The way to truly defeat Apartheid: A conversation with Na’eem Jeenah and Salim Vally

Ramzy Baroud

“Perhaps the time has come for Palestinians and justice-loving Israelis to imagine a new future,” wrote South African intellectuals and academics, Na’eem Jeenah and Salim Vally, in their essay, “Beyond Ethnic Nationalism: Lessons from South Africa”.

This “new future”, according to Jeenah and Vally, “will begin to be built when there is agreement that a new nation needs to be forged within a new state”.

Both writers are the archetype of the true intellectual. Their moral consistency, whether in fighting for a genuinely democratic and representative South Africa, or for justice and freedom for the Palestinian people, has proven unshakable.

I had the pleasure of meeting and conversing with them once more during my last visit to South Africa in September.

While the primary objective of my trip was to address a range of South African audiences on Palestine and the shared struggle between the two peoples, I also had the chance to meet and confer with a large number of well-respected, anti-Apartheid fighters, social justice activists, intellectuals, young scholars and ordinary folk.

For many years, intellectual exchanges between South Africans and Palestinians have influenced the global discourse on Palestine. This should come as no surprise, though. The comparison between Israeli and South African apartheid is as pervasive as it is obvious.

Like other settler-colonial states, South Africa and Israel have utilized the policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and racial apartheid to advance and preserve the interests of the colonists while suppressing and marginalizing the rights of the colonized.

That understanding is well established among Palestinians. The Palestinian liberation discourse is dotted with references to the South African system of apartheid and the popular struggle against the racist regime that ruled there until its demise in 1994. The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is itself, largely modeled around the boycott movement of South Africa.

South Africa stands with Palestine – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

However, in the rush to delineate the similarities between the two experiences – which itself stems from the burning, and justifiable desire for Palestinians to achieve their own “South Africa moment” – some urgent points in the discussions are being omitted. One is the erroneous assumption among many that the official scrapping of apartheid laws will automatically usher in a new age of democracy and equality, thus paving the road for the coveted one-state solution.

The first urgent, and consequential, matter that must be dealt with is that of the national question.

“While it might be tempting to talk about the new state now and leave the question of the new nation for some post-liberatory phase, this would be a huge mistake,” state Jeenah and Vally.

Jeenah, who is the executive director of the Johannesburg-based Afro-Middle East Center, told me that “a significant failure of the South African liberation project was the inability to effectively deal with the national question. This failure, in large measure, also helped ensure the continuation of the massive socio-economic gaps between a small elite and the masses of poor people.”

In fact, inequality in South Africa is so rampant that, according to a recent World Bank study, South African society “remains the most economically unequal country in the world” – a sad reality that has its roots in the very colonial, apartheid system which continues to reflect itself in every aspect of life in that country. This means that while the white minority elites who dominated South Africa for a long time are now legally equal to the poor, black masses living a dismal existence in townships and former Bantustans, the socioeconomic equilibrium has largely remained the same. 

Vally, an accomplished author, and Professor at the University of Johannesburg described the havoc wreaked by the entrenched inequality in South Africa. “In a sense, while the scaffolding (racially-based discriminatory laws) was removed, the foundation and the house of inequality (and racial capitalism) remains even stronger than it did prior to 1994,” he said.

The tragic, although predictable outcome is that “traditional white capitalists, global capital, a layer of the black middle class and a few black capitalists are, today, the beneficiaries, at the expense of the vast majority.”

The secret Oslo negotiations helped pave the road for the Palestinian equivalent of the “black capitalists” and their adjoining layer of “black middle class”, as described by Vally.

The patronizing nature of reaching an agreement based on secretive talks set the mood for future abominations The secrecy model continued,  to include the economic component of the deal – the so-called Paris Protocol of 1994 which transformed into Oslo II the following year.

“Unlike Oslo, the main part of the political negotiations process in South Africa was almost entirely transparent. It is critical that negotiations process on behalf of the people include their voices in some way,” said Jeenah. Alas, Palestinians remained excluded entirely from that process, which was neither democratic nor transparent.

South Africa’s “economic negotiations, on the other hand, took place largely behind closed doors, and away from the scrutiny of the people and civil society organizations,” Jeenah added.

“The results of those deals haunt us today, as we live in a country that is one of the most unequal in the world, has massive unemployment and widespread impoverishment. The results of those agreements mean that while a tiny slice of Black people was pulled into the financial elite, the vast majority of Black people were abandoned into misery and squalor.”

For Israel and its Washington’s allies the so-called peace process – which was abandoned now that it is no longer useful – was a success story. The minor issues pertaining to Israel’s security were dealt with from the start, and the truly consequential matters were relegated to the “final status negotiations.” The rationale given at the time is that complex issues will be dealt with once enough “confidence-building measures” are achieved.

The South African experience teaches us that such logic is entirely faulty because all matters are connected, and under no circumstances – especially when issues of freedom, justice, inequality, etc. are at stake – should they be delinked.

For example, regarding the “national question,” Jeenah and Vally wrote that it is a matter that has to be “engaged with and addressed immediately.”

“It has to be on the table for resolution in any negotiation process for a new future. If delayed, the disastrous consequences for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis could plunge the region into a deep and long-lasting morass. It was postponed in South Africa and South Africans are now living with the consequences.”

According to Jeenah, one recurring Palestinian misjudgment as far as their strategy is concerned is the overemphasis on the “global anti-apartheid movement” instead of the “oppressed themselves”, that should be “in charge of their liberation”.

He continued, “In the Palestinian case, there is too much shaping and pushing and guiding of the national struggle and the national movement by outside – often hostile – forces. While things are changing, for a while it seemed that Palestinians would not be architects of their own destinies. This includes everything from visions of futures to strategies and tactics.”

Essentially, this means that Palestinians are required in this transitory phase – the end of the “peace process”, the death of the so-called “two-state solution”, etc. – to heed to any outside pressure to compromise on any form of resistance.

“In our case, despite negotiations having begun in 1990, the Africa National Congress (ANC) suspended the armed struggle only in 1993, and that too in order to regain the strategic advantage,” said Jeenah.

“No matter what the views of solidarity activists might have been about the armed struggle, it was a path that our people and movements had chosen, and we were not going to compromise such an important pillar of our struggle (even if its effect was largely symbolic) in order to satisfy those who were in solidarity with us.”

Unfortunately, this has not been the case with Palestine: “Palestine solidarity activists around the world (and governments that claim to support the Palestinian struggle) routinely make demands on Palestinians – particularly in terms of the question of armed struggle.”

Jeenah said that “the readiness of many Palestinian groups to change their positions based on who is demanding is a major obstacle.”

25 years after the official end of Apartheid in South Africa, the lessons of that experience are becoming increasingly clear: the question of nationhood is paramount; inequality is an intrinsic outcome of apartheid that must be addressed with the same urgency as the question of political rights; transparency and inclusion are essential to any meaningful political negotiations, and true solidarity must not be conditioned.

The Africa-Palestine Conference: Why South Africa Must Lead the Way

Ramzy Baroud

On September 16, I visited South Africa, a country where many Palestinians have always felt welcomed, if not overwhelmed by the degree of genuine and meaningful solidarity.

While having the honor to address many audiences in six, major cities, I have also learned a great deal. An important and sobering lesson is that while apartheid laws can be dismissed in a day, economic apartheid and massive inequality can linger on for many years. Thanks to my interactions with many South African intellectuals, activists and ordinary folk, I learned not to romanticize the South African struggle, a crucial lesson for those of us fighting to end Israeli apartheid in Palestine.

My hosts at the Afro-Middle East Center ensured that I met with diverse audiences, including top members of the African National Congress, the leadership of the country’s two, major union groups, anti-apartheid scholars and activists, and a large number of students and other people throughout the country.

The main, obvious conclusion from all of these meetings and interactions is that South Africans are serious about their solidarity with Palestine and that they see themselves as partners in the Palestinian struggle for justice and peace.

While South Africans are always ready to take their solidarity with Palestine to a whole new level, however, there is a general feeling that decisive political moves can prove costly for South Africa.

True, the South African government has taken several steps in the right direction. On May 14, 2018, Pretoria recalled its ambassador to Israel, Sisa Ngombane, to protest the killing of hundreds of unarmed protesters taking part in the Great March of Return in besieged Gaza. On April 5, 2019, it began to actively downgrade its ties with Israel, in response to a call made by the ANC leadership itself.

While these steps are significant, South Africa is yet to take the kind of action that, when combined with others measures of international solidarity, could finally force Israel to dismantle its system of Apartheid in Palestine.

The problem is not the lack of willingness nor that of diplomatic doublespeak. There is a growing and justifiable, sense that Arab governments no longer see the liberation of Palestine as a common objective. While the Arab peoples remain committed in their support of Palestinians, Arab governments have fallen into warring camps and political divisions.

Yet, a top ANC leader told me that South Africa’s policy regarding Palestine is guided by the agendas of the Arab League and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Sadly, neither the Arab League nor the PLO are serving the roles they were entrusted with decades ago. The former is marred in divisions, and the latter has been effectively replaced by the provisional, factional Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.

Using ineffectual organizations as a legal and moral frame of reference is hurting South Africa’s chances of converting its solidarity with Palestine into tangible political assets.

The other dilemma is that the African continent itself is no longer united regarding Palestine. Israel has successively driven a wedge between African countries, which, at one point, were united in their unconditional support of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli military occupation and Apartheid.

Israel’s successes in Africa, especially through the penetration of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have made Tel Aviv a political player on the African continent. Boosted by the welcome he received from various African leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had hoped to hold the Israel-Africa Summit in October 2017. Thanks to the efforts of African countries like South Africa and Algeria, the conference was postponed.

If Israel continues to score political victories while facing little resistance, however, it will eventually dominate the African continent. The absurdity of this matter goes beyond the struggle in Palestine. A continent that was ravaged by colonialism, racism, and apartheid should not embrace the likes of Israel, the exemplification of the very ills that have cost Africa so dearly for hundreds of years.

In fact, the issue of solidarity with Palestine, and the pressing need to block Israel’s scourges in Africa are intrinsically linked. In this very link, South Africa can find a way to reclaim its natural role as a vanguard against racism and apartheid everywhere.

My suggestion to the ANC is that South Africa should update its frame of reference, moving away from tired clichés of a defunct, two-state solution and such, to a whole new way of thinking. And it should not go about doing it alone; all of Africa and all Palestinians should be part of this effort.

I strongly believe that South Africa is ready to counter Israel’s efforts on the continent by initiating an Africa-Palestine Conference, a major gathering that aims to harness all the solidarity for the Palestinian people throughout all African countries.

Whether the conference is held under the auspices of the African Union (AU) or independently, the gathering of like-minded African and Palestinian leaders, parliamentarians, scholars and civil society leaders can develop a new frame of reference, which South Africa, the African continent, and, in fact, the rest of the world can use as a guiding principle of new thinking on Palestine. Based on the call made by Palestinian civil society in 2005 to boycott Israel, the Palestinian people have been demanding and expecting this new thinking for at least 15 years.

Those who might find the idea that Africa can lead the way on forming a new, global understanding on Palestine far-fetched, need to remember that it was the Organization of African Unity’s resolution 77 (XII) of August 1975 that recognized and condemned the “organic link” between “the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa”. That very resolution served as a major frame of reference used in UN Resolution 3379 of November 1975 that determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

Africa must reclaim its position as a global leader in the fight against racism and apartheid, and South Africa is very qualified to spearhead these efforts, because, after all, as iconic South African leader Nelson Mandela once said, “We all know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.

South Africa stands with Palestine – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

S Africa, Iran to ‘weather the storm together’: amb. Khumalo

By Marjohn Sheikhi

TEHRAN – South African embassy in Tehran celebrated the country’s Freedom Day on Wed., during which Ambassador Khumalo stressed the two countries’ resolve to continue developing relations in the face of all existing challenges.

South Africa celebrates its national day on April 27, designated as Freedom Day to mark the day in 1994 when the first democratic election was held in the country and ushered in a new era after a long period of colonialism and White minority domination, known as apartheid.

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of their Freedom Day, the South African embassy in Tehran held a ceremony on Wednesday evening, with representatives and diplomats from a number of embassies in Tehran in attendance.

The ceremony was opened by a speech by South African Ambassador to Tehran, V. M. Khumalo, followed by a speech by assistant to Iranian Foreign Minister in African Affairs, Mehdi Agha-Jafari. The two then proceeded to cut a South African flag cake in honor of the country’s Freedom Day.

Addressing the attendees, Ambassador Khumalo said Freedom Day ushered in a new beginning of hope for a transformative future for all South Africans, as everyone for the first time in 25 years finally had the opportunity and freedom to exercise their democratic right to participate in the governance of the country.

He thanked Iran for its contribution and support towards the struggle for freedom in South Africa, noting the visits by former President Mandela to Iran in 1992 and 1999.

“For the past 25 years, Iran has remained an important friend to South Africa. Through the Joint Commission of Cooperation our countries have expanded engagements in a number of sectors such as tourism, trade and investment, science and technology, arts and culture, health, education, to name a few,” he said.

The ambassador then expressed his country’s continued support to Iran, saying the two countries would “weather the storm together.”

He also noted the visit of Iranian President Rouhani to South Africa this year, maintaining that the visit would serve to further strengthen the existing bilateral relations and mutual support.

He concluded his speech by offering condolences to the families of the victims of the recent floods that have affected at least 23 of the country’s 31 provinces since heavy downpours began on March 19. According to reports, the floods have taken the lives of at least 67 people and destroyed over 25,000 homes around the country, with Lorestan and Fars provinces having the highest number of casualties.

The ambassador called on everyone to commit to the global efforts to combat climate change and its devastating effects on the environment.

Also speaking at the ceremony was the assistant to Iranian Foreign Minister in African Affairs, Mehdi Agha-Jafari, who highlighted the strong relations between Iran and South Africa, by noting the high number of political talks and exchange of delegations and visits of high-ranking officials between the two sides, as well as the two countries’ cooperation in international areas such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), human rights and peace in the Middle East region.

After the South African general elections on May 8, Iran and South Africa will be planning for the 14th round of joint economic commission, as well as technical committee meetings, Agha-Jafari announced.

He also noted the state visit of President Rouhani to South Africa in 2019.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, as an independent state, remains resolute on its principal positions on promoting multilateralism, committing to JCPOA as a valid international document as long as Iran’s interests are covered, benefiting from nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and supporting the rights of the oppressed people of the world,” he said.

He further voiced confidence that the future of relations between Iran and South Africa is “bright”, and the leaders of both countries are keen on developing cooperation despite the existing challenges and unlawful pressures, such as the imposition of sanctions by the United States.

 
 

Why the West Loves Mandela (and Hates Mugabe)

By Stephen Gowans

In the wake of Nelson Mandela’s death, hosannas continue to be sung to the former ANC leader and South African president from both the left, for his role in ending the institutional racism of apartheid, and from the right, for ostensibly the same reason. But the right’s embrace of Mandela as an anti-racist hero doesn’t ring true. Is there another reason establishment media and mainstream politicians are as Mandela-crazy as the left?

According to Doug Saunders, reporter for the unabashedly big business-promoting Canadian daily, The Globe and Mail, there is.

In a December 6 article, “From revolutionary to economic manager: Mandela’s lesson in change,” Saunders writes that Mandela’s “great accomplishment” was to protect the South African economy as a sphere for exploitation by the white property-owning minority and Western corporate and financial elite from the rank-and-file demands for economic justice of the movement he led.

Saunders doesn’t put it in quite these terms, hiding the sectional interests of bond holders, land owners, and foreign investors behind Mandela’s embrace of “sound” principles of economic management, but the meaning is the same.

Saunders quotes Alec Russell, a Financial Times writer who explains that under Mandela, the ANC “proved a reliable steward of sub-Sahara Africa’s largest economy, embracing orthodox fiscal and monetary policies…” That is, Mandela made sure that the flow of profits from South African mines and agriculture into the coffers of foreign investors and the white business elite wasn’t interrupted by the implementation of the ANC’s economic justice program, with its calls for nationalizing the mines and redistributing land.

Instead, Mandela dismissed calls for economic justice as a “culture of entitlement” of which South Africans needed to rid themselves. That he managed to persuade them to do so meant that the peaceful digestion of profits by those at the top could continue uninterrupted.

But it was not Mandela’s betrayal of the ANC’s economic program that Saunders thinks merits the right’s admiration, though the right certainly is grateful. Mandela’s genius, according to Saunders, was that he did it “without alienating his radical followers or creating a dangerous factional struggle within his movement.”

Thus, in Saunder’s view, Mandela was a special kind of leader: one who could use his enormous prestige and charisma to induce his followers to sacrifice their own interests for the greater good of the elite that had grown rich off their sweat, going so far as to acquiesce in the repudiation of their own economic program.

“Here is the crucial lesson of Mr. Mandela for modern politicians,” writes Saunders. “The principled successful leader is the one who betrays his party members for the larger interests of the nation. When one has to decide between the rank-and-file and the greater good, the party should never come first.”

For Saunders and most other mainstream journalists, “the larger interests of the nation” are the larger interests of banks, land owners, bond holders and share holders. This is the idea expressed in the old adage “What’s good for GM, is good for America.” Since mainstream media are large corporations, interlocked with other large corporations, and are dependent on still other large corporations for advertising revenue, the placing of an equal sign between corporate interests and the national interest comes quite naturally. Would we be shocked to discover that a mass-circulation newspaper owned by environmentalists (if such a thing existed) opposed fracking? (Journalists will rejoin, “I say what I like.” But as Michael Parenti once pointed out, journalists say what they like because their bosses like what they say.)

Predictably, Saunders ends his encomium to the party-betraying Mandela, the ‘good’ liberation hero, with a reference to the ‘bad’ south African liberation hero, Robert Mugabe. “One only needs look north to Zimbabwe to see what usually happens when revolutionaries” fail to follow Mandela’s economically conservative path, writes Saunders.

At one point, Mugabe’s predilection for orthodox fiscal and monetary policy was a strong as Mandela’s. Yet after almost a decade-and-a-half of the Western media demonizing Mugabe as an autocratic thug, it’s difficult to remember that he, too, was once the toast of Western capitals.

The West’s love affair with Mugabe came to an abrupt end when he rejected the Washington Consensus and embarked on a fast-track land reform program. Its disdain for him deepened when he launched an indigenization program to place majority control of the country’s mineral resources in the hands of black Zimbabweans.

Mugabe’s transition from ‘good’ liberation hero to ‘bad’, from saint to demon, coincided with his transition from “reliable steward” of Zimbabwe’s economy (that is, reliable steward of foreign investor and white colonial settler interests) to promoter of indigenous black economic interests.

That’s a transition Mandela never made. Had he, the elite of the imperialist world would not now be flocking to South Africa for Saint Mandela’s funeral, overflowing with fulsome eulogies.