Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2008
Widespread scepticism prevails that the proper conditions for negotiations do not as yet exist in South Africa. Yet, most major parties to the conflict (with the exception of the Pan-Africanist Congress) flaunt negotiations as the magic formula for settling a seemingly intractable dispute. From the western governments to the Soviet Union, from the African National Congress to the National Party, all advocate negotiations. In 1989 the N.P. fought a successful election campaign to receive a mandate for talks. The A.N.C. issued a lengthy policy document that aims at preparing its constituency and setting wellknown preconditions (lifting of the emergency, release of political prisoners and return of exiles, free political activity). Even the Conservative Party admits that it eventually will have to negotiate the boundaries of a Boerestaat when it ‘opts out’ of an increasingly integrated, undivided one-nation state.
Page 370 note 1 Alexander, Neville, ‘Intersecting Strategies in the Transition from an Apartheid to a Post-Apartheid South Africa,’ Conflict Resolution Conference,Friedrich Nauman Foundation/Institute for Democratic Alternatives,Bonn,9–13 September 1989.Google Scholar
Page 371 note 1 E.g. Lodge, Tom, ‘The Lusaka Amendments’, in Leadership (Dover, N.J.), 7, 4, 1988, pp. 17–20.Google Scholar
Page 372 note 1 Giliomee, Hermann and Schlemmer, Lawrence (eds.), Negotiating South Africa's Future (London and Basingstoke, 1989), p. 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page 372 note 2 Giliomee, Hermann and Schlemmer, Lawrence, From Apartheid to Nation-Building (Cape Town, 1989), p. 226.Google Scholar
Page 372 note 3 Giliomee and Schlemmer (eds.), op. cit. p. 151.Google Scholar
Page 373 note 1 Herman Giliomee, ‘The Communal Nature of the South African Conflict’, in ibid. p. 118.
Page 373 note 2 Giliomee and Schlemmer, op. cit. p. 243.
Page 374 note 1 Ibid. p. 226.
Page 374 note 2 Ibid. p. 225.
Page 378 note 1 Hanf, Theodor, ‘The Prospects of Accommodation in Communal Conflicts: a comparative study’, in Giliomee and Schlemmer (eds.), op. cit. p. 105.Google Scholar