ee et Le Oo ne ha ee Oe Tee

ans a

See Oo ee oe

The Tribune interviewed Thabo
Mbeki, National Executive
Member of the African National
Congress (South Africa) and Sec-
Tetary for Presidential Affairs. Mr.
Mbeki visited Canada to partici-
Pate in a conference at Carlton
University in Ottawa which was
Called to consider options open to
the Scandinavian and Canadian
&0vernments on the issue of South-
ern Africa. Mr. Mbeki made the
following key points:

" *x* *

The central, decisive feature of
the current situation in Southern
Africa is a growing confrontation
between the forces of liberation
and the forces of oppression.

Vorster’s regime is replying to
this intensified pressure — not by
Making concession or retreating,
but by greater repression. This
Characterizes what is happening
nd what the regime is trying to

0.

_In the so-called general elec-
tions recently, the regime told the
white electorate that South Africa
Must have a presidential system
of government to eliminate even
the small dissident voice that pre-
Viously existed in the white par-
liament. Today power is in the
hands of a small, openly-fascist
Clique.

The recently announced ‘‘Ban-
tustan program’’, for example,
Means that, once it is completed,
ho African will:be a member of
so-called white South Africa.
This again is part of the process of
intensifying the oppression. They
are persuing with greater vigor a
Policy to place some puppets be-
tween the mass of the people and
the regime to direct attention
away from the real enemy.

Other tactic§ by the regime in-
Clude banning of all people’s or-
£anizations and now we see open
assassination of opponents of the
80vernment. So we see that the
Teaction of the enemy is increased
Tepression all long the line.

This is equally true in Zim-

abwe and Namibia as it is of

South Africa.

Colonizer and Liberator?

Some Western countries want

THABO MBEKI

the world to believe that the Vors-
ter regime can be counted among
the forces for progressive change
in the area. We say this is not true.
How can the Vorster regime, the
colonizer of Namibia, become at
the same time the liberator of
Namibia?

Equally in Rhodesia — the
reason the Smith regime exists is
because it is supported by the
Vorster regime: It-is, in a sense,
the ‘‘Godfather’’ of Rhodesia’s
white settler community. You
can’t say that a change which
meets the aspirations of the
people of Zimbabwe can come
about with the Vorster regime
being part of that process —
they’re enemies of the people and
they will be treated like that.’

Vorster’s forces continue to
occupy Namibia; they continue to
harass and arrest Southwest Afri-
can People’s’ Organization
(SWAPO) people there, they con-
tinue to kill people there. In
Rhodesia they are acting through
their little client, the Smith re-
gime, to do exactly the same
thing.

Smith’s attacks on Mozam-
bique, for example, are made
possible by the backing of Vorster
with money, weapons and man-
power. So, whatever the Western

’ world might say, in practice

South Africa is behaving like a
colonizer throughout Southern
Africa.
Liberation Movement

The other part of the picture is
the liberation movement. I have
said that the Vorster regime is tak-
ing the steps it is because of the
strength of the ANC. Not long
ago, police chief Kruger was
compelled to tell the white parli-
ament that all efforts to smash the
ANC. have failed and that the
government must consider it a
factor in South African life. ‘I
want to warn the white popula-
tion,’ Kruger said, ‘‘that the
ANC exists and there will be ‘ur-
ban terrorism’”.  ~

The regime is very worried
about what has been happening,
for instance, to its security police
officers. These are the people
who are watching the liberation
movement, assassinating people
— they are enemies of the people

Striking power of the
: ing in South

a

in every respect. They are the
sort who were tried at Nuren-
burg for crimes against humanity.
Naturally the liberation move-
ment considers them enemies and
in the recent past, security police
and informers have been exe-
cuted by the liberation forces.
They are worried too, when
only 15-20% vote in the Bantustan
*telections’’ because we have told
the:people this program is aimed

-at dividing them to perpetuate

white supremacy.

Therefore, I’m saying that at all
levels — in mass mobilization of
people, of military activity inside
the country — we see the growing
striking power of thé people.

Attempts to find “‘solutions”’ in
Namibia and Zimbabwe to pro-
duce puppet regimes are failing.
There can be no solution in
Namibia without SWAPO and
none in Zimbabwe without the
Patriotic Front.

Apartheid’s Friends

We must say that some West-
em countries with very large
economic and military interests in
the region are trying to present
themselves as forces for progres-
sive change.

They are not., They are inter-
vening today, not to liberate us,
but to protect their interests.

For example: the UN Security
Council has imposed a mandatory
arms embargo against South Afri-
ca. The Vorster regime then says
it is forced to control its own
military capacity which means
passing laws to compel any indus-
try to produce weapons. We told
the British: ‘‘ You say you support
an arms embargo, but British
firms there can be compelled to
produce arms. What are you
doing about it?’’ They reply there
is nothing they can do.

In fact, because their general
Strategy is based on a strong pro-
imperialist regime to protect their
interests in the area, they don’t
want to take action.

Similarly, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) recently
granted a loan to the Vorster re-
gime. We know who the dominant
forces in the IMF are. Even the
U.S. press commented that the
IMF loan totalled the amount
spent by South Africa in 1977 to

oe

buy weapons. Of course, the
terms of the loan didn’t say it was
for weapons! It was just a general
economic loan, but it’s obvious it
was simply a guise under which
Vorster could shop for arms.

We know that efforts are made
to cover these dealings. We know
that since last November the
press in South Africa has been
forbidden from mentioning any
‘*tdefense’’ questions: This” is
where the Israeli connection be-
comes important, also Taiwan,
South Korea, Brazil, Iran — be-
cause this is where weapons will
come from.

What I am saying is: Because
the U.S., France, West Germany,
Britain are still basing their policy
on the continuing existence of a
strong white South African re-
gime to be their policeman in the
region, they continue to help the

regime militarily despite the arms

embargo.
The Canadian Role

We think the measures an-
nounced by the Canadian gov-
ernment, even though they were
described as ‘‘cosmetic’’ by the
press, are politically important.

The ANC has been saying “‘iso-
late the South African regime’’.
The U.S., France, Britain, West

‘Germany have been arguing the

opposite. They say it’s important
to maintain contacts to persuade
it toward a ‘“‘more democratic’’
position.

Canada’s step on trade sanc-
tions recognizes our argument —
that what will change the situation
in Southern Africa is not greater
contact with white supremist re-
gimes but less contact. It accepts
the concept that isolation of these
regimes will create the pos-
sibilities for changing the situa-
tion.

It should be said at the same
time, however, that Canada-
South Africa trade is still growing
and it will require greater pressure
to reverse this trend. Canadian
business makes big profits in the
region and these people deal with
a regime that has guns popping
out of their ears to protect those
interests. Over 1,000 people have
been killed in past months in the
towns of South Africa to protect
those interests.

people

This, of course, runs against
the best interests of the Canadian
people who might tell their -gov-
ernment they are not elected by a
club of businessmen — that they
represent the people.

You know there is an Interna-
tional Convention that declares
apartheid a crime against human-
ity which should be actively op-
posed. Canada was part of world
opinion that the Nurenberg Tri-
bunal should be held. And now
we have the United Nations dec-
laring apartheid a crime against
humanity and countries maintain-
ing diplomatic and economic links

‘with that system.

Let’s put it bluntly: If you in-
vest in South Africa the effect is to
strengthen the regime — whether
you intend that or not.

We say that to reduce the scale
of violence which today exists
and is coming from the white re-
gime which is killing people every
day you must pull all aid and con-
tacts out of South Africa. If the
IMF stopped loaning money; if
the companies stopped situating
there, the regime’s capacity to
make war on its people would be
greatly weakened.

Solidarity with Liberation Forces
Some people are concerned
about the solidarity and assis-

_tance given to the liberation

movements.by. the-socialist-com-
munity. We say: we welcome sol-
idarity from all countries and it’s
not out fault that bilateral rela-
tions don’t exist between the U.S.
and Canadian governments and
the liberation forces.

We would like to deal with the
Canadian government around an
agreement that apartheid should
be ended. We would welcome as-
sistance to bring this about.

We know that there are gov-
ernments in the socialist world, in
Africa, Asia and Latin America
who support our struggle. The

U.S. and other Western govern-

ments are not among them — not
because anyone is excluding
them, but because they don’t
want to come in.

They are most welcome, but
they must support the concept
that action is necessary to énd
white supremacy in Southern Af-
rica.

The ANC, Patriotic Front and
SWAPO naturally maintain good
relations with the socialist coun-
tries because these countries are
very committed to change in the
region. They give us weapons,
they give us food, they accept
students in their universities — a
very important contribution to
our struggle.

And at no point have they said
their support is conditional on our
adopting this or that policy which
is not our policy. °

The Swedish government has
been giving non-military aid to
our struggle for some time, and
they don’t impose conditions on
us either. We would like the
Canadian government to agree to
relations with us. If they say,
‘non-military support only’’,
that’s fine. We are hopeful the
Canadian government will re-
spond positively to such a prop-
osal for cooperation.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 24, 1978—Page 9