[News] Bantustans and the unilateral declaration of statehood
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Fri Nov 20 11:46:56 EST 2009
Bantustans and the unilateral declaration of statehood
Virginia Tilley, The Electronic Intifada, 19 November 2009
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10901.shtml
From a rumor, to a rising murmur, the proposal floated by the
Palestinian Authority's (PA) Ramallah leadership to declare
Palestinian statehood unilaterally has suddenly hit center stage. The
European Union, the United States and others have rejected it as
"premature," but endorsements are coming from all directions:
journalists, academics, nongovernmental organization activists,
Israeli right-wing leaders (more on that later). The catalyst appears
to be a final expression of disgust and simple exhaustion with the
fraudulent "peace process" and the argument goes something like this:
if we can't get a state through negotiations, we will simply declare
statehood and let Israel deal with the consequences.
But 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.
It has become increasingly dangerous for the Palestinian national
movement that the South African Bantustans remain so dimly
understood. If Palestinians know about the Bantustans at all, most
imagine them as territorial enclaves in which black South Africans
were forced to reside yet lacked political rights and lived
miserably. This partial vision is suggested by Mustafa Barghouthi's
recent comments at the Wattan Media Centre in Ramallah, when he
cautioned that Israel wanted to confine the Palestinians into
"Bantustans" but then argued for a unilateral declaration of
Palestinian statehood within the 1967 boundaries -- although nominal
"states" without genuine sovereignty are precisely what the
Bantustans were designed to be.
Apartheid South Africa's Bantustans were not simply sealed
territorial enclaves for black people. They were the ultimate "grand"
formula by which the apartheid regime hoped to survive: that is,
independent states for black South Africans who -- as white apartheid
strategists themselves keenly understood and pointed out -- would
forever resist the permanent denial of equal rights and political
voice in South Africa that white supremacy required. As designed by
apartheid architects, the ten 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 challenge for the apartheid government was then to persuade
"self-governing" black elites to accept independent statehood in
these territorial fictions and so permanently absolve the white
government of any responsibility for black political rights. Toward
this end, the apartheid regime hand-picked and seeded "leaders" into
the Homelands, where they immediately sprouted into a nice crop of
crony elites (the usual political climbers and carpet-baggers) that
embedded into lucrative niches of financial privileges and patronage
networks that the white government thoughtfully cultivated (this
should sound familiar too).
It didn't matter that the actual territories of the Homelands were
fragmented into myriad pieces and lacked the essential resources to
avoid becoming impoverished labor cesspools. Indeed, the Homelands'
territorial fragmentation, although crippling, was irrelevant to
Grand Apartheid. Once all these "nations" were living securely in
independent states, apartheid ideologists argued to the world,
tensions would relax, trade and development would flower, blacks
would be enfranchised and happy, and white supremacy would thus
become permanent and safe.
The thorn in this plan was to get even thoroughly co-opted black
Homeland elites to declare independent statehood within "national"
territories that transparently lacked any meaningful sovereignty over
borders, natural resources, trade, security, foreign policy, water --
again, sound familiar? Only four Homeland elites did so, through
combinations of bribery, threats and other "incentives." Otherwise,
black South Africans didn't buy it and the ANC and the world rejected
the plot whole cloth. (The only state to recognize the Homelands was
fellow-traveler Israel.) But the Homelands did serve one purpose --
they distorted and divided black politics, created terrible internal
divisions, and cost thousands of lives as the ANC and other factions
fought it out. The last fierce battles of the anti-apartheid struggle
were in the Homelands, leaving a legacy of bitterness to this day.
Hence the supreme irony for Palestinians today is that 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.
The reasons that the PA-Ramallah leadership and others want to walk
into this trap are fuzzy. Maybe it could help the "peace talks" if
they are redefined as negotiations between two states instead of
preconditions for a state. Declaring statehood could redefine
Israel's occupation as invasion and legitimize resistance as well as
trigger different and more effective United Nations intervention.
Maybe it will give Palestinians greater political leverage on the
world stage -- or at least preserve the PA's existence for another
(miserable) year.
Why these fuzzy visions are not swiftly defeated by short attention
to the South African Bantustan experience may stem partly from two
key differences that confuse the comparison, for Israel has indeed
sidestepped two infamous fatal errors that helped sink South Africa's
Homeland strategy. First, Israel did not make South Africa's initial
mistake of appointing "leaders" to run the Palestinian "interim
self-governing" Homeland. In South Africa, this founding error made
it too obvious that the Homelands were puppet regimes and exposed the
illegitimacy of the black "national" territories themselves as
contrived racial enclaves. Having watched the South Africans bungle
this, and having learned from its own past failures with the Village
Leagues and the like, Israel instead worked with the United States to
design the Oslo process not only to restore the exiled leadership of
the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its then Chairman
Yasser Arafat to the territories but also to provide for "elections"
(under occupation) to grant a thrilling gloss of legitimacy to the
Palestinian "interim self-governing authority." It's one of the
saddest tragedies of the present scenario that Israel so deftly
turned Palestinians' noble commitment to democracy against them in
this way -- granting them the illusion of genuinely democratic
self-government in what everyone now realizes was always secretly
intended to be a Homeland.
Only now has Israel found a way to avoid South Africa's second fatal
error, which was to declare black Homelands to be "independent
states" in non-sovereign territory. In South Africa, this ploy
manifested to the world as transparently racist and was universally
disparaged. 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.
Responses from Israel have been mixed. The government does seem jumpy
and has broadcast its "alarm," Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has
threatened unilateral retaliation (unspecified) and government
representatives have flown to various capitals securing international
rejection. But Israeli protests could also be disingenuous. One
tactic could be persuading worried Palestinian patriots that a
unilateral declaration of statehood might not be in Israel's interest
in order to allay that very suspicion. Another is appeasing protest
from that part of Likud's purblind right-wing electorate that finds
the term "Palestinian state" ideologically anathema. A more honest
reaction could be the endorsement of Kadima party elder Shaul Mofaz,
a hardliner who can't remotely be imagined to value a stable and
prosperous Palestinian future. Right-wing Israeli journalists are
also pitching in with disparaging but also comforting essays arguing
that unilateral statehood won't matter because it won't change
anything (close to the truth). For example, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has threatened unilaterally to annex the West Bank
settlement blocs if the PA declares statehood, but Israel was going
to do that anyway.
In the liberal-Zionist camp, Yossi Sarid has warmly endorsed the plan
and Yossi Alpher has cautiously done so. Their writings suggest the
same terminal frustration with the "peace process" but also
recognition that this may be the only way to save the increasingly
fragile dream that a nice liberal democratic Jewish state can survive
as such. It also sounds like something that might please Palestinians
-- at least enough to finally get their guilt-infusing story of
expulsion and statelessness off the liberal-Zionist conscience.
Well-meaning white liberals in apartheid South Africa -- yes, there
were some of those, too -- held the same earnest candle burning for
the black Homelands system.
Some otherwise smart journalists are also pitching in to endorse
unilateral statehood, raising odd ill-drawn comparisons -- Georgia,
Kosovo, Israel itself -- as "evidence" that it's a good idea. But
Georgia, Kosovo and Israel had entirely different profiles in
international politics and entirely different histories from
Palestine and attempts to draw these comparisons are intellectually
lazy. The obvious comparison is elsewhere and the lessons run in the
opposite direction: for a politically weak and isolated people, who
have never had a separate state and lack any powerful international
ally, to declare or accept "independence" in non-contiguous and
non-sovereign enclaves encircled and controlled by a hostile nuclear
power can only seal their fate.
In fact, the briefest consideration should instantly reveal that a
unilateral declaration of statehood will confirm the Palestinians'
presently impossible situation as permanent. As Mofaz predicted, a
unilateral declaration will allow "final status" talks to continue.
What he did not spell out is that those talks will become truly
pointless because Palestinian leverage will be reduced to nothing. As
Middle East historian Juan Cole recently pointed out, the last card
the Palestinians can play -- their real claim on the world's
conscience, the only real threat they can raise to Israel's status
quo of occupation and settlement -- is their statelessness. The
PA-Ramallah leadership has thrown away all the other cards. It has
stifled popular dissent, suppressed armed resistance, handed over
authority over vital matters like water to "joint committees" where
Israel holds veto power, savagely attacked Hamas which insisted on
threatening Israel's prerogatives, and generally done everything it
can to sweeten the occupier's mood, preserve international patronage
(money and protection), and solicit promised benefits (talks?) that
never come. It's increasingly obvious to everyone watching from
outside this scenario -- and many inside it -- that this was always a
farce. For one thing, the Western powers do not work like the Arab
regimes: when you do everything the West requires of you, you will
wait in vain for favors, for the Western power then loses any benefit
from dealing more with you and simply walks away.
But more importantly, the South African comparison helps illuminate
why the ambitious projects of pacification, "institution building"
and economic development that the Ramallah PA and Prime Minister
Salam Fayyad have whole-heartedly embarked upon are not actually
exercises in "state-building." Rather, they emulate with frightening
closeness and consistency South Africa's policies and stages in
building the Bantustan/Homelands. Indeed, Fayyad's project to achieve
political stability through economic development is the same process
that was openly formalized in the South African Homeland policy under
the slogan "separate development." That under such vulnerable
conditions no government can exercise real power and "separate
development" must equate with permanent extreme dependency,
vulnerability and dysfunctionality was the South African lesson that
has, dangerously, not yet been learned in Palestine -- although all
the signals are there, as Fayyad himself has occasionally admitted in
growing frustration. But declaring independence will not solve the
problem of Palestinian weakness; it will only concretize it.
Still, when "separate development" flounders in the West Bank, as it
must, Israel will face a Palestinian insurrection. So Israel needs to
anchor one last linchpin to secure Jewish statehood before that
happens: declare a Palestinian "state" and so reduce the "Palestinian
problem" to a bickering border dispute between putative equals. In
the back halls of the Knesset, Kadima political architects and
Zionist liberals alike must now be waiting with bated breath, when
they are not composing the stream of back-channel messages that is
doubtless flowing to Ramallah encouraging this step and promising
friendship, insider talks and vast benefits. For they all know what's
at stake, what every major media opinion page and academic blog has
been saying lately: that the two-state solution is dead and Israel
will imminently face an anti-apartheid struggle that will inevitably
destroy Jewish statehood. So a unilateral declaration by the PA that
creates a two-state solution despite its obvious Bantustan
absurdities is now the only way to preserve Jewish statehood, because
it's the only way to derail the anti-apartheid movement that spells
Israel's doom.
This is why it is so dangerous that the South African Bantustan
comparison has been neglected until now, treated as a side issue,
even an exotic academic fascination, to those battling to relieve
starvation in Gaza and soften the cruel system of walls and
barricades to get medicine to the dying. The Ramallah PA's suddenly
serious initiative to declare an independent Palestinian state in
non-sovereign territory must surely force fresh collective
realization that this is a terribly pragmatic question. It's time to
bring closer attention to what "Bantustan" actually means. The
Palestinian national movement can only hope someone in its ranks
undertakes that project as seriously as Israel has undertaken it
before it's too late.
Virginia Tilley is a former professor of political science and
international relations and since 2006 has served as Chief Research
Specialist at the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa.
She is author of The One-State Solution (U of Michigan Press, 2005)
and numerous articles and essays on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Based in Cape Town, she writes here in her personal capacity and can
be reached at vtilley A T mweb D O T co D O T za.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20091120/446e9744/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list