2 September 2011

Soevereine bantoestans?

Toen de Zuid-Afrikaanse regering probeerde om niet-soevereine staten te bouwen voor haar zwarte bevolking werd dit onvoorwaardelijk afgewezen door de wereldgemeenschap. Maar nu lijken de Palestijnen op weg om hun eigen bantoestan te legitimeren.

Virginia Tilley besprak in 2009 op de website van Electronic Intifada de mogelijke politieke zelfmoord van een Palestijns bod bij de VN. Ze meent dat de Palestijnen in de val trappen die de Zuid-Afrikaanse nationale beweging slaagde te vermijden: internationale erkenning van verdeelde, geïsoleerde, machteloze kantons als een "natie staat"-oplossing voor de nationale aspiraties van de onderdrukten.

The South African government designated all Africans as citizens of a homeland or Bantustan. By 1984, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana, Transkei, and Venda had been granted "independence," which was recognized by no other nations except South Africa.

Bantustans and the unilateral declaration of statehood

Electronic Intifada | By Virginia Tilley | 19.11.2009 | NEDERLANDS

The PA leadership in Ramallah is leading the Palestinian movement of independence to a dead end with its proposed unilateral call for Palestinian statehood.


...it’s no exaggeration to propose that this idea, although well-meant by some, raises the clearest danger to the Palestinian national movement in its entire history, threatening to wall Palestinian aspirations into a political cul-de-sac from which it may never emerge. The irony is indeed that, through this maneuver, the PA is seizing — even declaring as a right — precisely the same dead-end formula that the African National Congress (ANC) fought so bitterly for decades because the ANC leadership rightly saw it as disastrous. That formula can be summed up in one word: Bantustan.
The Bantustans were designed to correspond roughly to some of the historical territories associated with the various black “peoples” so that they could claim the term “Homelands.” This official term indicated their ideological purpose: to manifest as national territories and ultimately independent states for the various black African “peoples” (defined by the regime) and so secure a happy future for white supremacy in the “white” Homeland (the rest of South Africa). So the goal of forcibly transferring millions of black people into these Homelands was glossed over as progressive: 11 states living peacefully side by side (sound familiar?).

The idea was first to grant “self-government” to the Homelands as they gained institutional capacity and then reward that process by declaring/granting independent statehood… the most urgent mission of apartheid South Africa — getting the indigenous people to declare statehood in non-sovereign enclaves — finally collapsed with mass black revolt and took apartheid down with it, yet the Palestinian leadership now is not only walking right into that same trap but actually making a claim on it.
It must be obvious that, if Israel had stood up in the international stage and said “as you are, you are now a state” that Palestinians and everyone else would have rejected the claim out of hand as a cruel farce. Yet getting the Palestinians to declare statehood themselves allows Israel precisely the outcome that eluded the apartheid South African regime: voluntary native acceptance of “independence” in a non-sovereign territory with no political capacity to alter its territorial boundaries or other essential terms of existence — the political death capsule that apartheid South Africa could not get the ANC to swallow.

No comments:

Post a Comment