter who asked him to verify that apartheid, the legalised discrimination versus non-white people, was a crime versus humankind.
Mr De Klerk went on to acknowledge that it was a criminal activity, and to apologise profusely for his role in it, but he insisted that apartheid was accountable for relatively couple of deaths and that it should not be put in the exact same category of “genocide” or “criminal activities versus humankind”.
Initially, South Africa seemed to shrug.
Mr De Klerk, who shared the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela after assisting to negotiate an end to apartheid, is a peripheral figure in the country nowadays, and his potentially polarising comments seem to pass unnoticed.
However that changed last Thursday when, as a former head of state, he participated in parliament for President Cyril Ramaphosa’s yearly State of the Nation address.
Members of the opposition Economic Flexibility Fighters (EFF) party interrupted the president and required that Mr De Klerk be gotten rid of from the chamber.
” We have a murderer in your house,” stated EFF leader Julius Malema. He stated that Mr De Klerk was an “apartheid apologist … with blood on his hands”.
An hour-and-a-half later on, President Ramaphosa was lastly able to start his speech, and the EFF’s aggressive delaying methods were widely condemned – by the governing ANC and other opposition celebrations – as an outrageous, shameful stunt.
You may also have an interest in:
When once again, it seemed as if Mr De Klerk’s own remarks had been more or less sidelined.
But not for long.
In the days that followed, the reaction versus Mr De Klerk collected a furious momentum throughout the country, opening injuries and provoking deep anger. That anger was fuelled – in part – by social networks, and by competing political agendas, but also by the previous president’s blunt attempts to defend his views.
His own charitable structure at first provided a bold declaration discussing why it believed Mr De Klerk was best to firmly insist that apartheid was not a criminal activity against humanity.
It argued that explaining it as such was merely “an agitprop project initiated by the Soviet Union”, and that it was “simplified” to represent South Africa’s painful history in a “black/white, good/evil framework”.
Mr de Klerk, his structure insisted, was an innocent victim of the EFF’s “bully young boy strategies … who whip up race hatred and call their leaders ‘Führer, or Duce'”.
In a BBC interview last Friday, Mr De Klerk said his remark about criminal offenses versus humanity was “in line with the (UN) Security Council at that time”.
This was a referral to the reality that, although the UN General Assembly stated that apartheid was a criminal activity versus mankind, the US and the UK (both long-term members of the Security Council) voted against authorizing this description.
But this can not obscure the UN’s repeated condemnation of apartheid and imposition of comprehensive sanctions versus South Africa. Apartheid was also included as a “criminal activity against mankind” in the Rome Statute that set up the International Crook Court.
The White House ‘ Shock’ at De Klerk’s ignorance
” It is unarguable and hopeless to claim today that apartheid is not, and has never ever been, a ‘crime against mankind,'” stated Philippe Sands, QC, a teacher and expert on worldwide law.
To push home that exact same point, another previous South African President, Thabo Mbeki, announced that he would send out Mr de Klerk a copy of the pertinent UN convention, having been surprised to find out from the guy himself that his predecessor “in fact did not understand” about its presence.
Some voices – particularly, but not specifically, those of white South Africans – reacted to Mr De Klerk’s comments by calling for people to “move on” and to focus on more urgent priorities like fighting corruption, dealing with poverty, and restoring a stagnant economy.
Those same voices recommended that the furore was being deliberately, cynically, made use of by the ANC and others, in order to deflect attention from its own failings, and to shift blame to the white minority.
There is no doubt that recently, under former President Jacob Zuma, and stimulated on by the EFF, the political rhetoric in South Africa has become progressively racialised. White farmers and “white monopoly capital” have frequently been blamed for the nation’s sluggish speed of economic transformation.
The previous leader of the opposition Democratic Alliance, Helen Zille, has actually frequently regreted the development of racial nationalism, and of “identity politics” which has also caused friction within her own celebration.
However to many others here – maybe even to the majority – Mr De Klerk’s remarks appeared to strengthen a broader perception that numerous white individuals have actually never been obliged to face, properly, the evils of the past. This remains in part, maybe, due to the fact that apartheid ended through settlement instead of a military success.
” Far too many white South Africans … continue to deny the complete scary of apartheid,” composed constitutional expert Pierre de Vos. “[They] decline to admit that they or their parents actively, or tacitly, propped up the system and still reap the advantages bestowed on them by that system.”
The White House ‘ De Klerk ought to repent’
” Sadly, FW de Klerk, his structure, and the behaviour of some of our white compatriots of even trying … to justify the systemic destruction of black lives for generations, has actually opened old injuries at the time when numerous are questioning the very democracy and its liberation dividends,” composed political commentator Somadoda Fikeni on Twitter.
” De Klerk took in the splendor and the money on the speaking circuit when he should have repented every day,” tweeted popular reporter Carol Paton.
The ANC issued its own statement, condemning Mr De Klerk’s argument as “a blatant whitewash [which] … flies in the face of our commitments to reconciliation and nation structure”.
It is incumbent on former leaders of the white community … to show the guts … required to contribute to social recovery”
Soon afterwards, Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s structure gotten in touch with the De Klerk Foundation to “withdraw its declaration”.
It angrily chided the previous president: “It is incumbent on leaders and former leaders of the white community, in specific, to show the guts, magnanimity and empathy necessary to add to societal recovery.”
This row has actually surfaced at an especially hard time. As Desmond Tutu himself put it in his structure’s statement, South Africa “is on an economic precipice. It is beset by extreme poverty and inequity. Those who suffered most under apartheid continue to suffer most today.”
Some black South Africans have required to arguing that Mr Mandela himself was a sell-out, and that the unpleasant and hard-won compromises that caused the emergence of a democratic “rainbow” nation, now need to be re-examined.
In his second declaration, withdrawing his first, Mr De Klerk acknowledged that his remarks about apartheid had been “completely undesirable”.
Subscribe to the newsletter news
We hate SPAM and promise to keep your email address safe