I am ready to die
I am the First Accused.
I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Arts
and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in
partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted prisoner serving five years for
leaving the country without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike at
the end of May 1961.
At the outset, I want to say that
the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South
Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect.
I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people,
because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African
background, and not because of what any outsider might have said.
In my youth in the Transkei I listened
to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales
they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the
fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and
Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire
African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve
my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This
is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges
made against me in this case.
Having said this, I must deal
immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the
things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not,
however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of
recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result
of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after
many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
I admit immediately that I was one
of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a
prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962.
In the statement which I am about to
make I shall correct certain false impressions which have been created by State
witnesses. Amongst other things, I will demonstrate that certain of the acts
referred to in the evidence were not and could not have been committed by
Umkhonto. I will also deal with the relationship between the African National
Congress and Umkhonto, and with the part which I personally have played in the
affairs of both organizations. I shall deal also with the part played by the
Communist Party. In order to explain these matters properly, I will have to
explain what Umkhonto set out to achieve; what methods it prescribed for the
achievement of these objects, and why these methods were chosen. I will also
have to explain how I became involved in the activities of these organizations.
I deny that Umkhonto was responsible
for a number of acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the organization,
and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I do not know what
justification there was for these acts, but to demonstrate that they could not
have been authorized by Umkhonto, I want to refer briefly to the roots and
policy of the organization.
I have already mentioned that I was
one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started
the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result
of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and
that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the
feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would
produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of
this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without
violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their
struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of
expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we
were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of
inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first
broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form
was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to
crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence
with violence.
But the violence which we chose to
adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African
National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and
negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South
Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it
black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to
the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the
whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will
subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt.
I want, therefore, to say something about the African National Congress.
The African National Congress was
formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people which had been
seriously curtailed by the South Africa Act, and which were then being
threatened by the Native Land Act. For thirty-seven years - that is until 1949
- it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. It put forward demands and
resolutions; it sent delegations to the Government in the belief that African
grievances could be settled through peaceful discussion and that Africans could
advance gradually to full political rights. But White Governments remained
unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. In
the words of my leader, Chief Lutuli, who became President of the ANC in 1952,
and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
"Who will deny that thirty
years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and
modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation?
The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our
rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost
no rights at all."
Even after 1949, the ANC remained
determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, there was a change from
the strictly constitutional means of protest which had been employed in the
past. The change was embodied in a decision which was taken to protest against
apartheid legislation by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations against certain
laws. Pursuant to this policy the ANC launched the Defiance Campaign, in which
I was placed in charge of volunteers. This campaign was based on the principles
of passive resistance. More than 8,500 people defied apartheid laws and went to
jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence in the course of this
campaign on the part of any defier. I and nineteen colleagues were convicted
for the role which we played in organizing the campaign, but our sentences were
suspended mainly because the Judge found that discipline and non-violence had
been stressed throughout. This was the time when the volunteer section of the
ANC was established, and when the word 'Amadelakufa' was first used: this was
the time when the volunteers were asked to take a pledge to uphold certain
principles. Evidence dealing with volunteers and their pledges has been
introduced into this case, but completely out of context. The volunteers were
not, and are not, the soldiers of a black army pledged to fight a civil war
against the whites. They were, and are, dedicated workers who are prepared to
lead campaigns initiated by the ANC to distribute leaflets, to organize
strikes, or do whatever the particular campaign required. They are called
volunteers because they volunteer to face the penalties of imprisonment and
whipping which are now prescribed by the legislature for such acts.
During the Defiance Campaign, the
Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These
Statutes provided harsher penalties for offences committed by way of protests
against laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its
policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance,
including myself, were arrested on a charge of high treason and charges under
the Suppression of Communism Act. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in
issue by the State, but when the Court gave judgement some five years later, it
found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence. We were acquitted on all
counts, which included a count that the ANC sought to set up a communist state
in place of the existing regime. The Government has always sought to label all
its opponents as communists. This allegation has been repeated in the present
case, but as I will show, the ANC is not, and never has been, a communist
organization.
In 1960 there was the shooting at
Sharpeville, which resulted in the proclamation of a state of emergency and the
declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organization. My colleagues and I, after
careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African
people were not part of the Government and did not make the laws by which they
were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, that 'the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the
Government,' and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the
silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but
instead went underground. We believed it was our duty to preserve this
organization which had been built up with almost fifty years of unremitting
toil. I have no doubt that no self-respecting White political organization
would disband itself if declared illegal by a government in which it had no
say.
In 1960 the Government held a
referendum which led to the establishment of the Republic. Africans, who
constituted approximately 70 per cent of the population of South Africa, were
not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted about the proposed
constitutional change. All of us were apprehensive of our future under the
proposed White Republic, and a resolution was taken to hold an All-In African
Conference to call for a National Convention, and to organize mass
demonstrations on the eve of the unwanted Republic, if the Government failed to
call the Convention. The conference was attended by Africans of various
political persuasions. I was the Secretary of the conference and undertook to
be responsible for organizing the national stay-at-home which was subsequently
called to coincide with the declaration of the Republic. As all strikes by
Africans are illegal, the person organizing such a strike must avoid arrest. I
was chosen to be this person, and consequently I had to leave my home and
family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest.
The stay-at-home, in accordance with
ANC policy, was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given
to organizers and members to avoid any recourse to violence. The Government's
answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilize its armed forces, and
to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive
show of force designed to intimidate the people. This was an indication that
the Government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a
milestone on the road to Umkhonto.
Some of this may appear irrelevant
to this trial. In fact, I believe none of it is irrelevant because it will, I
hope, enable the Court to appreciate the attitude eventually adopted by the
various persons and bodies concerned in the National Liberation Movement. When
I went to jail in 1962, the dominant idea was that loss of life should be
avoided. I now know that this was still so in 1963.
I must return to June 1961. What
were we, the leaders of our people, to do? Were we to give in to the show of
force and the implied threat against future action, or were we to fight it and,
if so, how?
We had no doubt that we had to
continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem
was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight. We of the ANC had
always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which
might drive the races further apart than they already were. But the hard facts
were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing
but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. It may
not be easy for this Court to understand, but it is a fact that for a long time
the people had been talking of violence - of the day when they would fight the
White man and win back their country - and we, the leaders of the ANC, had
nevertheless always prevailed upon them to avoid violence and to pursue
peaceful methods. When some of us discussed this in May and June of 1961, it
could not be denied that our policy to achieve a non-racial State by
non-violence had achieved nothing, and that our followers were beginning to
lose confidence in this policy and were developing disturbing ideas of
terrorism.
It must not be forgotten that by
this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African
political scene. There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were
ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of
cattle culling in Sekhukhuniland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of
Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the
Government attempted to impose Bantu Authorities in Pondoland. Thirty-nine
Africans died in these disturbances. In 1961 there had been riots in Warmbaths,
and all this time the Transkei had been a seething mass of unrest. Each
disturbance pointed clearly to the inevitable growth among Africans of the
belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a Government which
uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose
it. Already small groups had arisen in the urban areas and were spontaneously
making plans for violent forms of political struggle. There now arose a danger
that these groups would adopt terrorism against Africans, as well as Whites, if
not properly directed. Particularly disturbing was the type of violence
engendered in places such as Zeerust, Sekhukhuniland, and Pondoland amongst
Africans. It was increasingly taking the form, not of struggle against the
Government - though this is what prompted it - but of civil strife amongst
themselves, conducted in such a way that it could not hope to achieve anything
other than a loss of life and bitterness.
At the beginning of June 1961, after
a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some
colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was
inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue
preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the Government met our peaceful
demands with force.
This conclusion was not easily
arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful
protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent
forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not
because we desired such a course, but solely because the Government had left us
with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December
1961, which is Exhibit AD, we said:
"The time comes in the life of
any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight. That time has
now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit
back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our
freedom."
This was our feeling in June of 1961
when we decided to press for a change in the policy of the National Liberation
Movement. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did.
We who had taken this decision
started to consult leaders of various organizations, including the ANC. I will
not say whom we spoke to, or what they said, but I wish to deal with the role
of the African National Congress in this phase of the struggle, and with the
policy and objectives of Umkhonto we Sizwe.
As far as the ANC was concerned, it
formed a clear view which can be summarized as follows:
·
It was a
mass political organization with a political function to fulfil. Its members
had joined on the express policy of non-violence.
·
Because of
all this, it could not and would not undertake violence. This must be stressed.
One cannot turn such a body into the small, closely knit organization required
for sabotage. Nor would this be politically correct, because it would result in
members ceasing to carry out this essential activity: political propaganda and
organization. Nor was it permissible to change the whole nature of the
organization.
·
On the
other hand, in view of this situation I have described, the ANC was prepared to
depart from its fifty-year-old policy of non-violence to this extent that it
would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence. Hence members who
undertook such activity would not be subject to disciplinary action by the ANC.
I say 'properly controlled violence'
because I made it clear that if I formed the organization I would at all times
subject it to the political guidance of the ANC and would not undertake any
different form of activity from that contemplated without the consent of the
ANC. And I shall now tell the Court how that form of violence came to be
determined.
As a result of this decision,
Umkhonto was formed in November 1961. When we took this decision, and
subsequently formulated our plans, the ANC heritage of non-violence and racial
harmony was very much with us. We felt that the country was drifting towards a
civil war in which Blacks and Whites would fight each other. We viewed the
situation with alarm. Civil war could mean the destruction of what the ANC
stood for; with civil war, racial peace would be more difficult than ever to
achieve. We already have examples in South African history of the results of
war. It has taken more than fifty years for the scars of the South African War
to disappear. How much longer would it take to eradicate the scars of
inter-racial civil war, which could not be fought without a great loss of life
on both sides?
The avoidance of civil war had
dominated our thinking for many years, but when we decided to adopt violence as
part of our policy, we realized that we might one day have to face the prospect
of such a war. This had to be taken into account in formulating our plans. We
required a plan which was flexible and which permitted us to act in accordance
with the needs of the times; above all, the plan had to be one which recognized
civil war as the last resort, and left the decision on this question to the
future. We did not want to be committed to civil war, but we wanted to be ready
if it became inevitable.
Four forms of violence were
possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism,
and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust
it before taking any other decision.
In the light of our political
background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life,
and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be
kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could
become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in
our Manifesto (Exhibit AD):
"We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have
always sought to achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash. We hope,
even at this late hour, that our first actions will awaken everyone to a
realization of the disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is
leading. We hope that we will bring the Government and its supporters to their
senses before it is too late, so that both the Government and its policies can
be changed before matters reach the desperate state of civil war."
The initial plan was based on a
careful analysis of the political and economic situation of our country. We
believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital and
foreign trade. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and
interference with rail and telephone communications, would tend to scare away
capital from the country, make it more difficult for goods from the industrial
areas to reach the seaports on schedule, and would in the long run be a heavy
drain on the economic life of the country, thus compelling the voters of the
country to reconsider their position.
Attacks on the economic life-lines
of the country were to be linked with sabotage on Government buildings and
other symbols of apartheid. These attacks would serve as a source of
inspiration to our people. In addition, they would provide an outlet for those
people who were urging the adoption of violent methods and would enable us to
give concrete proof to our followers that we had adopted a stronger line and
were fighting back against Government violence.
In addition, if mass action were
successfully organized, and mass reprisals taken, we felt that sympathy for our
cause would be roused in other countries, and that greater pressure would be
brought to bear on the South African Government.
This then was the plan. Umkhonto was
to perform sabotage, and strict instructions were given to its members right
from the start, that on no account were they to injure or kill people in
planning or carrying out operations. These instructions have been referred to
in the evidence of 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z.'
The affairs of the Umkhonto were
controlled and directed by a National High Command, which had powers of
co-option and which could, and did, appoint Regional Commands. The High Command
was the body which determined tactics and targets and was in charge of training
and finance. Under the High Command there were Regional Commands which were
responsible for the direction of the local sabotage groups. Within the
framework of the policy laid down by the National High Command, the Regional Commands
had authority to select the targets to be attacked. They had no authority to go
beyond the prescribed framework and thus had no authority to embark upon acts
which endangered life, or which did not fit into the overall plan of sabotage.
For instance, Umkhonto members were forbidden ever to go armed into operation.
Incidentally, the terms High Command and Regional Command were an importation
from the Jewish national underground organization Irgun Zvai Leumi, which
operated in Israel between 1944 and 1948.
Umkhonto had its first operation on
16 December 1961, when Government buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and
Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which
I have referred. Had we intended to attack life we would have selected targets
where people congregated and not empty buildings and power stations. The
sabotage which was committed before 16 December 1961 was the work of isolated
groups and had no connection whatever with Umkhonto. In fact, some of these and
a number of later acts were claimed by other organizations.
The Manifesto of Umkhonto was issued
on the day that operations commenced. The response to our actions and Manifesto
among the white population was characteristically violent. The Government threatened
to take strong action, and called upon its supporters to stand firm and to
ignore the demands of the Africans. The Whites failed to respond by suggesting
change; they responded to our call by suggesting the laager.
In contrast, the response of the Africans
was one of encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. Things were happening.
People in the townships became eager for political news. A great deal of
enthusiasm was generated by the initial successes, and people began to
speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained.
But we in Umkhonto weighed up the
white response with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites and blacks
were moving into separate camps, and the prospects of avoiding a civil war were
made less. The white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would be punished
by death. If this was so, how could we continue to keep Africans away from
terrorism?
Already scores of Africans had died
as a result of racial friction. In 1920 when the famous leader, Masabala, was
held in Port Elizabeth jail, twenty-four of a group of Africans who had
gathered to demand his release were killed by the police and white civilians.
In 1921 more than one hundred Africans died in the Bulhoek affair. In 1924 over
two hundred Africans were killed when the Administrator of South-West Africa
led a force against a group which had rebelled against the imposition of dog
tax. On 1 May 1950, eighteen Africans died as a result of police shootings
during the strike. On 21 March 1960, sixty-nine unarmed Africans died at
Sharpeville.
How many more Sharpevilles would
there be in the history of our country? And how many more Sharpevilles could
the country stand without violence and terror becoming the order of the day?
And what would happen to our people when that stage was reached? In the long
run we felt certain we must succeed, but at what cost to ourselves and the rest
of the country? And if this happened, how could black and white ever live
together again in peace and harmony? These were the problems that faced us, and
these were our decisions.
Experience convinced us that
rebellion would offer the Government limitless opportunities for the
indiscriminate slaughter of our people. But it was precisely because the soil
of South Africa is already drenched with the blood of innocent Africans that we
felt it our duty to make preparations as a long-term undertaking to use force
in order to defend ourselves against force. If war were inevitable, we wanted
the fight to be conducted on terms most favorable to our people. The fight
which held out prospects best for us and the least risk of life to both sides
was guerrilla warfare. We decided, therefore, in our preparations for the
future, to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare.
All whites undergo compulsory military
training, but no such training was given to Africans. It was in our view
essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who would be able to provide the
leadership which would be required if guerrilla warfare started. We had to
prepare for such a situation before it became too late to make proper
preparations. It was also necessary to build up a nucleus of men trained in
civil administration and other professions, so that Africans would be equipped
to participate in the government of this country as soon as they were allowed
to do so.
At this stage it was decided that I
should attend the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement for Central,
East, and Southern Africa, which was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa,
and, because of our need for preparation, it was also decided that, after the
conference, I would undertake a tour of the African States with a view to
obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers, and that I would also
solicit scholarships for the higher education of matriculated Africans.
Training in both fields would be necessary, even if changes came about by
peaceful means. Administrators would be necessary who would be willing and able
to administer a non-racial State and so would men be necessary to control the
army and police force of such a State.
It was on this note that I left
South Africa to proceed to Addis Ababa as a delegate of the ANC. My tour was a
success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause and promises of help. All
Africa was united against the stand of White South Africa, and even in London I
was received with great sympathy by political leaders, such as Mr. Gaitskell
and Mr. Grimond. In Africa I was promised support by such men as Julius
Nyerere, now President of Tanganyika; Mr. Kawawa, then Prime Minister of
Tanganyika; Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia; General Abboud, President of
the Sudan; Habib Bourguiba, President of Tunisia; Ben Bella, now President of
Algeria; Modibo Keita, President of Mali; Leopold Senghor, President of
Senegal; Sekou Toure, President of Guinea; President Tubman of Liberia; and
Milton Obote, Prime Minister of Uganda. It was Ben Bella who invited me to
visit Oujda, the Headquarters of the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the
visit which is described in my diary, one of the Exhibits.
I started to make a study of the art
of war and revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in military
training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand
and fight with my people and to share the hazards of war with them. Notes of
lectures which I received in Algeria are contained in Exhibit 16, produced in
evidence. Summaries of books on guerrilla warfare and military strategy have
also been produced. I have already admitted that these documents are in my writing,
and I acknowledge that I made these studies to equip myself for the role which
I might have to play if the struggle drifted into guerrilla warfare. I
approached this question as every African Nationalist should do. I was
completely objective. The Court will see that I attempted to examine all types
of authority on the subject - from the East and from the West, going back to
the classic work of Clausewitz, and covering such a variety as Mao Tse Tung and
Che Guevara on the one hand, and the writings on the Anglo-Boer War on the
other. Of course, these notes are merely summaries of the books I read and do
not contain my personal views.
I also made arrangements for our
recruits to undergo military training. But here it was impossible to organize
any scheme without the co-operation of the ANC offices in Africa. I
consequently obtained the permission of the ANC in South Africa to do this. To
this extent then there was a departure from the original decision of the ANC,
but it applied outside South Africa only. The first batch of recruits actually
arrived in Tanganyika when I was passing through that country on my way back to
South Africa.
I returned to South Africa and
reported to my colleagues on the results of my trip. On my return I found that
there had been little alteration in the political scene save that the threat of
a death penalty for sabotage had now become a fact. The attitude of my
colleagues in Umkhonto was much the same as it had been before I left. They
were feeling their way cautiously and felt that it would be a long time before
the possibilities of sabotage were exhausted. In fact, the view was expressed
by some that the training of recruits was premature. This is recorded by me in
the document which is Exhibit R.14. After a full discussion, however, it was
decided to go ahead with the plans for military training because of the fact
that it would take many years to build up a sufficient nucleus of trained
soldiers to start a guerrilla campaign, and whatever happened, the training
would be of value.
I wish to turn now to certain
general allegations made in this case by the State. But before doing so, I wish
to revert to certain occurrences said by witnesses to have happened in Port
Elizabeth and East London. I am referring to the bombing of private houses of
pro-Government persons during September, October and November 1962. I do not
know what justification there was for these acts, nor what provocation had been
given. But if what I have said already is accepted, then it is clear that these
acts had nothing to do with the carrying out of the policy of Umkhonto.
One of the chief allegations in the
indictment is that the ANC was a party to a general conspiracy to commit
sabotage. I have already explained why this is incorrect but how, externally,
there was a departure from the original principle laid down by the ANC. There
has, of course, been overlapping of functions internally as well, because there
is a difference between a resolution adopted in the atmosphere of a committee
room and the concrete difficulties that arise in the field of practical
activity. At a later stage the position was further affected by bannings and
house arrests, and by persons leaving the country to take up political work
abroad. This led to individuals having to do work in different capacities. But
though this may have blurred the distinction between Umkhonto and the ANC, it
by no means abolished that distinction. Great care was taken to keep the
activities of the two organizations in South Africa distinct. The ANC remained
a mass political body of Africans only carrying on the type of political work
they had conducted prior to 1961. Umkhonto remained a small organization
recruiting its members from different races and organizations and trying to
achieve its own particular object. The fact that members of Umkhonto were
recruited from the ANC, and the fact that persons served both organizations,
like Solomon Mbanjwa, did not, in our view, change the nature of the ANC or
give it a policy of violence. This overlapping of officers, however, was more
the exception than the rule. This is why persons such as 'Mr. X' and 'Mr. Z,'
who were on the Regional Command of their respective areas, did not participate
in any of the ANC committees or activities, and why people such as Mr. Bennett Mashiyana
and Mr. Reginald Ndubi did not hear of sabotage at their ANC meetings.
Another of the allegations in the
indictment is that Rivonia was the headquarters of Umkhonto. This is not true
of the time when I was there. I was told, of course, and knew that certain of
the activities of the Communist Party were carried on there. But this is no
reason (as I shall presently explain) why I should not use the place.
I came there in the following
manner:
·
As already
indicated, early in April 1961 I went underground to organize the May general
strike. My work entailed travelling throughout the country, living now in
African townships, then in country villages and again in cities.
·
During the
second half of the year I started visiting the Parktown home of Arthur Goldreich,
where I used to meet my family privately. Although I had no direct political
association with him, I had known Arthur Goldreich socially since 1958.
·
In
October, Arthur Goldreich informed me that he was moving out of town and
offered me a hiding place there. A few days thereafter, he arranged for Michael
Harmel to take me to Rivonia. I naturally found Rivonia an ideal place for the
man who lived the life of an outlaw. Up to that time I had been compelled to
live indoors during the daytime and could only venture out under cover of
darkness. But at Liliesleaf [farm, Rivonia,] I could live differently and work
far more efficiently.
·
For
obvious reasons, I had to disguise myself and I assumed the fictitious name of
David. In December, Arthur Goldreich and his family moved in. I stayed there
until I went abroad on 11 January 1962. As already indicated, I returned in
July 1962 and was arrested in Natal on 5 August.
·
Up to the
time of my arrest, Liliesleaf farm was the headquarters of neither the African
National Congress nor Umkhonto. With the exception of myself, none of the
officials or members of these bodies lived there, no meetings of the governing
bodies were ever held there, and no activities connected with them were either
organized or directed from there. On numerous occasions during my stay at
Liliesleaf farm I met both the Executive Committee of the ANC, as well as the
NHC, but such meetings were held elsewhere and not on the farm.
·
Whilst
staying at Liliesleaf farm, I frequently visited Arthur Goldreich in the main
house and he also paid me visits in my room. We had numerous political
discussions covering a variety of subjects. We discussed ideological and
practical questions, the Congress Alliance, Umkhonto and its activities
generally, and his experiences as a soldier in the Palmach, the military wing
of the Haganah. Haganah was the political authority of the Jewish National
Movement in Palestine.
·
Because of
what I had got to know of Goldreich, I recommended on my return to South Africa
that he should be recruited to Umkhonto. I do not know of my personal knowledge
whether this was done.
Another of the allegations made by
the State is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party are
the same. I wish to deal with this and with my own political position, because
I must assume that the State may try to argue from certain Exhibits that I
tried to introduce Marxism into the ANC. The allegation as to the ANC is false.
This is an old allegation which was disproved at the Treason Trial and which has
again reared its head. But since the allegation has been made again, I shall
deal with it as well as with the relationship between the ANC and the Communist
Party and Umkhonto and that party.
The ideological creed of the ANC is,
and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism. It is not the concept of
African Nationalism expressed in the cry, 'Drive the White man into the sea.'
The African Nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and
fulfilment for the African people in their own land. The most important
political document ever adopted by the ANC is the 'Freedom Charter.' It is by
no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but
not nationalization, of land; it provides for nationalization of mines, banks,
and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and
without such nationalization racial domination would be perpetuated despite the
spread of political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the Gold Law
prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by European
companies. In this respect the ANC's policy corresponds with the old policy of
the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of its
programme the nationalization of the gold mines which, at that time, were
controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalization would
take place in an economy based on private enterprise. The realization of the
Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population
of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period of
its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the
country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist
society.
As far as the Communist Party is
concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the
establishment of a State based on the principles of Marxism. Although it is
prepared to work for the Freedom Charter, as a short term solution to the problems
created by white supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning,
and not the end, of its program.
The ANC, unlike the Communist Party,
admitted Africans only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the African
people to win unity and full political rights. The Communist Party's main aim,
on the other hand, was to remove the capitalists and to replace them with a
working-class government. The Communist Party sought to emphasize class
distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonize them. This is a vital
distinction.
It is true that there has often been
close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is
merely proof of a common goal - in this case the removal of white supremacy -
and is not proof of a complete community of interests.
The history of the world is full of
similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the
co-operation between Great Britain, the United States of America, and the
Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to
suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or
communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a
communist world.
Another instance of such
co-operation is to be found precisely in Umkhonto. Shortly after Umkhonto was
constituted, I was informed by some of its members that the Communist Party
would support Umkhonto, and this then occurred. At a later stage the support
was made openly.
I believe that communists have always
played an active role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom,
because the short-term objects of communism would always correspond with the
long-term objects of freedom movements. Thus communists have played an
important role in the freedom struggles fought in countries such as Malaya,
Algeria, and Indonesia, yet none of these States today are communist countries.
Similarly in the underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe
during the last World War, communists played an important role. Even General
Chiang Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of communism, fought
together with the communists against the ruling class in the struggle which led
to his assumption of power in China in the 1930s.
This pattern of co-operation between
communists and non-communists has been repeated in the National Liberation
Movement of South Africa. Prior to the banning of the Communist Party, joint
campaigns involving the Communist Party and the Congress movements were
accepted practice. African communists could, and did, become members of the
ANC, and some served on the National, Provincial, and local committees. Amongst
those who served on the National Executive are Albert Nzula, a former Secretary
of the Communist Party, Moses Kotane, another former Secretary, and J. B.
Marks, a former member of the Central Committee.
I joined the ANC in 1944, and in my
younger days I held the view that the policy of admitting communists to the
ANC, and the close co-operation which existed at times on specific issues
between the ANC and the Communist Party, would lead to a watering down of the
concept of African Nationalism. At that stage I was a member of the African
National Congress Youth League, and was one of a group which moved for the
expulsion of communists from the ANC. This proposal was heavily defeated.
Amongst those who voted against the proposal were some of the most conservative
sections of African political opinion. They defended the policy on the ground
that from its inception the ANC was formed and built up, not as a political
party with one school of political thought, but as a Parliament of the African
people, accommodating people of various political convictions, all united by
the common goal of national liberation. I was eventually won over to this point
of view and I have upheld it ever since.
It is perhaps difficult for white
South Africans, with an ingrained prejudice against communism, to understand
why experienced African politicians so readily accept communists as their
friends. But to us the reason is obvious. Theoretical differences amongst those
fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage. What is
more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa
who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were
prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They
were the only political group which was prepared to work with the Africans for
the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this,
there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism. They
are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of
democratic government and African freedom as communists and bans many of them
(who are not communists) under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although I
have never been a member of the Communist Party, I myself have been named under
that pernicious Act because of the role I played in the Defiance Campaign. I
have also been banned and imprisoned under that Act.
It is not only in internal politics
that we count communists as amongst those who support our cause. In the
international field, communist countries have always come to our aid. In the
United Nations and other Councils of the world the communist bloc has supported
the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism and often seems to be more
sympathetic to our plight than some of the Western powers. Although there is a
universal condemnation of apartheid, the communist bloc speaks out against it
with a louder voice than most of the white world. In these circumstances, it
would take a brash young politician, such as I was in 1949, to proclaim that
the Communists are our enemies.
I turn now to my own position. I
have denied that I am a communist, and I think that in the circumstances I am
obliged to state exactly what my political beliefs are.
I have always regarded myself, in
the first place, as an African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata,
forty-six years ago. My guardian was my cousin, who was the acting paramount
chief of Tembuland, and I am related both to the present paramount chief of
Tembuland, Sabata Dalindyebo, and to Kaizer Matanzima, the Chief Minister of
the Transkei.
Today I am attracted by the idea of
a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading
and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organization of early
African societies in this country. The land, then the main means of production,
belonged to the tribe. There were no rich or poor and there was no
exploitation.
It is true, as I have already
stated, that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true
of many of the leaders of the new independent States. Such widely different
persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Nasser all acknowledge this fact. We all
accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up
with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of
extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists.
Indeed, for my own part, I believe
that it is open to debate whether the Communist Party has any specific role to
play at this particular stage of our political struggle. The basic task at the
present moment is the removal of race discrimination and the attainment of
democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter. In so far as that Party
furthers this task, I welcome its assistance. I realize that it is one of the
means by which people of all races can be drawn into our struggle.
From my reading of Marxist
literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression
that communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and
reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system.
The Magna Carta, the Petition of
Rights, and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by
democrats throughout the world.
I have great respect for British
political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the
British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the
independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fails to arouse my
admiration.
The American Congress, that
country's doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its
judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.
I have been influenced in my
thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search
for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I
should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I
must leave myself free to borrow the best from the West and from the East . . .
There are certain Exhibits which
suggest that we received financial support from abroad, and I wish to deal with
this question.
Our political struggle has always
been financed from internal sources - from funds raised by our own people and
by our own supporters. Whenever we had a special campaign or an important
political case - for example, the Treason Trial - we received financial assistance
from sympathetic individuals and organizations in the Western countries. We had
never felt it necessary to go beyond these sources.
But when in 1961 the Umkhonto was
formed, and a new phase of struggle introduced, we realized that these events
would make a heavy call on our slender resources, and that the scale of our
activities would be hampered by the lack of funds. One of my instructions, as I
went abroad in January 1962, was to raise funds from the African states.
I must add that, whilst abroad, I
had discussions with leaders of political movements in Africa and discovered
that almost every single one of them, in areas which had still not attained
independence, had received all forms of assistance from the socialist
countries, as well as from the West, including that of financial support. I
also discovered that some well-known African states, all of them
non-communists, and even anti-communists, had received similar assistance.
On my return to the Republic, I made
a strong recommendation to the ANC that we should not confine ourselves to
Africa and the Western countries, but that we should also send a mission to the
socialist countries to raise the funds which we so urgently needed.
I have been told that after I was
convicted such a mission was sent, but I am not prepared to name any countries
to which it went, nor am I at liberty to disclose the names of the
organizations and countries which gave us support or promised to do so.
As I understand the State case, and
in particular the evidence of 'Mr. X,' the suggestion is that Umkhonto was the
inspiration of the Communist Party which sought by playing upon imaginary
grievances to enroll the African people into an army which ostensibly was to
fight for African freedom, but in reality was fighting for a communist state.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the suggestion is
preposterous. Umkhonto was formed by Africans to further their struggle for
freedom in their own land. Communists and others supported the movement, and we
only wish that more sections of the community would join us.
Our fight is against real, and not
imaginary, hardships or, to use the language of the State Prosecutor,
'so-called hardships.' Basically, we fight against two features which are the
hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by
legislation which we seek to have repealed. These features are poverty and lack
of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called 'agitators' to
teach us about these things.
South Africa is the richest country
in Africa, and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a
land of extremes and remarkable contrasts. The whites enjoy what may well be
the highest standard of living in the world, whilst Africans live in poverty
and misery. Forty per cent of the Africans live in hopelessly overcrowded and,
in some cases, drought-stricken Reserves, where soil erosion and the
overworking of the soil makes it impossible for them to live properly off the
land. Thirty per cent are laborers, labor tenants, and squatters on white farms
and work and live under conditions similar to those of the serfs of the Middle
Ages. The other 30 per cent live in towns where they have developed economic
and social habits which bring them closer in many respects to white standards.
Yet most Africans, even in this group, are impoverished by low incomes and high
cost of living.
The highest-paid and the most
prosperous section of urban African life is in Johannesburg. Yet their actual
position is desperate. The latest figures were given on 25 March 1964 by Mr.
Carr, Manager of the Johannesburg Non-European Affairs Department. The poverty
datum line for the average African family in Johannesburg (according to Mr.
Carr's department) is R42.84 per month. He showed that the average monthly wage
is R32.24 and that 46 per cent of all African families in Johannesburg do not
earn enough to keep them going.
Poverty goes hand in hand with
malnutrition and disease. The incidence of malnutrition and deficiency diseases
is very high amongst Africans. Tuberculosis, pellagra, kwashiorkor,
gastro-enteritis, and scurvy bring death and destruction of health. The
incidence of infant mortality is one of the highest in the world. According to
the Medical Officer of Health for Pretoria, tuberculosis kills forty people a
day (almost all Africans), and in 1961 there were 58,491 new cases reported.
These diseases not only destroy the vital organs of the body, but they result
in retarded mental conditions and lack of initiative, and reduce powers of concentration.
The secondary results of such conditions affect the whole community and the
standard of work performed by African laborers.
The complaint of Africans, however,
is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which
are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation. There are two
ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal education, and the second
is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his work and thus higher wages.
As far as Africans are concerned, both these avenues of advancement are
deliberately curtailed by legislation.
The present Government has always
sought to hamper Africans in their search for education. One of their early
acts, after coming into power, was to stop subsidies for African school
feeding. Many African children who attended schools depended on this supplement
to their diet. This was a cruel act.
There is compulsory education for
all white children at virtually no cost to their parents, be they rich or poor.
Similar facilities are not provided for the African children, though there are
some who receive such assistance. African children, however, generally have to
pay more for their schooling than whites. According to figures quoted by the
South African Institute of Race Relations in its 1963 journal, approximately 40
per cent of African children in the age group between seven to fourteen do not
attend school. For those who do attend school, the standards are vastly
different from those afforded to white children. In 1960-61 the per capita
Government spending on African students at State-aided schools was estimated at
R12.46. In the same years, the per capita spending on white children in the
Cape Province (which are the only figures available to me) was R144.57.
Although there are no figures available to me, it can be stated, without doubt,
that the white children on whom R144.57 per head was being spent all came from
wealthier homes than African children on whom R12.46 per head was being spent.
The quality of education is also
different. According to the Bantu Educational Journal, only 5,660 African
children in the whole of South Africa passed their Junior Certificate in 1962,
and in that year only 362 passed matric. This is presumably consistent with the
policy of Bantu education about which the present Prime Minister said, during
the debate on the Bantu Education Bill in 1953:
"When I have control of Native
education I will reform it so that Natives will be taught from childhood to
realize that equality with Europeans is not for them . . . People who believe
in equality are not desirable teachers for Natives. When my Department controls
Native education it will know for what class of higher education a Native is
fitted, and whether he will have a chance in life to use his knowledge."
The other main obstacle to the
economic advancement of the African is the industrial color-bar under which all
the better jobs of industry are reserved for Whites only. Moreover, Africans
who do obtain employment in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations which
are open to them are not allowed to form trade unions which have recognition
under the Industrial Conciliation Act. This means that strikes of African
workers are illegal, and that they are denied the right of collective
bargaining which is permitted to the better-paid White workers. The
discrimination in the policy of successive South African Governments towards
African workers is demonstrated by the so-called 'civilized labor policy' under
which sheltered, unskilled Government jobs are found for those white workers
who cannot make the grade in industry, at wages which far exceed the earnings
of the average African employee in industry.
The Government often answers its
critics by saying that Africans in South Africa are economically better off
than the inhabitants of the other countries in Africa. I do not know whether
this statement is true and doubt whether any comparison can be made without
having regard to the cost-of-living index in such countries. But even if it is
true, as far as the African people are concerned it is irrelevant. Our
complaint is not that we are poor by comparison with people in other countries,
but that we are poor by comparison with the white people in our own country,
and that we are prevented by legislation from altering this imbalance.
The lack of human dignity
experienced by Africans is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy.
White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve
white supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks in South Africa are
invariably performed by Africans. When anything has to be carried or cleaned
the white man will look around for an African to do it for him, whether the
African is employed by him or not. Because of this sort of attitude, whites tend
to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people
with families of their own; they do not realize that they have emotions - that
they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be with their wives
and children like white people want to be with theirs; that they want to earn
enough money to support their families properly, to feed and clothe them and
send them to school. And what 'house-boy' or 'garden-boy' or laborer can ever
hope to do this?
Pass laws, which to the Africans are
among the most hated bits of legislation in South Africa, render any African
liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt whether there is a single
African male in South Africa who has not at some stage had a brush with the
police over his pass. Hundreds and thousands of Africans are thrown into jail
each year under pass laws. Even worse than this is the fact that pass laws keep
husband and wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life.
Poverty and the breakdown of family
life have secondary effects. Children wander about the streets of the townships
because they have no schools to go to, or no money to enable them to go to
school, or no parents at home to see that they go to school, because both
parents (if there be two) have to work to keep the family alive. This leads to
a breakdown in moral standards, to an alarming rise in illegitimacy, and to
growing violence which erupts not only politically, but everywhere. Life in the
townships is dangerous. There is not a day that goes by without somebody being
stabbed or assaulted. And violence is carried out of the townships in the white
living areas. People are afraid to walk alone in the streets after dark.
Housebreakings and robberies are increasing, despite the fact that the death
sentence can now be imposed for such offences. Death sentences cannot cure the
festering sore.
Africans want to be paid a living
wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not
work which the Government declares them to be capable of. Africans want to be
allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area
because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in
places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which
they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general
population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes. African men want
to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be
forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels. African women want to be
with their menfolk and not be left permanently widowed in the Reserves.
Africans want to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night and not to be
confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed to
travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where
the Labor Bureau tells them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of
South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.
Above all, we want equal political
rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this
sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of
voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy.
But this fear cannot be allowed to stand
in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom
for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial
domination. Political division, based on color, is entirely artificial and,
when it disappears, so will the domination of one color group by another. The
ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it
will not change that policy.
This then is what the ANC is
fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the
African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is
a struggle for the right to live.
During my lifetime I have dedicated
myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white
domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the
ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in
harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for
and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Nelson Mandela - April 20, 1964
No comments:
Post a Comment