Apartheid
Apartheid Apartheid
6 sanctioned South African commodities started to bring in profits again after 1994, and most of the profits ended up in the pockets of business owners and executives, who were mostly white. There is much that Israelis and Palestinians can learn from the South African experience, perhaps especially if they are able to achieve an end to legalized and political apartheid like South Africa did. Another reason why apartheid still eludes easy classification is that, like most armed conflicts today, it does not readily fall under the classification of war, since the relationship cannot be defined as a formal state of war between two states, except under unusual circumstances. War is never formally declared, except under these relatively rare conditions. Today, in most conflicts, the two main warring groups usually lay claim to the same territory as their homeland, and apartheid is just one example of this kind of conflict. The apartheid wars in which the traditional sense of war does apply are mainly colonial invasions, in which invader civilian settlements may be planned, but are not yet an established fact. They also include wars with neighboring countries, such as Israel’s wars of 1948-9, 1956, 1967, and 1973. The Israeli invasions of southern Lebanon from 1982 through 2006 or the continuing invasions of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, however, are not wars in the traditional sense since Israel (in contradiction to international law) neither declared (or even admitted waging) war nor recognized the sovereignty or rights to self-determination of the states or nations that they invaded. Moreover, the Palestinians in Palestine and Israel, just like the South African Blacks in South Africa, including the Homelands, were both disarmed and surrounded, during most of these wars of the apartheid states against their neighbors. Lacking states as well as military hardware, it was thus next to impossible for the main victims of apartheid to wage war anyway. But then, apartheid is not just oppression either. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, in the southern African apartheid conflict millions. Apartheid is something between war and oppression, and, at the same time, both war and oppression. Similarly, apartheid is something between crime and law, and lawful and criminal at the same time. It is a crime under international law, but its application and realization is of course often required domestically by the apartheid regime’s laws. Frequently, it is a crime or an offence to be against apartheid under an apartheid rule. More or less covert crimes under those same laws are also sometimes or even often encouraged by apartheid regimes, especially human rights violations carried out by invading semi-civilian settlers and so-called ‘state security forces’. Apparently, apartheid needs to be understood with a conceptual apparatus that partly transcends that of international law and traditional political science, in which ‘war’ is understood as international, and ‘oppression’ as domestic. I believe this can be done with an umbrella concept of ‘gross human rights violations’, encompassing both war and oppression. Thus, apartheid, along with genocide and colonialism (and other serious crimes, such as racist slavery, or aggressive warfare in general), can be understood as ‘a system of gross human rights violations’, and as a crime against humanity. In this investigation human rights are understood in terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. This concept of human rights is far from unproblematic. It contains a subtle bias of a pro-western nature as well as several potential contradictions. Civil and political rights are emphasized whereas social and economic rights are downplayed. Many people in developing countries resent this, knowing for instance that there is more than enough food for every human being in the world whilst the destitute, especially in these countries, are starving. Yet there is no universal human right to be fed, nor are there any to be sheltered or clothed. Furthermore, there is no system of rights, only a list. And conflicts between rights, e.g. between the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, are left unsolved.
Nevertheless, among other things the UDHR serves as a useful reminder of the fact that every state, every society, violates rights and that the world could be a better place. The fact that it only came about a few months after apartheid became explicit state policy in South Africa, and after Israel, the Jewish state, had already become a reality, does not mean that it cannot be applied to these and other earlier violators. First of all, both Israel and apartheid South Africa became hypocritical signatories of the UDHR. Secondly, there are older human rights-oriented elements of international law such as the Geneva Conventions, which both Israel and South Africa violate(d), not just repeatedly, but continuously. Thirdly, and most importantly, human rights are universal. That means that they extend indefinitely in both space and time. Victims of apartheid and other kinds of oppression and war through the ages have known that they have been treated badly, in a moral sense. Many human rights are anchored in ancient religions and other moral and legal systems, and perhaps also in a human ‘moral sense’ or ethical ‘intuition’. And many perpetrators have therefore known that they have acted unjustly, too. Systematic gross human rights violations amount to crimes against humanity, and ‘humanity’ is another concept that must be extended indefinitely in time and space, at least if the wider concept of human rights violations is. Therefore, I will use the concepts of human rights and human rights violations in this investigation in order to analyze societies as old as Egypt under Greek and Roman rule, or the kingdom of Jerusalem under crusader rule. Of course the attempts to justify apartheid will be different before and after the introduction of human rights into national and international law. But these attempts are only a small part of the story of apartheid. * * * Equipped with a detailed definition of apartheid, my main new counter-strategy against the propaganda smokescreens and traps set by apartheid’s defenders and apologists is my attempt to extend the applicability of the term beyond apartheid in the narrow sense, i.e. beyond South Africa between 1948 and 1994, the year of formal liberation. In order to make more sense, the meaning of the term ‘apartheid’ must in my opinion be extended not only conceptually (from the apartheid state to the wider apartheid society), but it must also be extended in both time and space, like the concepts of ‘human rights’ and ‘human rights violations’. First of all, a systematic treatment of apartheid simply has to take into account the invasions, the expropriation, enslavement and ethnic cleansing that were all initiated by Whites in 17 th century South Africa and more or less perpetuated during the following three and a half centuries of essentially undisturbed and intensifying white supremacy, enrichment, and domination. Apartheid in South Africa simply cannot be understood without knowledge of South Africa prior to 1948. Secondly, apartheid has structural parallels in countries other than South Africa as well. These basic facts, indispensable for any understanding of apartheid from my perspective, had been passed over silently by the white South African elites responsible for the introduction of the policy of apartheid in the narrow sense in their definition of that concept. I will demonstrate and argue that all of my proposed basic characteristics of apartheid, without exception, had existed together, in South Africa itself and elsewhere, long before the label was first used in a political and programmatic way by the South African government from 1948 and onwards. ‘Apartheid’, then, is really just a convenient label, and I will use it here in the sense of common parlance, but not in the mystifying, euphemistic way of the South African apartheid regimes. In particular, the fundamental initial condition of apartheid is an invasion, at least a de facto invasion, i.e. the more or less peaceful takeover of a country by one set of invaders from an earlier set of invaders. The apartheid invasion is carried out by a conquering ethnic minority, which then holds on to its military superiority over the indigenous majority for the duration of the apartheid conditions. This essential element of my analysis is the first decisive drive of the stake into the heart of the undead beast. In the long history of apartheid, the first 7
- Page 1 and 2: Apartheid Ancient, Past and Present
- Page 3 and 4: Interlude: The Other Gross Human Ri
- Page 5: outbreak of the Palestinians’ Sec
- Page 9 and 10: Yet, slavery in general is a classi
- Page 11 and 12: histories of the political systems
- Page 13 and 14: elsewhere in Cape Town: Emma Thomas
- Page 15 and 16: I. The State of Apartheid and the A
- Page 17 and 18: Americans), Nazi Germany (against J
- Page 19 and 20: to leave the Occupied Territories,
- Page 21 and 22: includes racism, but it also goes b
- Page 23 and 24: that covers all aspects. In concret
- Page 25 and 26: have settled and ruled supreme in S
- Page 27 and 28: Finally, the cultures of an aparthe
- Page 29 and 30: well. (Apart from that, the Afrikan
- Page 31 and 32: Western Hemisphere, or the import o
- Page 33 and 34: There are some additional features
- Page 35 and 36: also obstruct any structural unders
- Page 37 and 38: anything else. The consequences of
- Page 39 and 40: sociology. In my view his is a diff
- Page 41 and 42: Third Reich Racism The South Africa
- Page 43 and 44: land that had been the Empire of Zi
- Page 45 and 46: all agricultural land in Guatemala
- Page 47 and 48: crusaders destroyed, plundered and
- Page 49 and 50: systematically by people who identi
- Page 51 and 52: white-ruled South Africa, linguisti
- Page 53 and 54: Indeed, only half a year lies betwe
- Page 55 and 56: involvement of strong First World n
Nevertheless, among other things the UDHR serves as a useful reminder of the fact<br />
that every state, every society, violates rights and that the world could be a better place. The<br />
fact that it only came about a few months after apartheid became explicit state policy in South<br />
Africa, and after Israel, the Jewish state, had already become a reality, does not mean that it<br />
cannot be applied to these and other earlier violators. First of all, both Israel and apartheid<br />
South Africa became hypocritical signatories of the UDHR. Secondly, there are older human<br />
rights-oriented elements of international law such as the Geneva Conventions, which both<br />
Israel and South Africa violate(d), not just repeatedly, but continuously. Thirdly, and most<br />
importantly, human rights are universal. That means that they extend indefinitely in both<br />
space and time. Victims of apartheid and other kinds of oppression and war through the ages<br />
have known that they have been treated badly, in a moral sense. Many human rights are<br />
anchored in ancient religions and other moral and legal systems, and perhaps also in a human<br />
‘moral sense’ or ethical ‘intuition’. And many perpetrators have therefore known that they<br />
have acted unjustly, too. Systematic gross human rights violations amount to crimes against<br />
humanity, and ‘humanity’ is another concept that must be extended indefinitely in time and<br />
space, at least if the wider concept of human rights violations is. Therefore, I will use the<br />
concepts of human rights and human rights violations in this investigation in order to analyze<br />
societies as old as Egypt under Greek and Roman rule, or the kingdom of Jerusalem under<br />
crusader rule. Of course the attempts to justify apartheid will be different before and after the<br />
introduction of human rights into national and international law. But these attempts are only a<br />
small part of the story of apartheid.<br />
* * *<br />
Equipped with a detailed definition of apartheid, my main new counter-strategy<br />
against the propaganda smokescreens and traps set by apartheid’s defenders and apologists is<br />
my attempt to extend the applicability of the term beyond apartheid in the narrow sense, i.e.<br />
beyond South Africa between 1948 and 1994, the year of formal liberation. In order to make<br />
more sense, the meaning of the term ‘apartheid’ must in my opinion be extended not only<br />
conceptually (from the apartheid state to the wider apartheid society), but it must also be<br />
extended in both time and space, like the concepts of ‘human rights’ and ‘human rights<br />
violations’. First of all, a systematic treatment of apartheid simply has to take into account the<br />
invasions, the expropriation, enslavement and ethnic cleansing that were all initiated by<br />
Whites in 17 th century South Africa and more or less perpetuated during the following three<br />
and a half centuries of essentially undisturbed and intensifying white supremacy, enrichment,<br />
and domination. <strong>Apartheid</strong> in South Africa simply cannot be understood without knowledge<br />
of South Africa prior to 1948. Secondly, apartheid has structural parallels in countries other<br />
than South Africa as well. These basic facts, indispensable for any understanding of apartheid<br />
from my perspective, had been passed over silently by the white South African elites<br />
responsible for the introduction of the policy of apartheid in the narrow sense in their<br />
definition of that concept. I will demonstrate and argue that all of my proposed basic<br />
characteristics of apartheid, without exception, had existed together, in South Africa itself and<br />
elsewhere, long before the label was first used in a political and programmatic way by the<br />
South African government from 1948 and onwards. ‘<strong>Apartheid</strong>’, then, is really just a<br />
convenient label, and I will use it here in the sense of common parlance, but not in the<br />
mystifying, euphemistic way of the South African apartheid regimes.<br />
In particular, the fundamental initial condition of apartheid is an invasion, at least a de<br />
facto invasion, i.e. the more or less peaceful takeover of a country by one set of invaders from<br />
an earlier set of invaders. The apartheid invasion is carried out by a conquering ethnic<br />
minority, which then holds on to its military superiority over the indigenous majority for the<br />
duration of the apartheid conditions. This essential element of my analysis is the first decisive<br />
drive of the stake into the heart of the undead beast. In the long history of apartheid, the first<br />
7
Change language