By Pius Vilakati
The author of this
article intended it for the Sunday Observer newspaper as a direct response to
an article that had appeared there during the month of July. Of course, the author
was aware that due to the reality of censorship and self-censorship that
continues to engulf Swaziland, the likelihood of the article getting published
were closest to nil than any positive decimal point. Nonetheless, the article is
now published by Liciniso, for it would be improper to allow distortions
of history to go without challenge.
The author prefers
to present the facts as they are to the world, and only extract the truth – and
opinions, if any – from the facts as recorded by historical acts. As the Chinese
communists often say, “seek truth from facts!”
Perhaps it is
most prudent that the article is ventilated to the public about four weeks
after the birthday of the tinkhundla system’s paramount saint, Sobhuza II, a
clean distance from the emotional and undiluted noises that often hail from tinkhundla
adherents and apologists on that day every year. That way, hopefully a real battle
of ideas, with all information based on concrete facts, may ensue.
In a “Special
tribute to Zindzi Mandela”, an article (Sunday Observer 26
July 2020), attributed to one Prince Thumbumuzi,
makes the following claim:
“One of His Majesty King Sobhuza II’s legacy was his
contribution towards the liberation of the Republic of South Africa, having
been a supporter of the African National Congress (ANC) and helping protect
South Africans living in Eswatini in the 60s until his death in 1982.”
The notion that
Sobhuza was a supporter of the (ANC) is normal propaganda in Swaziland and often
goes uncontested – in addition to the censorship, including self-censorship –
in mainstream media.
This article
seeks to encourage the public to engage history as it is, not as they wish it
to be and definitely not as it has been presented to them by the oppressive
authorities. The article does not seek to dispute any type of assistance from
Sobhuza or the government, financial or otherwise, to some South Africans. While
Thumbumuzi’s interests are, obviously, to place Sobhuza in a plush African
“revolutionary” throne, evidence based on historical reality, however, shows
that Sobhuza was neither a supporter of the ANC nor the South African
liberation struggle, though he did interact with some South African exiles and
liberation heroes.
Recently
declassified communications show a very different angle of Sobhuza and his government’s
role in the South African struggle against apartheid, which contradict the
stance presented by Thumbumuzi. The large chucks of these declassified communications
come from information recorded by the United States of America (USA),
specifically its embassy. In a 1976 written record, the American Embassy,
noting the appointment of Prince Maphevu Dlamini, also noted that, according to
Americans working in the ministry of agriculture at that time, Maphevu was both
pro-American and pro-South African – apartheid South Africa, that is.
In another
communication dated 2 November 1978, Sobhuza’s prime minister, Maphevu, during a
30-minute meeting in his office, pleaded strongly with the United Kingdom and USA
representatives to urge their governments to prevent the adoption of United Nations
sanctions against apartheid South Africa. This was particularly on oil
sanctions that were to be imposed on the apartheid regime and thus help accelerate
the liberation of the people of South Africa.
Maphevu’s
reasoning for the government’s opposition to sanctions was that sanctions would
be not only “suicidal” for Swaziland but also extremely detrimental to blacks.
According to the record, in his forceful half-hour presentation, Maphevu talked
as spokesperson for blacks in all of southern Africa and not merely for Swazis.
Incredibly, he lambasted ANC leaders and asked rhetorically which black leaders
in South Africa itself would support sanctions. He hoped that Western
policy-makers were not taking advice from "blacks who left South Africa ten
to twenty years ago and who are now living comfortably in Europe and America."
These blacks whom Maphevu described in such offensive terms were the likes of
Oliver Tambo, Chris Hani, and other ANC and South African liberation movement
leaders. Yet Thumbumuzi wants the world to believe that Sobhuza supported the
ANC and the struggle against apartheid!
On 15 March
1979, the USA ambassador had a 45-minute meeting with prime minister Maphevu.
In the meeting, Maphevu recalled that he had visited Iran in 1976 and found the
Shah (who had some years earlier been imposed on the Iranian people by
imperialist USA) doing well in modernising the country; he thought the Iranian people
would greatly regret what they had done, that is, removing the imposed dictator.
The Swaziland authorities, clearly, always stood in fierce opposition to people’s
uprising against tyranny, colonialism included.
Sobhuza also
benefitted handsomely from the apartheid regime. In a report titled “Africa
Review”, dated 1 December 1978, the United States intelligence agency, the CIA,
drew a clear connection between Swaziland and the apartheid government of South
Africa. The report stated that Swaziland’s government, presided over by Sobhuza:
“is motivated to maintain good relations with Pretoria.
The traditionalist government believes it is threatened in the same way white
South Africans are, namely, by a host of outside forces seeking the destruction
of a social and political order that has served to protect the interests of the
ruling elite… Close relations between with South Africa are probably seen as
protection against communist and radical change, whereas, Mozambique as a
militant and Marxist state is seen as a serios threat to the preservation of
traditional Swazi values and the monarchy. As a result, Swaziland has made
little effort to disassociate itself from Pretoria and has indeed strengthened
economic ties with South Africa. The government apparently also maintains a
covert and close relationship with the South African police that expect to
extent cooperation in criminal matters to intelligence matters of mutual
concern. In addition, South Africa has equipped the Swazi army with light
infantry weapons.” (emphasis added)
The above shows
that Sobhuza and his government knew what they wanted. They evidently wanted
nothing to do with putting any pressure on the apartheid regime to move towards
democracy, and they certainly were not supporters of the ANC. This is history
as it is, and it should be properly acknowledged and published!
In addition to
the above declassified files, various historians and other commentators have
pointed out some of the above facts, especially the fact that Sobhuza was more
in support of the apartheid regime than he was for any liberation movement
anywhere in Africa, let alone in South Africa, if he ever gave any support at
all. The latest in the list of historians who have employed a more scientific
approach to understanding the history of Swaziland is Dlamini Hlengiwe Portia
(PhD) who, in 2019, published a book titled “A Constitutional History of the Kingdom
of Eswatini (Swaziland), 1960-1982”.
Dlamini, who
from the outset refers to Sobhuza as “a cunning political fox”, presents Swaziland’s
constitutional history and concludes that Sobhuza simply wanted all power to
himself and nothing less. Dlamini shows that even during the constitutional
debates in the 1960s, Sobhuza always chose to side with the wealthy White
settlers and multinational corporations and did not have any intentions to consult
indigenous Swazis; he was out to conserve the traditional status quo and
protect private property which was owned by White settlers and multinational
corporations. Dlamini further notes that Sobhuza’s political party, the Imbokodvo
– the formation of which was due to strong advice from the wealthy White
community in Swaziland at the time, multinational corporations and apartheid
South Africa – was expected to defend the economic interests of White investors
and check the rise of ideas that were prejudicial to apartheid South Africa –
an obvious example of such anti-apartheid ideas were ANC ideas.
Dlamini deals a
death blow to Sobhuza’s credentials on the struggle against apartheid when she
points outs that although ANC bases were found in Swaziland, Swaziland was
never a member of the frontline states. She states that the only reason the ANC
was able to have some bases within Swazi territory is because the Swazi monarchy
did not have the military resources to contain ANC activities on its territory
– in order to quell a labour unrest in 1962, for example, the British
colonialists had to import troops from Kenya. After the 1973 decree, the
absolute monarchy relied heavily on apartheid South African intelligence operatives
to go after the ANC in Swaziland, especially after signing the 1982 secret pact
with apartheid South Africa through which Swazi officials harassed ANC
representatives and eventually expelled them from the country, says Dlamini. As
such, “[T]he free operation of South African liberation forces on Swazi
territory does not mean that Swaziland was officially pro-ANC”, Dlamini
maintains.
The aftermath of
the 1973 proclamation issued by Sobhuza, banning all political parties and activities,
thus abrogating the 1968 constitution, is also scrutinised by Dlamini. While
the proclamation was a major devastation for human rights and human
development, Dlamini states that the two important partners of Swaziland – Britain
and apartheid South Africa – were supportive of the Swazi monarchy in the Cold
War context because of the monarchy’s known conservative and anti-communist stance
since independence; Sobhuza had already expressed his hatred for the Soviet Union
and socialism, and even banned the circulation of communist literature in
Swaziland following independence. It must be noted, in this regard, that
“communist literature” in this context also included ANC literature, an
organisation which Thumbumuzi claims Sobhuza supported.
Dlamini also
adds another interesting fact in the post-1973 period. The South African
Broadcasting Service’s ‘Current Affairs’ programme, which was generally
considered to echo the sentiments of the apartheid regime, considered the 1973 abrogation
of the constitution in a favourable light. They even gave propaganda media support
to Sobhuza in order to sanctify an oppressive system led by the apartheid
regime’s old friend, Sobhuza. South Africa was, therefore, comfortable with the
conservative, despotic political order in Swaziland, reasons Dlamini.
The above facts prove,
therefore, that Sobhuza was more of a bosom friend of the apartheid regime than
the ANC. The results of the rampant abduction, arrest and killing of exiled ANC
members on Swaziland soil, particularly in the 1980s, are part of Sobhuza’s
legacy which the likes of Thumbumuzi must face. Royal apologists may point to
this or that basis for Sobhuza’s collusion with the apartheid regime, but that
would not dim the fact that Sobhuza and his government saw a friend in the
apartheid regime and not in the ANC. The facts speak for themselves. History
has no blank pages!
________
