Sitting at the breakfast table in his family’s large compound surrounded by an all-white Pretoria suburb, the 18-year-old white South African boy looks out the window at their Rolls Royce parked in the hot sun and smiles at how good things are, but also he’s very worried by news of America’s USAID.
In his hand is Ilanga’s latest “exposé” about Kagiso Trust. The bilingual Zulu-English paper (founded by John L. Dube but now aligned with Inkatha) feels like a perfect fit into his worldview. His eyes scan nervously over phrases about how Kagiso had “consciously avoided co-funding with groups such as the Urban Foundation” and rejected “Operation Hunger because of its welfarist approach.”
The article confirms everything his privileged worldview wants to believe – that aid organizations are just political fronts.
He nods along as he reads how Kagiso Trust “had to date not accepted money from America (‘the chief ‘victim’ of this policy was USAID’) because of that country’s involvement in Angola.” To his propagandized mind, this proves these organizations are all communist sympathizers, just like his teachers warned about the “total onslaught.” He remembered that Eugene Terreblanche had said an end to apartheid was a surrender to communism, calling for full-scale civil war if President F. W. de Klerk handed power to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress.
Such fire-brand threats like “victory or violence” felt reassuring to him, even though Terreblanche compensated for a lack of height by wearing shoes with platform soles. The founder of the violent Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging terror group would always say survival isn’t hate and then he’d roll out Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and especially Adolf Hitler as examples of the greatest leaders in history – white men who transformed nations into fighting people.
When he reads that Kagiso rejected working with World Vision “because of its evangelist emphasis; paternalistic attitudes,” he scoffs. The involvement of church leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Dr. Allan Boesak as Trustees only confirms his suspicions. His father had always said the churches were being used by communists – especially since they kept rejecting the “perfectly good” homeland system that Inkatha participated in.
The most damning part, to his mind conditioned by apartheid education, is how the article draws a direct parallel between Kagiso’s educational approach and “Dr H F Verwoerd’s Bantu education system.” But where Verwoerd’s system was meant to keep Black people in their place, Kagiso wants to create political activists. He sees this confirmed in their criteria rejecting funding for people who “simply pursue their own careers” rather than contributing to “social change.”
The paper’s revelations about Kagiso potentially getting “R76 million rand this year” from the European Community enrages him. He fixates on the line about how “its real needs…will be at least 3 times 76 million rand.” In his mind, shaped by years of apartheid education, this is proof of an international conspiracy to fund what the article calls “the exiled broad liberation movement, and its internal allies.”
His reaction reflects the success of apartheid’s messaging: even aid organizations become suspects in a narrative built on maintaining white control through fear and division.
Like the paper’s editorial stance, he sees sinister motives in Kagiso’s stated goal of helping “victims of apartheid.” His ideological blinders, carefully fitted through years of racist socialization, ensure he sees exactly what the system wants him to see – not humanitarian aid, but dire threats to the privileged world of whites-only power that he is supposed to be inheriting… USAID threatens to destroy his future, unless somehow he can sneak himself into America and destroy it instead.
Related: “‘A Black Coup‘ – Inkatha and the Sale of Ilanga”, by Alison Gillwald, Transformation 7 (1988)
Transcript: ILANGA, JULY 12-14, 1990 IKHASI 3
COMMENT AND OPINION
Kagiso’s political agenda
Ilanga can today reveal further evidence that the Kagiso Trust is heavily involved in politics and that it is devising plans to use the scholarships it grants to mould the recipients politically.
And there can no longer be any doubt that Kagiso’s programmes are not only used to support the ANC alone, but that the Trust’s programmes are submitted to the ANC by the Trustees for approval.
Kagiso documentation given to Ilanga reveals that Kagiso is engaging in a form of social engineering that is similar in intent to Dr H F Verwoerd’s Bantu education system – to mould people to suit a political ideology.
A document on education criteria notes that virtually all funding of education comes either from the state or “from donor agencies related to the major centres of economic power within the country.”
While it concedes that not all such education is “narrowly tied to the political goals of these institutions,” it recommends that the first criterion to be used when considering the use of foreign funding is that the projects in question “has little or no chance” of being financed by commerce and industry in South Africa.
To guard against investment in people “who simply pursue their own careers on completing their studies and show no concern to contributing to social change in South Africa, and to reduce the possibility of funds being devoted to the education of individuals likely to support the political and economic system which is at the heart of South Africa’s problems, the second criteria should ensure:
‘The programmes intended beneficiaries should be from particularly poor and vulnerable groups; people with high political as well as educational potential (people active in trade unions or community organisations); programmes show a high degree of accountability to communities and/or their representative organisations?”
A further document entitled “Who we fund, and why…”, explores past policy and future options and shows that the Kagiso Trust is in the process of transforming itself to be more effective politically and that it either has, or will, seek clearance for this change from the “political leadership.”
Kagiso Trust Executive Director, Achmat Dangor, and Natal Chairman, Michael Sutcliffe, have both issued statements to Ilanga in which they deny political bias or that Kagiso has “any links, per se, with the ANC.”
Yet the document in Ilanga’s possession shows quite clearly that all policy issues are discussed with the ANC and that the Trustees, the bulk of whom are leading churchmen, are seen as key political figures in the transformation of South African society Kagiso seeks.
Under the heading “Current policy practice” the document finds that Kagiso’s mission to fund organizations that represent “victims of apartheid” to be a “wide and rather vague dictum” that had resulted in resources being spread too widely and with a huge element of “welfarism.”
It suggests that Kagiso become more developmental and recommends that roughly 50% of current projects “particularly in such areas as media, culture, human rights, welfare, etc” be discontinued and then says the following under the heading ‘Task”:
“Negotiate with the political leadership the necessity of this change; ensure their understanding, consensus and support.”
The document was submitted together with another “briefing document” in which KAGISO painted itself as the major catalyst to propel the ANC and its internal allies in the UDF, MDM and COSATU to become the government of South Africa.
The document, which formed an annexure to Board documents considered by the Kagiso Trustees on April 18 this year, says current Kagiso policy is “reactive” in that the Trust “passively waits for project proposals for consideration.”
“To change our focus it would proactively have to identify projects and programmes that meet not only our own developmental ethos but the priorities identified as necessary in the interregnum and afterwards.”
Under the sub-heading “The task” the following statement is made:
“As in 1.3 (the previous item referred to above – Editor) the understanding and support of the political leadership must be enlisted; local communities to be consulted; other NGO’s to be canvassed and perhaps brought into the process.
“The second 2 phases have already begun – it is in the negotiating with the political leadership that our Trustees have a critical role to play.”
The document reveals that Kagiso is confident that the European Community will give it at least R76 million rand this year. This is what is said:
“Even though we have requested a budget of 76 million rand from the EC (and it is likely to approve) we estimate that our real needs, if the development policy change is endorsed, will be at least (underlined) 3 times 76 million rand.”
Kagiso had “consciously avoided” co-funding with groups such as the Urban Foundation and the Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC). Kagiso also did not work with Operation Hunger “because of its welfarist approach”, World Vision “because of its evangelist emphasis; paternalistic attitudes”, and the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund because of “highly restrictive conditions.”
The policy relating to World Vision is particularly interesting, given that the following church leaders are Trustees of Kagiso: Dr Allan Boesak, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Dennis Hurley, Dr Beyers Naude, Rev F Chikane and Father S Makhatshwa.
“No politics” says Dangor
For some time now Kagiso Trust has faced a sustained onslaught from Dr Buthelezi, the Inkatha Movement and the pro Inkatha paper, Ilanga. The attacks on Kagiso Trust have been motivated primarily by the fact that Inkatha as an Institution is excluded from resources available to Kagiso Trust. The form and content of the attacks are characterized by vitriol, misinformation and the distortion of facts. At times, an unwillingness to accept some irrefutable facts is blatantly apparent.
Perhaps it is time to understand the true nature of the “conflict” between Kagiso Trust and Inkatha, and a good place to begin is to examine the allegations made in Ilanga newspaper at various times, and to examine why Inkatha as an institution does not receive funds from Kagiso Trust.
1. INKATHA AS A PART OF THE HOMELANDS SYSTEM
A critical element in Kagiso Trust’s criteria, negotiated with and accepted by our donors, is the principle of non-collaboration. The relevant section of the criteria reads:
“Projects initiated by and/or controlled by the South African government, or any of its structures cannot be supported. This includes structure under the control of the “homelands”, “self-governing states” or organisations participating within any of these structures”.
This clause effectively excludes Inkatha as an Institution from receiving support from Kagiso Trust. This does not however mean that ordinary people who are members or supporters of Inkatha cannot and do not already benefit from the resources we make available to the Natal region.
We have never disputed your right to campaign against this “non-collaboration” clause, and you have done so since 1986 sometimes very viciously.
2. KAGISO TRUST’S “POLITICAL BIAS”
Inkatha bases this allegation on two elements: funding for the South African Youth Congress (Sayco) and our perceived “support” for the ANC.
Firstly, the funding of SAYCO, and the cheque we gave them in April 1990 was the fulfillment of a contractual obligation ourselves and the EC entered into in 1987.
This does not mean that we endorse SAYCO’s political programme and furthermore the funds are only for use in education, cultural enrichment and training.
It was accepted by ourselves and the EC that no further applications from Sayco would be entertained in the future an agreement we will stick to. We are therefore justified in saying that we do not fund political organisations.
3. “LINKS” WITH THE ANC
The perception that Inkatha has, and is trying to spread as a “fact”, is that we have close links with the ANC and that we exclusively support the ANC. Ilanga uses selective quotes from a briefing document presented to our Trustees on April 1990 in an attempt to prove this. The Ilanga did not even bother to verify whether it was accepted as Trust policy. The fact is that entire document was not accepted.
Nevertheless, the document defines opposition as the “exiled broad liberation movement, and its internal allies” very widely and would undoubtedly include the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Black Consciousness Movement of Azania (BCMA).
Although the ANC has since its unbanning invited us to have discussions on two occasions, we do not have any links, per se, with the ANC. We would be happy to meet any political organisation outside of the SA government and homelands nexis, should we be invited to do so.
Again, in terms of present Kagiso Trust policy, a meeting with Inkatha would be difficult at this stage as it continues to be part of an apartheid created political system.
‘Maningi politics’ says Ilanga in reply
Ilanga today publishes an “open letter” sent to it by the Kagiso Trust’s Executive Director, Mr Achmat Dangor. The letter was sent in response to articles published in Ilanga on July 5, which revealed how Kagiso intended to spend the more than R116 million rand available to it and its allies to have the ANC and its internal allies installed as the Government of South Africa.
Why the letter was also sent to the President of Inkatha, Dr M G Buthelezi, only Mr Dangor knows. But, we suspect, the letter is really intended for the eyes of the EEC and that Mr Dangor could not resist the temptation to smear Dr Buthelezi.
The bulk of the enormous amount of money available to Kagiso comes from the European Community and Ilanga showed how these funds would be employed in a blatantly party political manner.
Mr Dangor does not question the accuracy of the Kagiso budget published in Ilanga. Instead he seeks in his letter to convince the public – and no doubt, especially the European Community – that Kagiso does not fund political organisations and that it has no bias towards the ANC.
He raises two issues in his efforts to do so. Firstly, the celebrated SAYCO affair. Both Achmat Dangor and the Natal Chairman of the Kagiso Trust, the University of Natal’s Dr Michael Sutcliffe, made public statements to the effect that Kagiso did not currently fund SAYCO. That was not the truth. When Ilanga produced irrefutable proof that it had done so as recently as April this year, Kagiso shifted its ground.
The Trust now speaks of a “contractual obligation” with the European Community entered into in 1987. No explanation is given as to why the money -R400 000 – was only paid over in 1990.
Kagiso funding, Dangor says, does not mean that the Trust endorses SAYCO’s political programme. Well, we choose to differ. Readers can make up their own minds, based on the facts we have published.
One last point about SAYCO. That organisation, the forerunner of the ANC’s youth wing, has openly (in newspapers funded solely by Kagiso!) been recruiting for Umkhonto weSizwe, the military wing of the ANC. It has publicly labeled Inkatha’s President, Dr M G Buthelezi “the enemy of the people.” This after the ANC leadership have called for his murder. Kagiso says it stands for peace and democracy. Do SAYCO’s actions meet those criteria, Mr Dangor.
Small wonder that Dangor and Sutcliffe seek to distance themselves from SAYCO “politically” now that the truth about the funding is out in the open.
The second issue Dangor uses in his bid to deflect revelations that KAGISO is using European funds to promote the ANC and its internal allies, is the briefing document tabled before the Kagiso Trustees in Johannesburg on April 18 this year.
“That entire document,” he says, “was not accepted.” Really? What does he mean by that? Boards do not normally “accept” briefing documents. Documents such as the one in question are designed to guide decision-makers. Is Mr Dangor saying that the Trustees took a formal decision to reject the briefing document? Perhaps he would care to produce sworn statements from his Trustees to verify that the document, which he, as Chief Executive, must have approved for submission to the Trust, was indeed “not accepted.”
In response to his claim that we quoted selectively from the briefing document to show that Kagiso had close links with the ANC and supported it exclusively, we say: We did not. We invite him to enable the public to be the judge. He can do so by getting the publications his Trust and its allies finance to publish the document in full.
For the information of readers who do not know what these publications are, they are the New African, The New Nation, South, Umafrika and Vrye Weekblad. He cannot, surely, object on the basis of costs – after all, these are borne in full by European – dare we say it – capitalist taxpayers.
Finally, Mr Dangor claims that the term “exiled broad liberation movement, and its allies” was used “very widely” in the Kagiso briefing document “and would undoubtedly include the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Black Consciousness Movement of Azania (BCMA).”
If that were so, Mr Dangor, why have the leaders of both organisations publicly accused KAGISO and its allies, the South African Council of Churches (SACC) and the S A Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC) of sectarian bias towards the ANC in the allocation of funds?
No Sir, we stick to our story – Kagiso is blatantly biased towards the ANC and it thus does fund one political organization.
For the rest, Mr Dangor, resorts to the inevitable defence of people who cloak their actions in secrecy and who cannot subject their actions to public scrutiny – the smear. We shall not dignify his smears with comment.