Interview with Oliver Tambo by Randall Robinson, Executive Director, Transafrica Forum, 2 March 1983, Washington, DC

How would you assess the current state of affairs in South Africa?

TAMBO: The South African regime has become very desperate. They have lost a lot of ground. They have failed in all their efforts to hold back the forces of change. They fought Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe; all has failed.

They have invaded Angola several times and occupied its territory, claiming to have either destroyed SWAPO or broken its back; but at the end of the day, they find SWAPO has become stronger inside Namibia.

In spite of their efforts, in spite of their aggression, the African National Congress is becoming powerful inside South Africa. Their answer to these problems is violence and more violence, aggression and more aggression. There is a tendency these days to respond with vigour and determination against aggression if the aggressor is a Third World country like Argentina. But these same governments remain silent and aloof when the aggressor is Zionist Israel or racist South Africa. Pretoria may well have learned a useful lesson from the experience of Lebanon in terms of how little was done by anybody about the fate of Lebanon and the Palestinian people.

What will South African aggression accomplish in the long run?

TAMBO: They are buying time. They are using aggression not because they think that aggression is the final solution but because it enables them to stay in power a little longer. We do not think that they can do anything to prevent the overthrow of the apartheid system itself.

How would you explain South Africa’s heightened destabilisation of neighbouring black states?

TAMBO: They see the African National Congress as a threat wherever it has its active members. All the countries in southern Africa pose a threat because they support our struggle and because we are there. But the threat is posed also, of course, by the people who are in South Africa.

The attacks on neighbouring countries – simply because of ANC presence – are intended to get those countries to stop supporting the liberation struggle in South Africa. But they must not only not support liberation, they must oppose it; and if they see our people they must try and destroy them, they must arrest them, and they must act against them. Nothing short of this will stop South Africa’s invasions.

We must expect that as long as there is a struggle going on in South Africa – and there will be such a struggle as long as that regime is in power – the African states in southern Africa will be threatened because we will be waging the struggle there. This is what is going to force South Africa to commit aggression as it is doing now.

There is escape from that; and I think all these countries in southern Africa have accepted that position. Aggression against them will end only when the South African regime has been overthrown and the country is ruled by a majority of its people.

If the U.S. is able to argue that a settlement in Namibia has been achieved through “constructive engagement”, what is the consequence for black South Africans?

TAMBO: If an agreement were reached by this so-called “constructive engagement”, then the U.S. would say that the carrot has succeeded and that their method has prevailed. They would then campaign against pressures being brought to bear on the South African regime, arguing that we should learn from the example of Namibia.

Naturally, we do not accept the argument that it is “constructive engagement” which is helping to move the process toward a Namibian settlement forward. We think that a position was taken by the supporters of the Namibian people. Pressure has been put on some of the members of the Contact Group which has isolated the United States and forced them to come back to the positions that they sought to change.

How has the South African regime responded to “constructive engagement”?

TAMBO: The regime is simply consolidating its position or trying to do so. Botha is proposing changes or “reforms” which he expects the Reagan administration to respond to positively because it can argue that South Africa is now making changes as a result of “constructive engagement”. That is what the Reagan administration wants to use to stave off pressures against South Africa. They argue that anything South Africa does in the way of “reform” is a move in the right direction. The allies of South Africa have been pushing the regime to do anything that can be called a movement in the right direction. Then, they can argue that “changes are being made”; and that we must “give them time”.

The Reagan administration and its allies already are supporting such things as the President’s Council and the offer to the so-called Coloureds and Indians. But these changes are not reforms. They are reinforcement for the apartheid system. The South African regime merely is trying to strengthen its position against the liberation forces by trying to recruit from the oppressed and divide the oppressed without giving them anything. It wants to make them allies of the apartheid system to gain the cooperation of those it oppresses and exploits. This is not a move in the right direction; it is a move toward the consolidation of the status quo.

What is the likely consequence of the split in the National Party? Is the split a good sign?

TAMBO: It is a good sign in the sense that it is a product of the growth of our struggle. It arises from our tactics in South Africa. The failure to repress and to defeat the forces for a new South Africa has resulted in a quarrel about how to handle the situation. The split is a result of this quarrel. It will divide them more and more. The situation is going to worsen for the regime. This is only one of the consequences of a growing struggle inside South Africa. There will be many more.

Has there been any noticeable decline in the confidence of the white population?

TAMBO: Yes. There is resistance to serving in the army. There is resistance even to the recruitments and the involvement of civilians. There is growing opposition to the regime especially among young whites. They are becoming increasingly outspoken and very uneasy about this process. Therefore, they are increasingly identifying with us. A very interesting process is taking place in South Africa with an almost visible shift toward the African National Congress. Our Freedom Charter is being seen as an alternative.

ES Reddy