South Africa Now!
Blaine DeLancey
| Revision History | ||
|---|---|---|
| • October 10, 1991 | Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students. | |
| The Alternative Orange: Vol. 1, No. 1 (pp. 9) | ||
| • August 19, 2000 | Webpage:  . | |
| DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original. | ||
The two shocking news stories about South Africa this summer, at least as reported by the mainstream U.S. media: the redoubtable De Klerk was defying the white hard-liners and proceeding to dismantle the apartheid system;and, according to July reports in South African newspapers, the Inkatha "nationalist" movement had received over $600,000 dollars from South African government security forces. The really shocking thing about the first story is that anyone believes it for a second. The apartheid system is by no means being dismantled, and South African Blacks are no nearer participation in that country's government than they were 30 years ago. We will approach that matter in future articles in this series.
The really shocking thing about the Inkatha story is that anyone was shocked. Anyone paying attention to South African affairs has known for years that Inkatha and its leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezei, are puppets of the South African government. Indeed, the more specific matter of security forces funding has been common knowledge for at least two years, and was reported repeatedly on the "South Africa Now!" television show and in these pages last year.
However, Buthelezi has been a media darling ever since Jerry Falwell started singing his praises on "Nightline", so apparently the fact that he was working for De Klerk and, before him, Botha, came as a surprise to the folks at the networks and the New York Times. The media in this country have decided to present Mr. De Klerk as the unfortunate reasonable middleman caught between three unreasonable forces: right wing extremists; the Zulu nationalists of Inkatha; and the Xhosa Communists of the African National Congress. It is time to set the record straight, and Inkatha makes as good a starting point as any other.
Buthelezi is repeatedly characterized in the press as a "Zulu leader." He is nothing of the sort, any more than George Bush is a Protestant leader or Mario Cuomo an Italian leader. He is the government appointed head of the puppet government of the Bantustan of KwaZulu. His media status in this country as a Black South African leader is the work of the CIA, with the incalculable, if perhaps unwitting, aid of the Reverend Jerry Falwell.
The Bantustan system was established by the South African government as a cornerstone of the apartheid social system. They are, in effect, those areas of South Africa to which Blacks have been driven, since it has been illegal for them to live anywhere else. To maintain the illusion that the Bantustans are actually independent nation-states, the apartheid government has established puppet governments in each Bantustan. Most of the world has not been fooled by this facade -- you rockers and rappers may remember Boptutswana -- the Bantustans are nothing but glorified reservations with designated tribal governments answering to Pretoria. KwaZulu, as the name might suggest, is supposed to be the Bantustan to which the Zulu's are relegated (although in fact probably at least as many live elsewhere). This, then, is Buthelezi's only claim to being a "Zulu leader." He's the man that the apartheid government put in charge of a place where lots of Zulu's live.
Nor, by the way, is Inkatha by any means the preferred movement among Zulu's. Like each of South Africa's five largest Black ethnic groups, Zulu's name the African National Congress as the political entity to which they feel the closest ties(Market Research Africa poll, Johannesburg Star, 7-25-90). In the city of Durban , whose Black population is primarily Zulu, only 3% of Blacks supported Inkatha (Johannesburg Weekly Mail, 4-10-90).
In light of Buthelezei's status as puppet leader, it is interesting that anyone was surprised he received government funding: after all, his government receives $600 million a year from Pretoria (EXTRA!, July/August, 1991).
Buthelezi became known in this country after the long-running Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson hour on Nightline, beginning in 1986. Falwell was the designated spokesperson for those who opposed sanctions, at least in Ted Koppel's eyes, and he spoke repeatedly of his having met Buthelezi in South Africa and of his status as a Black leader opposed to sanctions. In retrospect, it is not surprising that Falwell, an avowed opponent to sanctions and to the ANC, would meet Buthelezi in South Africa. The London Independent reported on August 1, 1991, that the South African Bureau of State Security had for some time tried to promote Buthelezi and to play down his rivals. Moreover, the Independent noted, the CIA had been trying to play a similar role, "building Chief Buthelezi's image among policy-makers in the United States and securing funds for him."
The careful reader may wonder why this last point was not mentioned as a top summer story in my first paragraph: after all, if it was old news that the South Africans were funding Buthelezi, surely it must qualify as "shocking" news that the US government was seeking funds for him. And indeed this story would have to qualify as a big one, if in fact the mainstream media had reported it in this country. To date, they have not.
The media's reluctance to provide any dirt on Mr. Buthelezi is understandable in one respect. As dutiful supporters of the US government line, they realize how important it is that we have a moderate Black alternative to the frightening specter of the "communist" ANC; even, apparently, if that alternative is a fictitious creation. Thus we have the Macneil/Lehrer NewsHour (6-19-91) using Buthelezi as its sole South African voice in a report on the situation in that country. Roger Mudd, in a taped profile, tells us, "Some conservatives believe that the United States should deal with the pragmatic, moderate Buthelezi, rather than the African National Congress, which has Marxist roots." Mudd then goes on to provide the other crucial element to the party line, that both Inkatha and the ANC have tribal roots: "Most followers of the ANC are members of the Xhosa tribe."
Now, simple numbers would seem to make this a questionable statement. About 18% of South Africa's Black population are Xhosa; however, the Market Research Africa poll cited above noted that 64% of Blacks favor the ANC over any other political organization. One must ask, then, why Mudd and so many others, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, maintain the facade that the battle is between Zulu Inkatha and Xhosa ANC?
Simple racism would appear to be one answer. If we identify so-called Black-on-Black violence as "tribal" disputes, we have absolved ourselves from having to explore or explain any further: after all, a a "tribal dispute" in the heart of the "dark continent" is not surprising. You know how those primitive Black folk are... Indeed the common use of phrases like "Black-on-Black violence" stems from the same root : the violence in question is clearly not Black on Black if, as we know it is being instigated and financed by the white government. However, if we call it Black on Black we can chalk it up to the aberrant social behavior of Blacks in general. We don't have to investigate further, and it also buttresses the age-old argument that South African Blacks can't learn to govern themselves overnight. After all, if they can't even treat each other civilly, how can they expect us to turn the country over to them?
What the media is loathe to report is that Inkatha has relatively little support among South African Blacks; it is not a "nationalist" movement in any real sense, nor is it a tribal or even an ethnic movement. Inkatha and Buthelezi himself are the creation of the apartheid regime, with the complicity of the United States government through the CIA, and the mainstream press in the US. The African National Congress is still supported by the overwhelming majority of South African Blacks as the voice for their political concerns, despite the fact that it is still technically illegal to support it. Until the De Klerk government addresses the demands that the ANC has been making for decades, no real change will occur in South Africa, with the possible exception of a civil war and a people's revolution. Nothing that the New York Times or Ted Koppel can say will change this situation. {Much of the information in this article is lifted from "Buthelezi Bossterism", from the Sept/Oct 1991 issue of EXTRA!, v.4, #6, p.11}
Next time: Facts and Fiction about sanctions.
