& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

A Secret Agenda for the 'New South Africa"

by Len Clark
*** South Africa is seeking international financial support as a reward for its much-publicised "abolition of apartheid policy. But the policy rests on some very questionable claims The plans of President de Klerk allow the very cornerstone of apartheid to remain in place ***
TEN years ago. the white South African government was engaged In an expensive, worldwide lobbying campaign for Investment. The grounds for it were that "apartheid la dying and dead" and that the funds so received would be used to help black housing, wages and human rights, ensuring peace and prosperity.
But investors who responded to such pleas, later found that every dollar they invested then in South Africa, becume worth only 30 cents.
In April this year, capitalising on world acclaim for his release of Nelson Mandela und promises of the early and total abolition of apartheid. South Africa's President F.W. de Klerk visited Britain. Denmark. Denmark and Ireland, with much the same story — investment and a little more patience would indeed see the end of apartheid. And the South African President pointed to his speech of February 1. 1991. which promised just that.
However, the full text of that speech reveals a slgnili cant omission. There are promises to repeal apartheid's Group Areas Act, Land Acts and Population Registration Act. But there is no such stated intention to abolish South Africa's black "homelands.
These were created under white legislation quite separate from the Land Acts, and they currently ensure, per person. 35 times more land and share of mineral wealth for a white, than for a black.
It Is a racial disproportion which President de Klerk himself has made clear will be the basis for the "new South Africa." and ft is based on his-, torical fallacies.
There has been no hint of this 35:1 bias in his speeches and recent Interviews. The fact that South Africa's own archaeologists (Mason. Maggs. Davenport etc) tong ago proved the official black "homelands" to be based on major apartheid myths, and that the true black homelands encompass almost the whole of the Transvaal, Orange Free State and Natal (with most of South Africa's gold and nearly all Its coal.) President de Klerk also never mentions.
Nor does he mention the embarrassing fact that for ^Ukrs, his own Information Department has assured the world that "the land the blacks' forbears settled" remains theirs, "and Its resources are exploited excu-•tvefy for the blacks' benefit." (The Case for Separate Development. Pretoria, page »7)
Apartheid's white-supremacist version of South African realities has even In eluded the extraordinary claim — the very opposite of the truth — that "more land was taken away from white people and given to black people than the other way around." Which is exactly what de Klerk's Minister of Education stated on March 12.1991. tn attempting to explain why. tn the new. "non-racial" South
Africa blacks made poor by apartheid would be expected to buy back their own land from whites made rich by apartheid
Two more hidden facts round out the^Ucture of erhas insisted for years that the black "homelands' have nothing to do with apartheid, and are Instead an example of its abolition. Yet the above official publication and many others (e.g., This is South Africa and South African Quiz) state specifically that the black "homelands" are the local point Of the whole apartheid policy.
And. worrying news for such as the International Olympics Committee — un-abofished white has laws such as the Bantu Homelands
Citteenshlp Act No. 26 of 1970 have stripped millions of South Africans In "homelands' such as Bophuthatswana of their South African citizenship (without their consent), thus turning them into aliens racially barred from South African sport (cf.: Hitler's Reich Citizenship Act which similarly ensured the absence of Jewish Germans from the Berlin 1936 Olympic Games although in that case, all Jew were excluded).
So it is Indeed clear that unUi Pretoria totally abolishes Its alleged "homeland" policy, the very keystone of apartheid remains firmly tn place. This fact suggests that those nations — especially Britain — which are now engaged tn dismantling sanctions against South Africa have Jumped the gun. Yet there are further strong be Nelson Mandela.
For instance. President de Klerk has made clear that hia plans to abolish apartheid in enta to block the admission of black and white schools
His abolition of 'whites only" residential areas, he has said. will contain a cbiuse for the protection of communi Ues" - which to precisely what current legislation ensures for the white minority.
And he has admitted, tn his February 1.1991 speech, thal apartheid's Population Registration Act will only be 'abolished* by preserving temporary transitional mea slices' applying to almost all South Africans. Only the new >»rn will escape racial classification. The rest remain clasai-fied.
Equally significant was de Klerk's firm statement, on British television tn the mid-1990s. that he would never in-iroduce anti-racism laws — thus still enabling whites, on various pretexts, to continue to exclude blacks from their suburbs. holiday resorts, sports clubs and schools.
And finally. In a major tn-terview given Just before he k-ft Britain In late April this year, de Klerk made some quite revealing remarks.
He referred to apartheid throughout by apartheid's own (highly misleading) propaganda term, "separate development." He claim that in 1986 this changed to "powersharing* with the blacks — which would be news to them. He even stated that "tn essence, there is nothing wrong* with the "homelands" policy: which allocates to whites, per person. 35 times more land and mineral wealth than to blacks, and is based on huge historical untruths.
In addition, he said that since 1961. his ruling Afrikaner National Party had "tried to represent values rather Umm culture. What those values might be cm be glimpsed in the extotence. for at least 14 yean alter 1M1. at the Parts Detective Com. an official all Afrikaner child p» lire force of boys as young M 12 carrying ID cards signed by South Africa s Police go on police raids gainst blacks in police care. street adult blacks and be paid for It All this more am. openly admitted in Patry., the pofo^'forcc^ "which 2L pu'b fished by Voortrekkcr Press official house of the
And for part of that line de Klerk was actually a member at the government which set up and ran these racist child police.
Add such Afrikaner Nationalist sanitising of its be haviour wt>lk tn power to Ite massive falsification of early history to deprive blacks of their land, and Us wholesale suppression of the facts of many of Us leaders proNazi high treason, subversion and sabotage tn World War 1 1. In eluding armed attempts to overthrow its pro Allied Smuts government by force
Then add other, recent facts: tn 1965 these same people were enticing foreign In vestment with claims of a 300 per cent national income increase In only eight years: when the true figure was but 70 per cent. In the mid-1970s they spent millions publicising the claim that blacks were 'sharing In South African prosperity to the full." Yet on February 21 1975. financial sources showed that while whites shared R3 billion per year from real estate transactions alone, apartheid ensured that black's Income from that source was nil
Yet still. Mr de Klerk's government claims that the cure for apartheid is more Investment. and more trust tn South Africa's white government. - GEMINI NEWS
LEN CLARK is a writer on human rights Issues whose books and articles have been published on both sides of the Atlantic.