South Africa 1960 – 1994

a) Political, economic and social factors contributing to the end of apartheid

The policy of total strategy or counter-revolution as it became known did not stop the anti-apartheid groups such as the ANC, PAC and UDF (United Democratic Front) from protesting for political and social equality for all races in South Africa. Poverty for blacks continued in the townships and homelands. Unemployment was on the rise due to sanctions, and education and housing were still of a third world standard.

The state of emergency failed to make South Africa safer for whites. Many whites were suffering loss of liberties under the censorship and rigid laws of the military state. Moreover, the ANC in exile continued to attack ‘soft targets’ in South Africa including shopping centres and post offices. Many whites were becoming disillusioned with apartheid and feeling the rejection of their society and culture by the rest of the world. Many Coloureds and Indians were becoming openly defiant of the white state demanding nothing short of full democracy for South Africa.

The United Democratic Front (UDF)

In 1983 a multi-racial party, the United Democratic Front was formed with the aim of uniting all resistance groups in the fight against apartheid. The UDF was highly successful because its members became a uniting force and it had many high profile members, including church leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The UDF supporters also include ANC members such as Winnie Mandela. By 1985 the UDF gained over two million members and was a powerful force in demanding the immediate end to apartheid.

The gradual reforms of the Botha government, delivered no real change in South Africa, only cosmetic changes. South Africa could not change and embrace the modern world while apartheid existed. Many white South Africans and politicians began to feel that apartheid was like ‘living on the back of a tiger and they needed to find a way off without being eaten’.1

b) International factors contributing to the end of apartheid

By 1988 the cost of running the military state was staggering and the economic performance of South Africa was poor. Sanctions had driven the economy into recession; ‘sanction busting’ was failing to fix the problem. South Africa was unable to obtain foreign loans or foreign investment. 2

The impact of the Free Mandela Campaign, sporting sanctions, severe international criticism, military and technical equipment embargos and isolation by other African nations in the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) was crippling South Africa. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 removed the Communist threat which underpinned the existence of apartheid since the end of the Second World War. Festering social, political and economic grievances in all sectors of the South African population left the preservation of apartheid completely untenable by the start of 1990s.

c) Problems facing the National Party and the ANC in the transition to democracy in South Africa

In 1984 during townships riots, P.W. Botha declared, ‘I’m giving you a final warning; one man, one vote in this country is out-that is never!”.3 In 1989 after a mild stroke and the failure of Total Strategy, he resigned as President of South Africa. Botha was replaced by F.W.de Klerk.

On 2 February 1990, de Klerk opened Parliament, and in his maiden speech as President began dismantling the apartheid state. He rescinded the ban on the ANC, the PAC, the South African Communist Party and thirty other political organizations. He freed political prisoners and suspended the death sentence. On the 11 of November de Klerk released Nelson Mandela from prison4. South Africa would have one man one vote.

The transition to democracy was a challenging task. Some historians have called it a ‘miracle’. Both the National Party and the ANC struggled to keep South Africa from sliding into civil war in the early 1990s. Meetings were held to lay out South Africa’s new Democracy entitled A Convention for Democratic South Africa (CODESSA). It was in the CODESSA meetings, that the National Party and the ANC debated their differing visions of democracy. CODESSA 1 ended when the ANC walked out of negotiations5. Finally CODESSA II was able to pave the way for a new constitution and a national election.

Problems facing the National Party

• The traditional rulers of South Africa wanted to hold to power as long as possible. They wanted ‘one man, one vote’ to eventuate slowly to protect the white minority.
  
  
• Right Wing extremists’ elements including the AWB (Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging) vowed to prevent free elections and assassinate Nelson Mandela. They also wanted to create an Afrikaner homeland.
  
  
• Other white extremists were also letting off bombs and interrupting official democracy meetings such as CODESSA.

Problems facing the ANC

The ANC faced a number of difficulties:

• First in dealing with the National Party and with other anti-apartheid parties, especially Inkatha (a political organisation made up of Zulus from the Natal Province)
  
  
• The ANC wanted one person, one vote multiracial democracy immediately, and many of its members were understandably anxious to embrace democracy for the first time.
  
  
• In Natal/KwaZulu Province Chief Buthelezi of Inkatha refused to have anything to do with constitutional negotiations and savage violence between ANC members and Inkatha broke out. This included the assassination of Chris Hani, a national hero of the ANC and member of the South Africa Communist Party. Only a prompt appeal to the nation by Mandela averted a massive reaction.

• The ANC seemed to be losing control of its political base. Many feared that extremist whites were supplying Inkatha with weapons and instigating the fighting between rival black political groups, to prevent South Africa’s march towards democracy.

South Africa’s first democratic Election 27th April 1994

South Africans of all races turned out determined to vote in their first non-racial election on the 27th of April 1994. People lined up in long queues which stretched for miles to cast their historic ballot. The ANC won the election and Nelson Mandela, after spending almost three decades in jail, became President of a free South Africa, F.W. de Klerk became the Deputy President.

At his inauguration as President on the vast lawn of the Union Building in Pretoria Mandela said:

‘Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another… The sun will never set on so glorious a human achievement. Let freedom reign. God bless Africa’.6

Source: NSW HSC Online http://hsc.csu.edu.au © NSW Department of Education and Communities, and Charles Sturt University, 2011

Kill the boer not part of ANC Heritage

Is the controversial song urging the killing of “Boers” truly part of the ANC’s liberation struggle heritage, or are such claims simply an ingenuous, or perhaps sinister, attempt by the ANC leadership to defend its Youth League leader Julius Malema by distorting the historical truth? Or is the ANC itself trying to rewrite history after it accused the courts of doing so when two successive court rulings found the song to incite racial hatred – findings in line with one already made by the Human Rights Commission (HRC) as long ago as 2003? These are questions that come to the fore from an investigation into the origins of the controversial song, "Dubula iBhunu".

The truth seems to be that words to the same effect first were chanted in Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) circles in the early 1990s along with their infamous slogan of “one settler, one bullet”. Shortly thereafter, the late ANC youth leader Peter Mokaba borrowed the slogan and began chanting his “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” version in 1993 after the murder of ANC and Communist Party leader, Chris Hani.

In none of the sources on the origins of the song which could be identified, could any indication be found that the song has ever been part of the ANC repertoire of songs during the struggle days. Although the controversial song sung by Malema is claimed now to be a historical liberation struggle song, it was not included in a 2-CD history and recording of 25 freedom songs released in 2002. Senior ANC and former Umkhonto we Sizwe leaders, including Ronnie Kasrils, Baleka Mbete and Pallo Jordan among others, had collaborated in the production of the collection.

At the time of its release, the CD set was described as a collection of field recordings of songs and chants used in the liberation struggle, complemented by a radio documentary providing an overview of the songs, their history and context in the struggle. These songs were sung in ANC camps, at meetings, mass rallies, demonstrations and other gatherings. The set, it was said, was designed as an archival and historical document. Nowhere did it mention “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” or “shoot the Boer”.

All indications are that the slogan or chant and the song, or even songs that developed from it, originated with the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). In August 1999, Thomas Ramaila told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that he had been a PAC operative and had been influenced by what he called a PAC slogan, namely “kill the farmer, kill the Boer” to kill a farmer, Neville Rudman. Most of Ramaila’s testimony and his amnesty application were rejected, but his reference to the slogan was not. The slogan/song in any version was used first in circles associated with the PAC in the early 1990s, although the PAC never officially took ownership of it and, after the first democratic elections of 1994, distanced itself from it. At almost the same time, the ANC’s Mokaba began using the slogan in 1993 when the armed struggle for all intents and purposes was a thing of the past.

In that same year, a large crowd of PAC supporters marched through Cape Town’s Kenilworth and Claremont suburbs, demanding the release of PAC members who had been arrested in connection with the massacre of 11 churchgoers at the St. James Church and chanted “kill the Boer, kill the farmer”, “one settler, one bullet” and “one church, one bomb”. Also in 1993, at a rally in Tembisa near Johannesburg, both Mokaba and a PAC representative used these or similar words in speeches to the large crowd. Mokaba reportedly also urged the crowd to direct their “bullets” at then president FW de Klerk, declaring that he hated De Klerk. To which the PAC representative added, “war against the enemy... kill them”.

In March this year, a former participant in an August 1993 march (called “Operation Barcelona”) against increased exam fees in Cape Town, wrote in a comment to an article on the Internet, that he was among PASO (PAC student wing) students in the march who chanted “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” immediately before American student Amy Biehl was killed by members of that mob.

In 2002, then president Thabo Mbeki, as president of the ANC, and in 2003 then ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe - who is now ANC deputy president - firmly and unambiguously distanced the ANC from any such song or slogan, saying it had never been, and would never be, a part of the ANC. No claim was made then that it – in any form - ever had been an ANC liberation struggle song. That is until now, when, in March this year, Malema began singing a generic version of Mokaba’s chant. Suddenly senior ANC leaders, among them secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, are claiming this to be an old ANC liberation struggle song that apparently never was sung to incite violence against white farmers or whites in general, but was aimed against the apartheid regime.

Mcebisi Ndletyana, senior researcher at the Human Science Research Council - in another defence of the song and attack on the judges who ruled against its use in an article in "The Sunday Independent" - claims the song embodies black hatred of “whiteness”, but not of people of European descent... with a very wooly explaination of what the difference is intended to be.

No documentary or other evidence could be found that the chant or related songs were indeed ANC liberation songs before 1993, when the liberation struggle was practically over and constitutional negotiations in full swing. The Mokaba chant of “kill the farmer, kill the Boer” was next heard in June 2002 at an ANC Youth League meeting in Kimberley, and at Mokaba’s funeral in Limpopo. The funeral was attended by prominent ANC leaders, including Nelson Mandela and Mbeki, and the chanting was stopped immediately.

The Freedom Front lodged a complaint of hate speech with the HRC, which subsequently rejected it. However Mbeki, as president of the ANC and the country at the time, on 19 June of that year told Parliament: “Nobody in our country has a right to call for the killing of any South African, whatever the colour, race, ethnic origin, gender or health condition of the intended victim. Those farmers and boers are as much South African and African as I am...”

In June 2003, the HRC, chaired by Professor Karthy Govender, assisted by Professor Henk Botha and Mr Khashane Manamela, heard an appeal by the Freedom Front against the earlier HRC ruling. In their decision, delivered on 15 July, they overturned the earlier HRC ruling and found that the slogan "Kill the farmer, kill the boer" as chanted at the ANC youth rally in Kimberley and at the funeral of Mokaba constituted hate speech as defined in section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution.

What is even more interesting is that part of the record of submissions made to the HRC at the time contains a letter from Motlanthe, then ANC secretary-general, stating that the ‘’utterance has never been, cannot and will never be a slogan of the ANC, not used by the ANC at all.’’ The logical assumption then is that, according to Motlanthe, it was not part of the ANC’s liberation struggle heritage.

Source: Leadership online

Fidentia investment 'reckless'

The labour department has been urged to investigate the investment strategies of all sectoral training authorities after the Transport Education Training Authority (Teta) told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Wednesday that it had made a R250m investment in Fidentia on the advice of its lawyers.

The hearing by the National Assembly Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) saw Teta chief executive officer Piet Bothma being grilled by the committee chairperson Themba Godi, a Pan Africanist Congress Member of Parliament, and African National Congress MPs Pierre-Jean Gerber and Vincent Smith. Godi said the department should investigate the matter as "someone should be responsible for this mess" - referring to the report by the Financial Services Board that the Teta was unlikely to get its investment back from Fidentia - a black empowerment firm that has been placed under curatorship. Smith described the affair as "a seriously deficient investment strategy" on the part of Teta, while Gerber described the investment as "reckless". Gerber - who led the charge by MPs in the public finance watchdog committee - asked how it was that an investment of "a quarter of a billion rand" of public money had been made only on the advice of a company of lawyers - identified as SAB&T legal services.

Bothma replied: "We went through reference checks on the company and its directors and got legal advice on the mandate requested by Fidentia. There were checks and balances built in." Smith said that Setas were supposed to be "cost centres" and not investment or profit making institutions and suggested that it would be "crazy" if all 16 Setas had so much money on average available for investment. "Something is terribly wrong," he said. Gerber asked how the investment in Fidentia came about. "The name of the firm Fidentia didn't fall out of the air like a mosquito?" he charged. Bothma said the authority had been approached by Fidentia in "a marketing exercise". "After we looked at the proposal made... we went through reference checks on the company and its directors and got legal advice on the mandate requested by Fidentia," said Bothma.

Godi noted that what had been chosen was a newly established company and it appeared that the Teta had verified its business with Fidentia either without really looking at the detail or being caught out by the advice sought from the legal company. He posed the question why when doing a risk analysis the question of the company's track record had not been an issue.

Bothma said although there now "appeared to be gaps in that situation" the bottom line was that Teta had procured "an excellent company" - SAB&T - "that was given a mandate to do certain verifications and checks and balances". He noted that SAB&T had gone through a "three-quotation" process for this job. "They also at that stage (nearly four years ago) did work for us verifying contracts that we do for discretionary grants," he said. It emerged in the committee discussion that Fidentia offered Teta 10.5% interest on their 50-day investment against 8% from Standard Bank and Absa's 8.05%. Bothma said that Teta had last year requested a withdrawal of its funds in Fidentia - following the FSB investigation.

Godi said it appeared from the Teta's actions that it swung from "one extreme to the other" - first entrusting "such a large amount of money" in Fidentia and then suddenly after the investigation wanting to withdraw "all your monies". "This does suggest that at no point did you apply your mind," said the committee chairman.

The FSB report last week noted that it was its analysis that some R689m of some R1.5bn invested with Fidentia could not be accounted for.

Source: News 24

South Africa's Ruling Party Struggles Within

Less than six months before South Africa's third presidential election, the ruling African National Congress is embroiled in an internal bloodletting that it seems powerless to stop. Already the volley of charges and countercharges has hurt the reputations of the deputy president and the national prosecutor. With the opening of what appears likely to become a lengthy inquiry into some of the allegations, President Thabo Mbeki may be hurt politically as well. For the last week, the South African public has focused on the juiciest aspect of the affair: the revelation that a white human rights lawyer who seemed to be a comrade in arms in the African National Congress's struggle against apartheid during the 1980's was in fact a spy for the apartheid government.

The lawyer, Vanessa Brereton, went public a week ago on South African television with a tearful confession that she had betrayed black South Africans' struggle for freedom because she was in love with a senior officer in the apartheid government's security police. As intelligence agent RS542, she said, she gave her lover and handler information about three antiapartheid activists, one of whom was later arrested and imprisoned without trial. Now living in England, Ms. Brereton said that she had apologized to those she betrayed and that she did not expect forgiveness.

But Ms. Brereton's role as an apartheid spy is but a sidelight in a poisonous battle for power between Mr. Mbeki's deputy president, Jacob Zuma, and the national prosecutor, Bulelani Ngcuka. Both men are senior members of the African National Congress, which gained more than 65 percent of the vote in the presidential election in 1999.

Mr. Ngcuka said openly in August that he suspected, but could not prove, that Mr. Zuma had benefited illegally from under-the-table dealings in a multibillion-dollar arms contract. Mr. Zuma's supporters struck back in September by accusing Mr. Ngcuka of acting as a spy -- code-named RS542 -- for the apartheid government in the last days of white rule here. That charge led Ms. Brereton to come forward because, she said, she did not want Mr. Ngcuka to suffer for her misdeeds. But Mr. Zuma's supporters have refused to back down, saying they never claimed to know the right code name for Mr. Ngcuka. Nor has the rivalry halted. Mr. Zuma has demanded a new inquiry into Mr. Ngcuka's conduct of the investigation into his role in the arms deal. In response, Mr. Ngcuka said Saturday that evidence against the deputy president would come out at the trial of an associate of Mr. Zuma's who was charged with fraud in the arms deal.

The battle has consumed the party since at least August. Mr. Mbeki's inability so far to resolve it has emboldened his detractors, who say he pays too much attention to his image as a statesman and not enough to problems at home. Mr. Mbeki reacted to the accusations against Mr. Ngcuka in early September by ordering a national commission of inquiry headed by a retired judge, Joos Hefer, to sort out the truth of the matter. That inquiry has bogged down amid reluctance by South Africa's intelligence agencies to fish through their apartheid files. ''So far, the commission is getting nowhere,'' said Shadrack Gutto, director for the Center of African Renaissance Studies at the University of South Africa. Judge Hefer is faced with a near impossible task, he said, and ''would do the nation some honor by throwing in the towel.'' However, others see the affair as evidence that South Africa's government is strong enough to chase down both corruption and possible abuse of prosecutorial power. ''This kind of thing does not happen in many countries, even in the developed world,'' said Thabisi Hoeane, a doctor of political studies at Rhodes University in Grahamstown. ''The allegations will be put out in the public eye, and we will eventually know the truth.''

Mr. Mbeki has rebuffed suggestions that Mr. Zuma should resign, saying no public official should be judged on mere allegations. Still, he has twice used his party's newsletter to lecture about the futility of hunting down the apartheid government's spies, saying South Africans closed that chapter of their history in the interest of unity. While there is little doubt that Mr. Mbeki will win re-election next spring, the affair has also given succor to Mr. Mbeki's critics -- long consigned to the status of permanent also-rans.

The leader of the Pan Africanist Congress has suggested that the nation's intelligence agencies are balking at subpoenas because they are protecting former apartheid spies within the government. The leader of the United Democratic Movement has charged that the A.N.C. labels dissenters as apartheid spies to silence them.

Source: New York Times

Tens of thousands march in South Africa against Iraq war

On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets across South Africa to voice their opposition to the US drive for war against Iraq. Demonstrations were held in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Bloemfontein.

The protests were organised by the South African Antiwar Coalition, comprising more than 50 organisations. Amongst the groups involved in the protests were the African National Congress, the Azanian People’s Organisation, the Pan Africanist Congress, the United Democratic Movement, the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the South African National Civics Organisation, the South African Council of Churches, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Muslim Judicial Council. Not in My Name, an organisation of South African Jews opposed to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, also participated in the demonstrations.

Source: World Wide Web

Heath's future is still uncertain

Judge Willem Heath is consulting his family and friends about his future after President Thabo Mbeki turned down a request by the controversial corruption-buster to resign from the judiciary.

On the advice of Justice Minister Penuell Maduna, Mbeki sent a letter to Judge Heath refusing his request to be discharged from active service as a judge. Judge Heath, who has been on long leave, is due to return at the end of this month but had hoped to leave the bench to become a private sector anti-corruption consultant.

The decision by Mbeki was made just weeks ahead of a planned request by Pan Africanist Congress MP Patricia de Lille for a judicial review of Mbeki's decision to exclude the special investigating unit, formerly headed by Judge Heath, from the arms deal investigation.

Acting on a Constitutional Court ruling, the national assembly has approved legislation barring a special investigating unit being headed by a judge.

This means that even should Mbeki's decision to exclude the unit be overturned, Judge Heath could not be involved in the arms deal probe because he would continue to be a judge.

Source: Cape Times

Arms corruption scandal erupts in South Africa

A series of major corruption scandals have rocked the South African government in the past few months. High-ranking members of the ANC government are accused of taking "kick-backs" and of funnelling lucrative contracts to companies in which they or their families have a personal interest.

The allegations centre on a massive arms deal, announced in 1998, to re-equip the South African military forces. The first phase of the deal involved the purchase of patrol corvettes, light helicopters, submarines, Hawk jet trainers and light fighter aircraft, from manufacturers in France, Britain, Italy, Germany and Sweden. Within one year, the cost of the deal had skyrocketed from R29.9bn to R43bn (US5.5bn)— an increase of more than 42 percent.

The corruption allegations were first raised by PAC MP Patricia de Lille, using documents provided anonymously by ANC MPs. These alleged that bribes were paid to senior ANC members and contracts were awarded to their relatives.

Mbeki and the government, however, are completely opposed to any scrutiny of the arms deal. Behind the scenes, ANC officials made desperate attempts to stymie any investigation.

Source: World Socialist Web

Mbeki's mistakes - a UK view

The prospect of President Thabo Mbeki's acceptance of Justice Minister Penuell Maduna's advice to exclude Judge Willem Heath from a probe into an alleged arms deal scam, is being seen here in the same light as the South African government's "three other major blunders".

The newspaper The Guardian elaborates on "anger" experienced in South Africa over the government's disregard of a parliamentary committee for public accounts' insistence that Heath be included in the probe into a suspect government arms contract of R43 million with Britain and other foreign arms companies.

The newspaper finds the South African government guilty of other "serious political errors of judgement". The three black marks against Mbeki's name are for his blundering over HIV/Aids, the government's laxity regarding Zimbabwe, and the rumpus over Lesotho.

"Despite accusations raised by its opponents, there is no evidence of corruption by the South African government in the arms deal. However, it is guilty of other serious political errors of judgement."

The newspaper argues that even though Mbeki retracted on his denial of a connection between HIV and Aids, his prestige took a sharp knock in South Africa, the country with most HIV-infected people world-wide.

In addition, the government's lame stance over Robert Mugabe had been as ineffective as the furore created in Britain over the issue.

"Mbeki, however, has more to lose. Should Zimbabwe be crippled economically, an influx of its citizens could paralyse South Africa," the newspaper said.

The government's intervention in Lesotho in 1998 had also been a "military and political blunder". The nation had been outraged when a well-equipped, but poorly prepared South African force got bogged down against an ill-equipped opponent, leaving Maseru practically destroyed.

The article, reporting over Mbeki's acceptance of Justice Minister Penuell Maduna's recommendation that Heath be excluded from the three investigating teams into the arms deal, says that in South Africa the government is being accused of overriding democracy.

Extensive coverage is given to the fact that a request from the committee for public accounts was disregarded, and also to criticism from the PAC, the IFP and even from the Archbishop of Cape Town, the Reverend Njongonkulu Ndungane.

Source: News 24.com

DE KOCK TRIAL TO CONCLUDE ON WEDNESDAY

The 19-month trial of former Vlakplaas security police base commander Colonel Eugene de Kock will draw to a conclusion on Wednesday when sentence will finally be passed. De Kock has been convicted on 89 charges, including six of murder, two of conspiracy to commit murder and several of fraud and the illegal possession of arms and ammunition

The murder charges relate to the deaths of five would-be robbers in an ambush outside Nelspruit in 1992 and the murder of askari Goodwill Sikhakhane, who was killed near Greytown in 1991 on de Kock's orders to prevent him from revealing police involvement in the disappearance of ANC members who were part of Operation Vula.

De Kock was also convicted of conspiring to murder Vlakplaas colleague Brian Ngqulunga and Krugersdorp security guard Japie Maponya, as well as attempting to murder self-confessed police hitsquad leader Dirk Coetzee and the culpable homicide of ANC attorney Bheki Mhlangeni, who was killed by a parcel bomb meant for Coetzee.

De Kock, who has said he will ask the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for amnesty after the conclusion of his trial, in mitigating evidence named several high-ranking politicians and policemen as the men who gave him orders to kill. He also said police spy Craig Williamson was involved in the assassination of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme, and that former president P W Botha knew about the bombing of Cosatu House as well as 1985 cross-border raids into Lesotho and Botswana.

The State asked Mr Justice Willie van der Merwe to send de Kock to jail for longer than 100 years, saying he had no remorse and that even if he suffered from post traumatic stress, it played no role whatsoever in his crimes. The State also argued that politics had nothing to do with the trial, which it said was all about common criminal deeds.

De Kock's defence attempted to place his actions against a background of an all-out fight against what he believed were his enemies, namely the SACP, ANC and PAC. It was argued that the impression could easily be created that de Kock was being used as an example, and that the State was making a scapegoat of him while other former security policemen, "who were just as guilty as him", were going free, and were even being given high posts with huge salaries within the police service.

Source: SAPA

Guerrilla Group Vows More Attacks on South Africa Whites

A small black guerrilla faction warned today that its attack on a golf club on Saturday night marked the beginning of a new campaign against white civilian targets, evidently aimed at disrupting a compromise on South Africa's political future. But the Government and the leading black organization, Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, fiercely condemned the attack in King William's Town, which left two couples dead and 17 people wounded at a wine tasting where much of the town's white gentry had gathered.

The Government and the congress planned to meet on Wednesday for a new round of talks to fix a target date for elections. But some South Africans fear that a sustained campaign of terrorism against whites, if it materializes, could weaken the Government's ability to surrender power. "There will be more attacks of this nature with more frequency, especially in white areas," Johnny Majozi, information officer of the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army, told the South African Press Association from Harare, Zimbabwe. "We would like to remind white South Africans that there is a war going on inside the country and they should not be surprised."

The attack, believed to be the worst political violence against white civilians since President F. W. de Klerk took office in 1989, has horrified and alarmed whites. It was the kind of indiscriminate violence that has become commonplace in black communities, but has left whites untouched. The Conservative Party, which opposes Mr. de Klerk's dealings with the black majority, called for a police crackdown and said the attack was the work of "terrorists permitted to operate freely in South Africa by a Government that has lost the will to govern." So far, the theme has not been picked up by more mainstream whites. "My guess is that this poses no short-term threat to the transition," said John Kane-Berman, director of the South African Institute of Race Relations. "But if attacks like this continue and the Government is unable to stop them, it helps to erode the Government's support base and its room for maneuver."

The Azanian Peoples Liberation Army is the guerrilla wing of the Pan Africanist Congress, which broke away from the African National Congress in 1959 to pursue a more militant ideology rooted in black consciousness. In contrast to the African National Congress, the Pan Africanist Congress has insisted on keeping an active military wing. Until recently, it refused to negotiate with the white Government. In the 1970's and 1980's the guerrilla wing of the African National Congress waged a sporadic underground war, briefly including attacks on sporting events and shopping malls. The congress suspended its guerrilla war after Mr. de Klerk legalized it in 1990. Although small in numbers, the Pan Africanist Congress has attracted considerable support among disaffected young people in the black townships with its militant stance. Recently leaders of the militant group have met with Government officials and said they were willing to join the multiparty negotiations on a new political order. It was not clear why the organization's armed wing would simultaneously try to undermine the talks, but it has a history of bitter internal divisions.

Benny Alexander, the secretary-general of the Pan Africanist Congress, issued a statement after the King William's Town killings, declining to comment on the origins of the assault but protesting the "international hullabaloo around the attack purely because white people have died."

Source: New York Times

SOUTH AFRICA'S NEW ERA; SOUTH AFRICA'S PRESIDENT ENDS 30-YEAR BAN ON MANDELA GROUP; SAYS IT IS TIME FOR NEGOTIATION

President F. W. de Klerk today lifted a 30-year ban on the African National Congress, the movement that has been fighting to bring down white minority rule in South Africa, and promised that Nelson Mandela, who has been imprisoned for nearly 28 years, would be freed soon. The moves were disclosed in a package of sweeping changes that Mr. de Klerk announced in a speech at the opening of Parliament today. Mr. de Klerk's program, which went beyond what virtually all his critics expected, appeared intended to clear the way for negotiating the country's future with his strongest black opponents, and also to put the onus for the next move on the opposition.

The African National Congress followed a policy of nonviolent resistance to white rule for decades before it was declared illegal in 1960. Thereafter, it organized a military force in exile and waged a campaign of bombings with underground operatives inside South Africa. Although the group was banned, its influence continued to grow in recent years, to the point that not only black leaders from inside South Africa but white business executives and politicians began flying regularly to Lusaka, Zambia, to meet with its exiled leaders. By legitimizing the movement's role in South African political life, President de Klerk appeared to be seeking an end to the era of violent confrontation. But he left uncertain the distance he was prepared to travel toward the movement's goals of ending white dominance and dismantling the legal structure of apartheid.''Hostile postures have to be replaced by cooperative ones, confrontation by contact, disengagement by engagement, slogans by deliberate debate,'' Mr. de Klerk told Parliament in calling for the Government's opponents to join the negotiations he has proposed. ''The season of violence is over,'' the President said. ''The time for reconstruction and reconciliation has arrived.''

Thousands of people took to the streets of major cities to cheer the announcement and call for more change. The demonstration here concluded peacefully, but in Johannesburg, police officers acting under regulations that remain in force broke up a march into the city center with tear gas and night sticks. Prominent critics of apartheid praised Mr. de Klerk's move, although they stressed the need for more concessions by the Government. But Mr. de Klerk's announcement was criticized by the country's most prominent right-wing white leader, who called for new elections.

Mr. de Klerk promised that Mr. Mandela, the imprisoned leader of the African National Congress who is a hero to much of the country's black majority, would be freed soon but declined to say when. His release has been seen by Pretoria's opponents at home and abroad as a major test of Mr. de Klerk's intentions to move away from apartheid, the system of racial segregation and white domination. ''I wish to put it plainly that the Government has taken a firm decision to release Mr. Mandela unconditionally,'' Mr. de Klerk said. ''I am serious about bringing this matter to finality without delay. The Government will take a decision soon on the date of his release. Unfortunately, a further short passage of time is unavoidable.'' Mr. de Klerk attributed the postponement of Mr. Mandela's freedom to ''factors in the way of his immediate release, of which his personal circumstances and safety are not the least.'' The President, as well as other Government ministers, refused to explain further. But Stoffel van der Merwe, Minister of Development Aid and Education, which encompasses the education of blacks, briefed reporters on Mr. de Klerk's speech today and told them that ''I don't think we will see Christmas with Mr. Mandela in jail.'' Others informed about the Government's thinking expect Mr. Mandela's release to come within weeks, if not days.

The 71-year-old anti-apartheid leader, who is living on a prison farm outside Cape Town, has been quoted by recent visitors as demanding that the Government improve the political climate before he leaves prison. The conditions mentioned included the legalization of the African National Congress, the release of political detainees, the lifting of the national state of emergency decree and an end to political trials and executions.

Mr. de Klerk appeared to cover most of those demands as he repeated his willingness to discuss a new constitution that would give political rights to the black majority without forcing the white minority to relinquish power. ''With the steps the Government has taken, it has proven its good faith and the table is laid for sensible leaders to begin talking about a new dispensation, to reach an understanding by way of dialogue and discussion,'' Mr. de Klerk said. The other changes announced by Mr. de Klerk included these:

* Emergency regulations curtailing the freedom of press will be repealed, except for unspecified conditions limiting photographic and television coverage of racial unrest.

* Restrictions on 33 organizations whose activities were curtailed under the national state of emergency decree will be lifted.

* Restrictions on the movements and contacts of 374 people released from detention are to be lifted and the regulations hampering their freedom are to be abolished.

* Political detentions will be limited to six months, and detainees will have the right to legal representation and a doctor of their choice.

Opponents of apartheid have estimated that 30,000 people have been detained since the national state of emergency decree was imposed in June 1986, and many of those were held indefinitely without access to a lawyer or doctor. In addition to the African National Congress, the most prominent groups whose activities will no longer be restricted are the South African Communist Party, a longtime ally of Mr. Mandela's group, and a rival, the Pan-Africanist Congress, which places greater stress on the role of black leadership in the anti-apartheid struggle.

The list also includes the United Democratic Front, a coalition of anti-apartheid parties, the South African National Students Congress, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, a labor federation active in the struggle against apartheid, the National Education Crisis Committee, and the White Freedom Movement, a right-wing paramilitary group promoting white racial supremacy, which was banned in December 1989.

Mr. de Klerk acknowledged that the national state of emergency regulations remained in force, but said they would now inhibit only those who used chaos and disorder as political weapons. ''It is my intention to terminate the state of emergency as soon as circumstances justify it and I request the cooperation of everybody toward this end,'' the President said. The changes announced today, while probably the most dramatic announced by any South African President in a single speech, leave in place the basic structures of apartheid, including the Population Registration Act, which classifies every South African by race, and the Group Areas Act, which enforces the segregation of neighborhoods. Blacks also remain largely excluded from the political process.

The country is governed by a three-chamber Parliament, representing whites, Asians and people of mixed race, and a President elected by the legislators. Blacks, who represent about 75 percent of the total population of 38.5 million, have no representation. But Mr. de Klerk said the Separate Amenities Act, which has allowed municipal officials to bar blacks from publicly owned centers, installations and facilities, would be repealed by Parliament in its current session, as he had promised late last year. Mr. de Klerk further announced that the Government would confine the use of the death penalty to what he called ''extreme cases,'' in part by allowing judges greater discretion in imposing it. ''The net of extenuating circumstances will be substantally increased,'' Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha, a confidant of Mr. de Klerk, told reporters. Under current South African law, a judge is required to sentence a defendent to hang if the defendant is convicted of a capital crime.

Critics of apartheid have viewed the death penalty as an instrument of repression, because blacks account for most condemned prisoners and because capital punishment has been applied in politically motivated crimes. Mr. de Klerk said those sentenced to death would automatically be granted the right to appeal their sentences, which is now at the judge's discretion. Those changes, he said, would be extended to those currently on death row. ''Therefore, all executions have been suspended and no executions will take place until Parliament has taken a final decision on the new proposals.'' he said. ''In the event of the proposals being adopted, the case of every person involved will be dealt with in accordance with the new guidelines.''

Taken altogether, the changes announced by Mr. de Klerk amount to a significant reconsideration of the Government's policy toward dissent, because they appear to address most of the complaints by the anti-apartheid movement about Government repression. Prominent members of the anti-apartheid movement reacted with optimism tempered by caution. They attributed the changes to the domestic and international pressure applied against Pretoria, not to Mr. de Klerk's boldness.

At a news conference called here by the United Democratic Front, its publicity secretary, Patrick Lekota, said Mr. de Klerk's speech showed that international sanctions against South Africa worked and that the measures should be maintained and intensified. ''To lift sanctions now will be to run the risk of aborting the process toward democracy,'' Mr. Lekota said. But Dr. Andries P. Treurnicht, leader of the right-wing Conservative Party in Parliament, called Mr. de Klerk's speech shocking. He demanded that Mr. de Klerk, whose National Party was returned to power last September, hold a new election to see how much support whites would give him now.

The regulations enacting most of the changes, which take effect immediately, are to be published in the Government Gazette beginning tomorrow. Mr. van der Merwe said the Government had not set any conditions on the legalization of the African National Congress, which has been outlawed since 1960, or on its resumption of political activity. He also said members of the organization living in exile could return home without fear of punishment, as long as they had not been charged with criminal offenses. And he said members held in South African jails for illegal political activity, though not crimes, would be released.

Source: New York Times