Apartheid

307
law, is not justice and it never has been. But it is often present, as an obstacle or a means, on
the road to justice.
The South African government, the ruling party (the National Party), and the South
African state as a whole, never assumed liability or took responsibility for the gross human
rights violations that were committed in their names, and even upon orders originating from
their top levels. The TRC Final Report recommended monetary compensation for over 21,000
people in 1998. Four years later, however, only a handful had received interim payments. 759 In
this sense, justice appears almost as distant today as it did under South African apartheid.
The vicious circles or vicious spirals of apartheid, for instance the fact that the
oppressed majority was barred from voting and their military inferiority which made demands
for the vote useless, are now being repeated at another level. Blacks receive inferior health
care and education because they cannot pay, whereas Whites keep inheriting wealth from their
ancestors without much being taxed by the state, which, in its turn, needs white skilled labor
and cannot afford to let Whites emigrate in too high numbers. Moreover, the high
unemployment in South Africa today forces underpaid black labor to bite the bullet. Unskilled
black employees do not complain much to their bosses because there are millions like them
who would take those jobs with those low salaries, the lowest in the world relative to the top
wages in the country.
Yet the ideal of justice should never be forgotten, especially not in the face of
seemingly insurmountable practical obstacles and atrocities. Justice in this world may be
unattainable, but we are condemned to injustice if we give up on the ideal of implementing
justice. At least, the exclusion of Blacks from the political process has been broken, and South
Africa is launching a truly new chapter in its history. Even in the service of truth and
reconciliation, justice must never become a disturbing factor for a peace process worth that
name.
Furthermore, justice cannot be reduced to the mere administration of existing law,
even if the latter has been relieved completely of apartheid. The laws themselves must be just.
In South African law today, apartheid is absent, but it is apparently too absent. There can and
must be more social justice. In particular, the laws and the administration of law should take
history, in particular the history of apartheid in the wide sense, into account. Especially as
opportunism. However, the former US Deputy Secretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, who had successfully been in
charge of representing victims in the Holocaust lawsuits against Swiss banks for the Clinton administration, now
joined the other side to represent US and Swiss firms against victims of racism under apartheid. That is where
the ultimate and blameworthy opportunism lies, in my opinion. No doubt, there are powerful, more or less
mercenary sources involved in trivializing apartheid, representing both state and business interests, and the
struggle against South African apartheid must continue under such circumstances. On April 4, 2003, Fagan went
on to claim $6.1 billion in damages on behalf of hundreds of thousands of black apartheid victims against Anglo
American, the world’s second largest mining company, which has South Africa’s biggest capitalization, and its
diamond business, De Beers. These were the first lawsuits to target large South African firms over profits made
with the aid of apartheid. Shares in Anglo American dropped almost four per cent on the news. See Engelmann:
Swiss, US Banks Face Huge Apartheid Lawsuits, 2002; Schuettler: Apartheid Suit Faces Hurdles, Reparations
Row, 2002; Appleson: Apartheid Victims Sue Citigroup, Other Banks, 2002; Ginsberg: Apartheid Suit Lawyer
Targets U.S., German Firms, 2002; Boyle: US Lawyer Says to Sue More Firms in Apartheid Case, 2002; Boyle:
Tutu Backs U.S. Lawyers’s Apartheid Claim, 2002; Boyle: S.Africans to Cite Shell in Apartheid Damages
Claim, 2002; N.N.: Former S.Africa Judge Leads Apartheid Lawsuit Team, August 29, 2002; Rostron: The
Business Of Apartheid: The Role of Multinational Corporations and Banks under South Africa’s Racist Regime
Is Finally Coming to Light, Some Would Rather It Didn’t, 2002; Mink: Stuart Eizenstat Wechselt Seite: Der
frühere US-Unterstaatssekretär lobbyiert neuerdings gegen Sammelklagen, 2002; Chege: Anglo American Hit by
Apartheid Lawsuit, 2003. Later on in the year, however, US Secretary of State Colin Powell killed much hope
for justice with a request that the South African government intervene, which they did. “[J]ustice minister
Penuell Maduna defended big business, arguing in a nine-page brief in July 2003 that the judge must not
discourage ‘much-needed foreign investment and delay the achievement of the government’s goals’.” In 2006,
the cases were still pending following an initial loss in US courts. See Bond: North versus South: Expect More
Global Apartheid -- and SA Collaboration -- in 2006, 2006.
759 Schuettler June 18, 2002