by Gerard Emershaw
Former South African President and 1993 Nobel
Peace Prize co-winner Nelson Mandela has died at the age of 95. The media
and the international political establishment inevitably sings the praises of
fallen statesmen even if they were anything but saints. Perhaps this is a
matter of it being viewed as improper to speak ill of the dead—particularly
right after their deaths. Or perhaps it is something else.
Huffington Post called
Mandela a “civil
rights activist.” Chicago Tribune called
him “an
international icon of peace and reconciliation.” The New York Times called him “an
international emblem of dignity and forbearance.”
President Obama referred to Mandela as “one
of the most influential, courageous and profoundly good human beings that any
of us will share time with on this earth.” In a sense, his words are
revisionist history as far as Western governments go. Until 2008, Nelson
Mandela was on a U.S.
terror watch
list. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan attempted
to veto a Congressional non-binding resolution to recognize the African National Congress (ANC) and
call on South Africa
to release Mandela from prison. In 1987, UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher referred
to Mandela’s ANC as “a
typical terrorist organisation.”
In 1964, Nelson Mandela was convicted
of acts of sabotage against the South African government and sentenced to life
imprisonment. He served 27 years in prison and 18 of those years in horrific
conditions at hard labor on Robben
Island. Perhaps many naively assume that Mandela was wrongly convicted and
unjustly imprisoned. However, the truth is that he was guilty of crimes which
are best described as acts of terrorism. Mandela co-founded the Umkhonto
we Sizwe (MK)—the militarist wing of the ANC. Under Mandela,
the MK launched bombing
attacks against government targets and made plans for a wider guerilla
campaign against the apartheid government of South
Africa. During the 1980s, the MK engaged in
a terrorist
bombing campaign which killed many South African civilians. The MK engaged
in a violent landmine campaign which killed
as many as 25 South Africans. The MK also routinely carried out torture and
executions
at its camps. A particularly inhuman method was “necklacing”—a
method of killing by placing a burning tire around a person’s neck. In short,
the MK was a terrorist organization. This means that Nelson Mandela may have been more
akin to Arafat or bin Laden than to Gandhi or King.
The stark contrast between Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther
King is best exemplified by things which they said as young men during the late
1950s. Mandela said:
“At the end of the day… violence was the only weapon that would destroy
apartheid” King said:
“As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline,
using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him.
Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in
your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate
night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless
reign of meaningless chaos.”
Nevertheless, it is possible that Mandela was more freedom
fighter than terrorist. South Africa’s
apartheid government was like the worst of Jim Crow institutionalized over an
entire nation. The people of South Africa
had a natural right to overthrow such an oppressive fascistic and racist
collectivist regime. The early attacks of the MK could be viewed as part of a
program of overthrowing an oppressive government which had long systematically
violated the natural rights of its citizens—particularly the natural rights of
its majority black population. Perhaps the MK only later transformed from a
legitimate Lockean destroyer of an illegitimate government to a bloody
terrorist organization. However, in 1985, Mandela refused
a pardon because he did not wish to renounce violence. By this point, the
MK was well into its murderous campaign of killing civilians and engaging in
torture. This means that even if Mandela was not an active terrorist, he at
least approved of terrorism.
While history will most likely credit Mandela with the
destruction of apartheid, the truth is that figures such as Steve Biko, Desmond Tutu, and F.W. de Klerk deserve
far more credit for ending apartheid. While history will also likely paint a
portrait of Mandela as a successful president and democratic reformer, the
truth is that his only great accomplishment as South African President was
leaving office. Like George Washington, Mandela avoided the temptation of
keeping power at the expense of the democratic rule of law. However, South
Africa has declined since Mandela’s ANC has
assumed power. Life expectancy has declined
from 62 to 50. Black households still earn only about one-sixth
that of white households. Much of this is the result of the ANC’s left-wing
collectivist economic policies. Years earlier, Mandela had claimed: “Under a Communist
Party Government South Africa will become a land of milk and honey.” According
to Heritage, South
Africa has only the 74th freest economy in the
world—placing it barely in the category of “moderately free.” In a sense, one can
argue that this form of collectivist and borderline Marxist economics is a form
of terrorism initiated by Nelson Mandela which is just as destructive as the
militaristic terrorism conducted by the MK during the period from the 1960s to
the 1980s.
Perhaps in the end, Nelson Mandela deserves modest praise
for not becoming a dictator. However, Mandela also represents a lost
opportunity. He had the influence necessary to institute the kind of free
market reforms which could have lifted Black South Africans out of poverty.
Alas, Mandela stayed committed to his pro-communist leanings. The great admirer
of Castro and Qaddafi may not have brutalized his people the way that those dictators
did, but his Marxist-influenced economic policies could be viewed as the moral
equivalent of oppression.
No comments:
Post a Comment