"Great leaders never forget those who helped their countries" … a former Guyanese government minister tells President Jacob Zuma. In April, the South
African government reversed its decision to honour Guyana’s founding
president, Forbes Burnham, with the Order of Companions of O.R. Tambo.
The decision provoked widespread outrage from Guyanese and others around
the world, including some leading South Africans. Below is part of a
letter written by Jeffrey R. Thomas, a former senior minister in the Burnham administration, to South Africa's president.
Dear Mr. President:
As a Guyanese national who has been
involved at the cabinet level in the adoption of the country’s foreign
policy decisions; and, as someone with a longstanding and profound
admiration for Nelson Mandela and for the South Africa he bequeathed, I
feel an abundant concern at the decision to defer the grant of the
posthumous offer of the Oliver Tambo Prize to the late Forbes Burnham.
At the root of this emotion lies not
only my knowledge of how intimately close the people of South Africa
were to the heart of the late Forbes Burnham, but also the high esteem
which I have personally felt for this country and its leadership since
1994 when majority rule came to South Africa. In the brief span of two
decades, your country has managed to acquire an undisputed moral force
on the African continent. Its democratic evolution has invested it with a
certain authority in Southern Africa and made it a model and a beacon
for the rest of the continent. On the international stage, this regional
standing has helped to bestow on South Africa the image of a stable,
progressive and influential state, and made it a major actor.
At the present time the UN General
Assembly is considering reforming the Security Council in order to make
it more democratic and more representative of present-day political and
economic realities, as opposed to those which prevailed at the end of
the Second World War.
In this context, South Africa enjoys the
support of a large number of member states as a country which richly
deserves to have permanent membership of the Council, side by side with
China, France, Russia, the UK and US. There is presently no indication
as to when such a change would take place. However, the fact that less
than two decades after the establishment of majority rule, South Africa
has this kind of image speaks eloquently to the country’s undisputed
international respectability.
My sincere hope is that if and when this
elevation does finally take place, it would not be under a president
given to flip-flopping, in the way demonstrated recently by your good
self in the matter of the award of the Oliver Tambo Prize. At the level
of a major player, such as being a permanent member of the UN Security
Council, the international community expects demonstrations of
sure-footedness; decisions arrived at after the most careful and
detailed reflection.
We must know where leaders stand on
issues. This is a bar that Mitt Romney, for example, could not cross in
the last American elections – that of consistency. One can understand a
change in position when the evidence on the basis of which an earlier
decision was taken was found to be faulty. But there is no tolerance for
backward somersaults hastily made on the basis of self-serving
representations advanced in a domestic political context, and one which
bears no relationship to the principal issue at hand. What these
representations reveal is that pseudo-intellectualism is alive in the
Caribbean, with the pseudo-intellectuals doing what they know so well to
do – dragging red-herrings and sowing confusion. To my mind, the issue
seems to be clear and straightforward: The Oliver Tambo Award is about
the internal politics of South Africa at a particular point in its
history, and South Africa alone. It is given to foreign citizens who
have promoted South Africa’s interests and aspirations in that era
through cooperative solidarity and support. The question therefore is:
Did the late Forbes Burnham promote South Africa’s interests and
aspirations through such cooperative solidarity and support, or did he
not? I have not seen this question addressed by any of the writers who
have expressed opposition to the idea of granting the Prize to the late
Forbes Burnham.
Since writers before myself have
abundantly chronicled the details of the actions of the Guyana
government where relations with Africa were concerned – our political
and material support for the liberation of Southern Africa – repeating
them here will serve little purpose.
At any rate, I recognise that the
actions of the late Forbes Burnham in relation to Southern Africa may
not be in the forefront of Your Excellency’s historical memory or that
of any of your advisers. Even if this were so, it is inexcusable.
Great leaders never forget those who
helped their countries, in whatever ways, when they were struggling to
free themselves from oppression; especially those who helped them at
great sacrifice. They remember; and they honour that memory. Moreover,
much of that record relates to the actions of the Guyanese leader toward
Southern Africa as a region. South Africa is, of course, a part of that
region, and so represented the head of the animal that had to be slain.
And Guyana’s actions vis-a-vis the lower parts of that body played a
most significant part in destroying the inner workings of that evil and
criminal head. But I wish to focus on some of the most significant
actions which Guyana, under the inspired leadership of the late Forbes
Burnham, took on behalf of the people of South Africa themselves.
President Zuma, you have had a
distinguished and honourable career in the struggle against apartheid. I
recall that you were imprisoned on Robben Island along with Nelson
Mandela. However fuzzy may be Your Excellency’s memory of the
contributions of fellow-strugglers in the distant Caribbean to the
struggles taking place in the wider region, you will certainly recall,
vividly, the inhumanity of the conditions in Soweto, not a great
distance from your native Kwa-Zulu birthplace.
Here, on 16 June 1976, a day that will
live in infamy, the apartheid police opened live fire against a number
of youths peacefully protesting against the introduction into their
schools of instruction in Afrikaans, the language of the oppressors. The
victims are estimated to have exceeded 600. You were in Mozambique at
that time and were able to see first-hand, but without being a stranger
to them, the effects of the savagery visited upon your countrymen as
manifested in the condition and the stories of the exiles in the wake of
that massacre. Your Excellency will certainly remember, no less, that
on 19 June 1976 the UN Security Council pronounced itself against the
Soweto massacre in the following terms:
“... strongly condemns the South African
government for its resort to massive violence against, and killings of,
the African people including school children and students opposing
racial discrimination.”
The Council at that time was presided
over by the ambassador appointed to the UN Mission by the late Forbes
Burnham – Rashleigh Jackson. While Sowetans were being slaughtered like
cattle, Rashleigh Jackson, at the highest levels of the UN, was ensuring
that the rest of the world took notice and condemned the butchery. The
adoption of that resolution was no walk-in-the-park for the Council
president. After all, South Africa had three staunch allies on the
Council – France, the UK, and the US – who could be relied upon to veto
any resolution condemning it, as they had done before and would do
subsequently. That array of forces was formidable enough for Ambassador
Jackson to have resigned himself to what appeared inevitable, and done
nothing. But, inspired by the philosophy of the late Forbes Burnham, he
saw human freedom as indivisible. This meant that so long as freedom was
denied to our brothers and sisters in Soweto and the rest of South
Africa, it was denied to us in the Caribbean also. He persevered, using
all of his diplomatic skills and the rest, as they say, is history: the
adoption, without a veto, of the resolution condemning South Africa for
the Soweto massacre. Also worthy of recall in this general context are
Forbes Burnham’s principled actions against South Africa in the area of
sports. You have not forgotten, Excellency, that PM Vorster had stated
quite categorically, as long ago as 1967, that there would be no
mixed-race sports in South Africa, regardless of proficiency of the
participants. This included cricket, in respect of which South Africa
and the Caribbean shared a common interest. Forbes Burnham determined
that at whatever price, he would exploit this commonality on behalf of
the victims of apartheid.
Accordingly, in 1976, the same year of
the Soweto massacre, a scheduled match between Guyana and another
territory in the region was cancelled because of Forbes Burnham’s
adamant refusal to allow entry into the country by a batsman from the
opposing team which had played against South Africa as part of an
international team.
Mr. President, a famous countryman of
yours, Steve Biko, himself one of apartheid’s most prominent victims,
wrote on 1 December 1976 to Dick Clarke of the United States: “We rely
not only on our own strength, but also on the belief that the rest of
the world views the oppression and blatant exploitation of the black
majority by a minority as an unforgivable sin that cannot be pardoned by
civilised societies.” For the late Forbes Burnham, there was to be no
pardon for apartheid. He could not give the kind of practical support
that the people of Soweto and the rest of South Africa most needed
against their oppressors. But he gave what support he could readily and
abundantly – political, diplomatic and in the area of sport.
According to my understanding of the
spirit that underlies the offer of the Oliver Tambo Prize, it is that
kind of courage, commitment and steadfastness, sacrificial at times,
that the Prize seeks to identify and honour.
It is insulting to the memory of the
victims of apartheid, including that of Oliver Tambo himself, that the
lofty motivation of the Award should be so massively hijacked and
distorted to serve the interests of a few pseudo-intellectuals and their
handmaidens inside Guyana.
0 comments so far,add yours