TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/081390/0813510.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 7.7 KB | 187 lines

                                                                                INTERVIEW, Page 7

Dressing Apartheid in Nationalistic Clothes


Rejecting negotiations with Nelson Mandela, ANDRIES TREURNICHT,
leader of South Africa's Conservative Party, warns of a white
revolt

By PETER HAWTHORNE and SCOTT MACLEOD and Andries Treurnicht


    Q. Many people applaud President F.W. de Klerk for making
courageous reforms, but you as a fellow Afrikaner seem to
regard him as a traitor.

    A. We are not against reform in principle, but the type of
reform by Mr. De Klerk is a denial of the existence of a
separate people who are entitled to self-determination. He
started on the road of a unitary state, of participation by all
individuals in the government of the country. For us, that
means 30 million black people, with their own cultural, ethnic
and racial background, will have an all-out majority against
the rest of the population. It means whites are not entitled
to govern themselves, to protect their rights, to protect their
culture and way of living and aspirations. In South Africa, we
should move in the direction of various democracies, to provide
political systems for the various peoples [and] ethnic groups.
What we now see in Eastern Europe, for instance in the Baltic
states, the urge toward self-government in their own
territories, confirms our attitude.


    Q. Your policy goes beyond self-determination. You separate
the races right down to swimming pools, park benches and buses.

    A. We think that is part of community life, the right of a
people to have their own way of doing things.


    Q. To many people, that is racism. How do you respond?

    A. I am quite frank in saying I am race conscious. I am
aware of the fact that I am a white man. I don't think that's
racism. I would say racism, in the negative sense of the word,
would mean not only being conscious of the fact that you belong
to a certain racial group but denying other people certain
rights and discriminating in the negative sense of the word
against people.


    Q. Hasn't that been happening in South Africa for the past
40 years?

    A. That is not the only thing that happened. In any system
there may be people to whose disadvantage a certain policy is
applied. But I refuse to admit that the policy of "separate
development" was only to the detriment of the various
[nonwhite] communities. There  are members of these communities
who achieved not only positions in their own communities but
some of them became really rich.


    Q. Two million blacks live in Soweto only 10 miles from
"white" Johannesburg. How are they any less South African than
you are?

    A. What is a nation? According to your American view, a
nation is all the individuals inside a country under one
government. There is a West European definition: a particular
people having its own country and own government. I would
regard the Zulu as a nation. For quite a long time, we as
Afrikaners spoke of ourselves as "the Afrikaner nation."


    Q. What do you do with Soweto? Kick the people out?

    A. We recognize that isn't possible. You will have to have
large black communities. But we say socially and politically,
those communities are not part and parcel of the white nation.


    Q. The 2 million blacks in Soweto might just as easily say
this is their country.

    A. We own land, which we didn't steal. There are various
ways in which land becomes the property of people. Actually,
that is something that people blame us for. We have 87% of the
land.

    We as the Conservative Party admit there will have to be a
sort of readjustment. Yes. But our approach is not to put the
whole South Africa as a cake on a table and start redividing
it. We are willing to take certain steps to negotiate -- that
is the In word of the time -- with the representatives of the
various black peoples. O.K., you think you don't have enough
land, let's talk about that. But first of all, you recognize
the land that at this stage belongs to the white people.


    Q. You might get sympathy for white self-determination if
your demands seemed fair. But whites want the wealth of the
country.

    A. No, certainly not. I would admit that is a very basic
question when it comes to separation of political power. We
have to investigate what are the resources. Johannesburg
historically was white territory. Blacks came in for the sake
of employment. One has to consider what the government did to
supply housing and opportunities for the members of other
communities. Soweto is an excellent example of providing
housing, community life and schools for people who were living
in squalor elsewhere in the late 1940s and early 1950s.


    Q. It is easy to imagine a return to the violence of the
1980s if you ban the A.N.C., dismantle the black trade unions
and try to reinstitute strict apartheid.

    A. We don't call for disaster but law-and-order. You cannot
meet the demands of radicals. You will have to contain any
suggestion of violence and arson and all those things. We are
speaking about black rebellion. People haven't considered white
reaction. I warned Mr. De Klerk, "If you introduce a system by
which you subject the white nation to black majority rule, you
are looking for trouble." As to the whites, they have been
reasonably peaceful up to now. They know they have the security
forces and government behind them. Take that away, then you are
facing disaster.


    Q. How would you deal with Nelson Mandela?

    A. Mandela is out of prison. We accept that. But Mandela
will have to decide what his position is in a white-governed
country. Because I say, "Mr. Mandela, the claims you are making
now I do not recognize. You have no claim to being a co-ruler
over my people. You are a Xhosa. You can speak on behalf of
many blacks. But inside white territory, you have no say."


    Q. Will you take part in the constitutional negotiations
called for by De Klerk?

    A. We have no stand in principle against negotiations or
talks. But we say the A.N.C., the Pan-Africanist Congress, the
Communist Party, as terrorist organizations preaching violence,
we won't discuss our freedom and our claims with them. We have
decided to formulate our own proposals and make them known as
widely as possible. But we are not going to negotiate our
claims with the A.N.C. or Mr. Mandela.


    Q. At what point do you think whites will violently resist
what De Klerk is doing?

    A. Certainly there is a possibility. You have individuals
and certain groups. They have already betrayed their presence.
Our attitude is that a dissatisfied individual or small group
is not entitled to take up arms against the government. In
principle. Practically, it would be foolish. But we also say
that in the extreme, there may arise a situation where the
whole white community considers itself threatened. Then our
approach is that these people should act via their
representatives. I don't want to elaborate on that. I don't
speculate on that. I tell my own people, now the government
offers the possibility of a general election or a referendum.
I say, don't be caught out. Be prepared to have a majority.


    Q. De Klerk is improving South Africa's image overseas. How
would the world react if the Conservative Party came to power
and changed course?

    A. De Klerk has not obtained decisions for the abolition of
sanctions and boycotts. They want him to deliver the goods in
terms of an irreversible political reform. I don't regard it
as reform. I would use a strong word. It is the betrayal of the
right of a nation, for the sake of a unitary state that would
be acceptable to certain people abroad.