Former president De Klerk could not state “without qualification” that apartheid was morally repugnant.

Again he was asked if he wanted to take the opportunity to say that apartheid was, in retrospect, morally repugnant.

“I can only say in a qualified way,” said de Klerk.  “Inasmuch as it trampled human right, it was – and remains – and that I’ve said also publicly, morally reprehensible.”  He added, “But the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant.”

These were among some of the alarming revelations shared by former SA president, FW De Klerk, with CNN’s chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour in an interview screened last night. De Klerk was speaking at a summit of Nobel Laureates held in Chicago recently.

Amanpour noted that former President Nelson Mandela had retracted his statement that De Klerk was a “man if integrity” when the latter had refused to categorically renounce apartheid. On this, De Klerk held his position,

“Well, let me first say I’m not aware that Mr. Mandela says I’ve never renounced apartheid.”  He then said, “I have made the most profound apology in front of the Truth Commission and on other occasions about the injustices which were wrought by apartheid.”

But then he added:  “What I haven’t apologized for is the original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states (essentially creating two separate states, one black and one white).”

“But in South Africa it failed,” he said. “And by the end of the ‘70’s, we had to realize, and accept and admit to ourselves that it had failed.  And that is when fundamental reform started.”

De Klerk was adamant that he and Mandela were still “close,” telling CNN,

“We call each other on birthdays. There is no animosity left between us.” But then he added:  “Historically, there was.”

Speaking about the homeland system that was devised by apartheid’s engineers to keep different non-white ethnic groups living separately but still dependent on the South African economy for jobs, he denied that blacks in the homelands were disenfranchised.

“They were not disenfranchised, they voted . They were not put in homelands, the homelands were historically there.

“If only the developed world would put so much money into Africa, which is struggling with poverty, as we poured into those homelands. How many universities were built? How many schools?

“At that stage the goal was separate but equal, but separate but equal failed.”

He said he later became “a convert” against the system.

“There are three reasons it (apartheid) failed,” he said.  “It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves.  It failed because we (whites and blacks) became economically integrated, and it failed because the majority of blacks said that is not how we want our rights.”

Still, De Klerk would not back off his belief in the validity of the original concept of “separate but equal” nation states.

“With the advantage of hindsight,” said de Klerk, “we should have started the reform much earlier…But the intention was to end at a point which would ensure justice for all.  And the tipping point in my mind was when I realized… we need to abandon the concept of separateness.  And we need to build a new nation with its eleven official languages, accommodating its diversity, but taking hands and moving forward together.”

Here’s the full video clip from CNN:

[Sources: CNN, Times LIVE, Zimbio]