A man for all seasons 1918 - 2013
guyanatimeSGY.com
MADIBA 15
The CIA and Mandela A loophole in U.S. sanctions against Pretoria
H
owever irritated it may be by the new American sanctions legislation, the South African government must be relieved that active American assistance in the gathering of intelligence on the black opposition is now specifically protected by law. The bill enacted this month over presidential veto stipulates: “No agency or entity of the United States may engage in any form of cooperation, direct or indirect, with the armed forces of the Government of South Africa.” This seems clear enough, but there then follows a crucial exception for “activities which are reasonably designed to facilitate the collection of necessary intelligence.” Nelson Mandela has had plenty of time to ruminate on the consequences of close intelligence cooperation between the United States and the South African regime. It was one of these “activities” that landed him in jail nearly a quartercentury ago – an incarceration, incidentally, that the new sanctions law is aimed at ending The fugitive leader of the African National Congress (ANC) was arrested in August 1962 while driving through the town of Howick, in Natal Province, disguised as a
By Andrew Cockburn, New York Times, October 13, 1986
(Nelson Mandela believed in forgiveness and reconciliation. But he also believed in truth. He combined these aspirations in launching a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, which was pivotal in facilitating the various factions to move forward. In that spirit of reconciliation, the truth about the CIA’s role in the capture of Mandela, which has now been silenced, should also be told.) white man’s chauffeur. At his subsequent trial, he was sentenced to life in prison. Nowadays, of course, all shades of opinion in the United States are united in pleading for his release. Such pleas might be a little more heartfelt if it were generally appreciated that his arrest came as a result of a tip-off from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the authorities. According to recent reports in The Johannesburg Star and on CBS News, Mandela was travelling to meet a CIA officer who was working out of the United States Consulate in Durban, the capital of Natal. Instead of attending the meeting, the CIA man told the police exactly where and when the most hunted man in South Africa could be found. The South Africans secured this momentous intelligence at something of a bargain, since the CIA’s price was advance information on the apartheid regime’s future poli-
cy for the Bantustans, the so-called homelands, which was hardly the government’s highest state secret. Ever since that time, official American disapproval of apartheid has been deepening: the argument in this country has been how rather than whether to bring about change. But all the while, cooperation in the vital area of intelligence
has been rolling merrily along. At the end of the 1960s, the CIA supplied advice and assistance in the creation of the infamous Bureau of State Security. In 1975, the CIA worked closely with the South African military in their abortive invasion of Angola. Sometimes the closeness of the cooperation surprises even professional American intelligence personnel. An Air Force intelligence officer who visited Pretoria in the fall of 1984, after a tour of black African capitals, was bemused to be summoned by the United States Air Force attaché to give an intelligence briefing on his travels in the frontline states to an expectant group of South African military intelligence officers. His refusal to assist in what appeared to him to be a shocking and unauthorised partnership resulted in the termination of his intelligence career. This summer, the American me-
dia carried well-attested reports on the assistance being rendered to the cause of white supremacy by the National Security Agency, which is responsible for the collection of communications intelligence. It is a matter of routine for this agency to comply with requests from Pretoria to monitor communications channels used by the ANC. This intelligence, which the Boers could not obtain on their own and which is invaluable to them for their war on the ANC, is handed over in return for data on Soviet shipping movements that Washington could gather, albeit more laboriously, by other means. The clause in the new law exempting intelligence cooperation from sanctions is the first overt omission that such trade takes place. Nevertheless, the administration feels ashamed enough of this squalid business to have denied its existence with the full force of Secretary of State George P Shultz’s credibility. Nelson Mandela must find it truly ironic that a law designed in part to secure his release goes out of its way to protect precisely those activities that brought about his capture in the first place.
Should Mandela have done more? By Moses Magadza, Zimbabwean journalist and editor
M
andela is indisputably an icon of resistance and his positive legacies should be evaluated alongside his negative legacies By now word has reached even the most far-flung corners of the earth. Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s founding president and world-acclaimed antiapartheid icon, is no more. South African President Jacob Zuma confirmed that President Mandela, who was 95, died on the evening of Thursday (December 5, 2013) in Johannesburg. President Zuma hailed Mandela as South Africa’s “greatest son” and said the former president was now “resting … at peace”. As the world’s citizens come to terms with Mandela’s passing on, focus has once again fallen on his legacy. An icon of resistance There can be no denying the fact that Nelson Mandela represented the last breed of the African continent’s valuedriven politicians who catalysed change in South Africa using all manner of means. Most importantly, Mandela was indeed the longest-serving political prisoner on the continent in recent history. That we cannot take from him; he was an icon of resistance against oppression and racialism in any form. In many respects, Mandela was a model of reconciliation. He was in a rare class that arguably includes Namibia’s Founding President Sam Nujoma in
terms of embracing and successfully bringing about reconciliation in an environment in which no-one would have anticipated it possible. Imagine someone rising in Afghanistan or in Iraq and bringing about reconciliation with the West that allows former American President George W Bush to take a beer in Kabul without being lynched…Viewed in this light, Mandela’s was a revolutionary form of reconciliation that he brought to bear on our accursed continent. He relinquished power unlike others Mandela is to be credited, also for introducing modern-era parliamentary democracy in Africa. From South Africa’s independence in 1994, it has been possible to change successive presidents without any bloodshed or any complaints from any quarter of rigging or malpractice. One can argue that by so doing, Mandela provided inspiration for both people in leadership and aspiring leaders. He served his term and left power without having to be ejected or rejected by the people. When he relinquished power, he sat back and let the new rulers run the show without interference. The beneficiaries from his struggles and his brand of leadership have been across the board; encompassing the young and old across gender. Mandela even allowed a discussion about gay and lesbian rights in South Africa to a point where now South Africa allows same-sex marriages. To that extent Mandela was for all-inclusiveness and a
plural society. With regard to doing something for women, Mandela ensured that there was some parity and equality among the sexes. If one looks at the African National Congress (ANC) which he led, one realises that it represented women very broadly and perhaps thanks to the foundation Mandela and his administration put, women in South Africa hold very key positions in government
for equal access to resources in the country. It is also hard to say at the drop of a hat what kind of laws came into effect during Nelson Mandela’s tenure and to what extent they promoted the welfare of women and children. Nevertheless, with respect to access to education, Mandela and his administration did well and today female students are well represented in the country’s institutions of higher educa-
Mandela, though controversial to some, had enormous appeal both at home and abroad, enjoying an extraordinary relationship with South Africans and the admiration of other global icons like Pope John Paul II. Ergo, some believe he would have done more
and industry. South Africa today has one of the highest proportions of women in parliament in Africa. In terms of the cabinet, the country has a substantial number of women holding ministerial and other senior positions. It is difficult to say what Mandela did for women in terms of economic development. However, given that the national cake in South Africa does not seem to be too male-dominated, it can safely be said that Mandela tried to lay the foundation
tion. This can be seen as a major achievement. Mandela’s negative legacies Mandela’s many positive legacies notwithstanding, some people find it ironic that with his seemingly big heart for reconciliation and forgiveness, he was unable to forgive his wife of many years and compatriot in the struggle, Winnie Mandela, for her alleged shambolic sexual behaviour. It is difficult to marry the two personas of Nelson Mandela.
There is a contradiction here. One of the things that stick out like sore thumbs as one of Mandela’s negative legacies is what can be said to be his selective amnesia. Having walked that often-cited long walk to freedom and come into power in Southern Africa’s biggest economy, he did not do what many would have expected: to acknowledge, in one way or the other, the contribution of the many countries that were battered by pre-independent South Africa in pursuit of the independence of that country. Those countries include Namibia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. One would have expected Mandela to have gone an extra mile in the journey that was started by another African called Dr Kwame Nkrumah who famously declared that the independence of Ghana would not be good enough unless and until the rest of Africa was independent and that Pan Africanism as an ideal was to be pursued, or words to that effect. Accordingly, one of Nelson Mandela’s negative legacies is that South Africa is today to a large extent closed to the rest of Africa. It is more open to white people than to Africans. You are more likely to be required to produce a transit visa in Johannesburg if you are a black person from Africa than if you are coming from Washington. This is one of the legacies of Mandela that are difficult to understand. One would have expected that Mandela would have been at the frontline of acknowledging support –
through bloodshed and economic retardation – by countries that stood by South Africa in its hour of need. Until now there seems to be no plans to show any form of gratitude. The downfall of apartheid did not come merely by Mandela being in prison for 27 years. Many other people and countries – especially the Frontline States – played a major role in South Africans’ struggle. Prior to his death, Mandela spent a long time in hospital. Few African leaders visited him or said anything substantial about his health. While this trend is difficult to read, one can put it down to respect for his privacy and acknowledging that the end was not too far for the man who once famously said that one of his greatest regrets in life is that he never became the heavyweight boxing champion of the world. It seems heads of state and government in Africa followed the example set by America’s President Barack Obama of not being too intrusive into what was essentially a private family matter, particularly when it was common cause that Mandela was critically ill. While it is very difficult to judge Mandela on the basis of what he did or did not do while he was president of South Africa mainly because he got into power when EVERYTHING was being set up, the man, even in death, remains a highly polarised subject. It is possible that the debate around his legacy will rage on, even long after he has been laid to rest. (Courtesy Pambazuka 2013-12-10, Issue 658)