“Voormalige staatspresident verdedig apartheid”
Nuus met méning!
Jou advertensies is net so goed soos die mense wat dit sien – wat dit oor en oor sien! Jy wil besigheid doen met OO-lesers: Mense met geld en beheer oor korporatiewe begrotings. Klik hier
Oudtshoorn. 11 Mei 2012.
Klik hier vir die onderhoud.
17h35 Hier is die FW de Klerk-stigting se reaksie.
THE F W DE KLERK CNN INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTIANNE AMANPOUR
The F W de Klerk Foundation regrets that the comments that F W de Klerk made in his recent interview with Christianne Amanpour of CNN have been taken so unfairly out of context. The question that she asked related to the policies that he had supported when he was a young man – and his reply centered on his view that, though idealistic at the time, they had resulted in the unacceptable injustices of apartheid.
It should be remembered that as a young man De Klerk grew up in an Afrikaner society that was still deeply aggrieved by the loss of the right of Afrikaners to self-determination in the Anglo-Boer War. Their right to self-determination had been internationally recognized by all the leading powers of that time. The central theme of Afrikaner politics when De Klerk was growing up was the burning wish of his people to regain their right to rule themselves. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with this wish.
As a young politician De Klerk supported a solution that would ensure that Afrikaners – and the broader white community – would be able to retain their right to rule themselves in the parts of the country that they had traditionally controlled. They accepted that the other constituent peoples of South Africa should enjoy the same right in the territories that they had always occupied. A great deal of effort and money was invested in the project of developing the ten national homelands and culminated ultimately in four independent states and six self-governing territories.
There is also nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea that the problems of territories that include different peoples should be addressed on the basis of territorial partition. This, after all, is what has happened in such societies all over the world – in the territorial divisions of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and more recently in Sudan. It is the solution that has long been advocated for Israel/Palestine.
However, as De Klerk pointed out, the National Party’s application of territorial partition was a complete failure because the territorial division was manifestly unfair (something that De Klerk opposed as a young politician); the economy was becoming increasingly integrated; whites did not comprise a majority in any part of the country; and the policies were vehemently rejected by the great majority of black, coloured and Indian South Africans. Instead of leading to the solution that De Klerk had hoped for as a young man, it resulted in the manifest and unacceptable injustice of apartheid.
When the leadership of the National Party had become aware of the failure of its approach of territorial division it began a process of reform – and then under De Klerk’s leadership – of transformation. De Klerk has apologized sincerely for the hardship, injustice and humiliation caused by apartheid. But more than merely uttering words of contrition, he led the process of dismantling apartheid and of opening the way to our present non-racial constitutional democracy. Deep into his retirement he continues to work for the maintenance of South Africa’s Constitution and for the realization of its vision.
The Amanpour interview dealt with De Klerk’s views as a young man. He tried, as frankly as he could, to explain what motivated him at the time. What motivated him as a young man ceased many years ago to motivate him as a political leader.
Since the mid-eighties he has accepted that the policies that he supported as a young man were wrong and that there was not any possibility of justly settling South Africa’s complex problems on the basis of territorial partition.
Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation
11 May 2012
11h15 The New Age se weergawe van die onderhoud:
FW de Klerk spoke about his relationship with former President Nelson Mandela and his thoughts on the apartheid system during an interview with Global news network’s chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour at a summit of Nobel laureates in Chicago last night.
“He had an aura around him; he still has an aura around him. He’s truly a very dignified and admirable person, de Klerk said about his first encounter with Nelson Mandela.
He also mentioned that after meeting Mandela, he realised that this was a man he ‘could do business with.’
When questioned about the 27 years spent by Nelson Mandela in prison, FW de Klerk said he believed that Mandela was properly tried. “I felt he was in jail much too long. He was properly tried in front of a suitably constituted court and he was represented by the best lawyers”, he said.
“But life sentence in SA at that stage meant that your release should be considered after about 20 or 21 years”, he added.
Amanpour mentioned that Mandela had once called de Klerk “a man of integrity” but had taken it back, regretting that de Klerk had never renounced the principle of apartheid.
De Klerk responded: “Well, let me first say I’m not aware that Mr. Mandela says I’ve never renounced apartheid.” He then said, “I have made the most profound apology in front of the Truth Commission and on other occasions about the injustices which were wrought by apartheid.”
“What I haven’t apologised for is the original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states” he said.
De Klerk also called himself a ‘convert’ when quizzed about his belief in the validity of the original concept of “separate but equal” nation states.
“There is this picture that apartheid was…used to be compared to Nazism,” said de Klerk. “It’s wrong, and on that, I don’t apologise for saying that what drove me as a young man, before I decided we need to embrace a new vision, was a quest to bring justice for black South Africans in a way which would not – that’s what I believed then – destroy the justice to which my people were entitled.”
“That’s how I was brought up,” said de Klerk. “And it was in an era when also in America and elsewhere, and across the continent of Africa, there was still not this realisation that we are trampling upon the human rights of people. So I’m a convert.”
On whether he and former President, Mandela were close friends, he answered:
“Actually, we’re close friends,” said de Klerk. “Not the closest in the sense that we see each other once a week. Also, we live apart. But he’s been in my home as a guest; I’ve been in his home as a guest. When I go to Johannesburg, my wife and I have had tea with him and Graca, his wife.”
“We call each other on birthdays,” he said. “There is no animosity left between us.” But then he added: “Historically, there was.”
10h18 EWN tweets reaction by Gwede Mantashe on the De Klerk interview: “Limpopo & the E. Cape as they are now because of Bantustands, de Klerk was architect, he has nostalgia. He has never lived in a Bantustan, us who have know what they were like.”
09h40 News 24’s report.
Cape Town – Former president FW de Klerk has reportedly sparked controversy over comments made in an interview with CNN, in which he admitted that apartheid was “morally indefensible”, but appeared to defend the homeland system.
De Klerk was interviewed by CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour while at a recent summit of Nobel Laureates in Chicago. The interview was broadcast on CNN on Thursday night.
In a wide-ranging interview, in which De Klerk also discussed his relationship with former president Nelson Mandela and the current South African government, De Klerk said he had made a “profound apology” about the injustices wrought by apartheid in front of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission and on other occasions.
“What I haven’t apologised for is the original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states (essentially creating two separate states, one black and one white).
“But in South Africa it failed,” De Klerk said. “And by the end of the seventies, we had to realise, and accept and admit to ourselves that it had failed. And that is when fundamental reform started.”
Amanpour asked De Klerk if apartheid failed because it was unworkable or because it was “morally repugnant”.
He responded: “There are three reasons it failed. It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. It failed because we (whites and blacks) became economically integrated, and it failed because the majority of blacks said that is not how we want our rights.”
De Klerk reaffirmed his belief in the validity of the concept of “separate but equal” nation states.
“There is this picture that apartheid was…used to be compared to Nazism. It’s wrong, and on that, I don’t apologise for saying that what drove me as a young man, before I decided we need to embrace a new vision, was a quest to bring justice for black South Africans in a way which would not – that’s what I believed then – destroyed the justice to which my people were entitled.”
“That’s how I was brought up,” he said. “And it was in an era when also in America and elsewhere, and across the continent of Africa, there was still not this realisation that we are trampling upon the human rights of people. So I’m a convert.”
Amanpour again asked him if, in retrospect, apartheid was morally repugnant.
“I can only say in a qualified way. Inasmuch as it trampled human right, it was – and remains – and that I’ve said also publicly, morally reprehensible.
“But the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant.”
He added: “With the advantage of hindsight, we should have started the reform much earlier…But the intention was to end at a point which would ensure justice for all. And the tipping point in my mind was when I realised… we need to abandon the concept of separateness. And we need to build a new nation with its eleven official languages, accommodating its diversity, but taking hands and moving forward together.”
‘No animosity’ with Mandela
De Klerk also said he and Mandela were “close friends” and that they call each other on birthdays and there was “no animosity left between us”.
The Times reported that De Klerk’s comments sparked outrage on social networking sites, especially Twitter.
“This man is insane!!! Now he says blacks weren’t disenfranchised — they voted in the homelands. Is FW De Klerk mad??!!” Eusebius McKaiser ? tweeted.
“I’m convinced that FW de Klerk is close to death, and is trying to preserve his legacy in the conservative Afrikaner community,” said Mabine Seabe.
Given Mkhari tweeted: “FW de Klerk remains a bitter apartheid apologists and defender.”
And comedian Nik Rabinowitz tweeted: “Watching FW de Klerk making gat of himself on CNN.”
06h05. Sosiale kommentators het vannag onstuimig gereageer op die voormalige staatspresident, FW de Klerk, se uitsprake in ‘n onderhoud met CNN se Christiane Amanpour.
Prof Jonathan Jansen, rektor van die UV, het vanoggend só gereageer: “I still don’t think FW gets it; he still thinks apartheid was just an implementation problem. This is outrageous.”
Times Live het net voor 1 vanoggend só oor die onderhoud berig:
Former president FW de Klerk sparked outrage on social networking sites last night following controversial remarks he made during an interview screened on CNN.
Interviewed by the global news network’s chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, at a summit of Nobel laureates in Chicago, De Klerk discussed his “historical antagonism” and current friendship with Nelson Mandela, the failure of the apartheid system, and the shortcomings of the current government.
Asked by Amanpour whether he agreed that apartheid was morally repugnant, he said: “In as much as it trampled human rights it was and remains morally indefensible.”
However, De Klerk then appeared to defend the homeland system: “But the concept of giving, as the Czechs have it now, and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unity with one culture with one language [everyone] can be happy and can fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant.”
He denied that blacks in the homelands were disenfranchised.
“They were not disenfranchised, they voted . They were not put in homelands, the homelands were historically there.
“If only the developed world would put so much money into Africa, which is struggling with poverty, as we poured into those homelands. How many universities were built? How many schools?
“At that stage the goal was separate but equal, but separate but equal failed.” He said he later became “a convert” against the system.
On the state of South Africa’s democracy today, De Klerk said: “I’m convinced it’s a solid democracy and it will remain so, but it’s not a health democracy.”
He also said the ANC alliance needed to split because it was unhealthy for one party to so dominate the political landscape.
Asked about Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu’s proposal for whites to pay a special wealth tax, De Klerk said white South Africans paid tax comparable to what very rich people pay in other countries.
He said people did not mind paying tax, but complained when public money was misspent.
The comments did not go down well on social networks, and Twitter was abuzz with complaints directed at apartheid’s last president.
“FW de Klerk should return the Nobel peace prize,” tweeted BrickTopNoir, while Nqubi noted: “You see what forgiveness gets you.”
Dwyike: “FW de Klerk remains a bitter apartheid apologist and defender . can’t say I am shocked.”
De Klerk’s comments came as the ANC this week met numerous Afrikaner groups.
The national executive committee will meet next week to decide whether to accepted the establishment of a “coordinating desk” aimed at making government more accessible to minority groups.
The proposal, according to ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu, arose during the Afrikaans dialogue summit on Tuesday. “One area of concern raised was that our government is not accessible,” he said.
He said the desk will cater not only for Afrikaans-speaking communities but for all South Africans. It has been suggested that the desk should be set up in the office of the ANC secretary-general.
Hier is ‘n paar voorbeelde van twitter-kommentaar oor die onderhoud:
@YzeOne: Has deKlerk lost his faculties!
@justicemalala: Incredible. De Klerk defends apartheid, says was not morally repugnant. Defends homelands. He is a bigot. Strip him of the Nobel!
@nourdeenw: Schokkend: De Klerk op CNN: “Het concept van Apartheid was niet verkeerd maar het is niet goed uitgevoerd in Zuid-Afrika.”
@HiltonBoylan: Well after that lack of ideological remorse, my esteem for the former President has just lowered a few notches. Disappointed.
@EmmanuelMdawu: The fellow whose hands are dripping with blood spits in your face and say “u made me kill your brother and sister. But I forgive u.”
@justicemalala: De Klerk says Mandela was tried by “properly constituted court”. Tragedy of denialism.
@NazliThomas: De Klerk went on about the fundamental concept of apartheid but he doesn’t recognise that it was fundamentally racist!
@FlorescaJulius: and to think people actually praise him for a part in our freedom. All (De Klerk) did was try to save his political image; avoid civil war.
@faithkwaza: This is another eish moment for South Africa!
@FrontlineStudi0: Ending apartheid was a business decision not an act of compassion, hence, #DeKlerk shocked everyone tonight with his true beliefs. Reality!
@KeabetsweKB : Apartheid wouldve never lasted that long if no one supported the policy. De Klerk is saying what many keep locked up in their hearts
@Kat_legooo : Is d noble price reverseble? If nt cn it begin wit hm #DeKlerk<—
@KhutsoMo: His true colours came out, there was no rainbow nation in his heart #deKlerk
Die onderhoud word om 11h00 vanoggend op CNN herhaal.