As Koppel pressed him, Mandela smoothly explained:
"One of the problems we are fearing in the world today are people who don't look at problems objectively but from the point of view of their own interests. That makes things difficult because once a person is not objective it is extremely difficult to reach an agreement. One of the best examples of this is to think that because Arafat is conducting a struggle against the state of Israel that we must therefore condemn him. We can't do that. It is just not possible for any organization or individual of integrity to do anything of the sort"
On February 16, 1990, Mandela told the Christian Science Monitor, when asked about his movement's embrace of violence, if he would make it stop. That was a key concern for the US political class that wanted to support him.
"I have made it clear that the armed struggle will never be suspended--to say nothing of it being stopped--until a settlement is reached," Mandela declared from "the garden of his tiny Soweto home."
"You must be careful of being more worried about the violence that comes from the oppressed and saying little--or nothing at all--about the violence that comes from the government. They [the government] have closed all channels of communication. They have intensified the pressures. What does the world expect us to do in that situation?" Mandela added.
In other words, nobody wants violence, but neither does anyone want to suffer and submit to repression. When conflict is ugly, the people with real power to stop the violence, who have the upper hand, should be the first to be held accountable.
Not renouncing violence while engaging in reconciliation with the very people, whom Mandela ultimately forgave for oppressing him, left all tactics that could be used to achieve power available for use. It ensured that those in the white power structure could not attempt to divide and conquer and discredit factions by claiming they were behind violence that Mandela himself had opposed. It prevented the white South African government from having the ability to leverage his opposition to violence when trying to prevent a growing boycott, divestment and sanctions movement from isolating the country for its policies and actions.
To the extent that Mandela allowed his principles and vision to be co-opted by capitalists of his country and permitted structures of economic apartheid to be maintained, he is an example to world leaders in power of how one can imprison a transformative organizer in the confines of their achieved compromises. Not willing to sacrifice what had been gained in terms of political rights for black Africans, the economic gains that could be made through the ANC's Freedom Charter were largely abandoned after the constraints created by the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were felt. (For more, see this chapter, "Democracy Born in Chains" by Naomi Klein from her book, The Shock Doctrine.)
But, Mandela's true lesson for people of the world lies in all that he did prior to becoming president and negotiating with de Klerk. It comes from the courage and spirit he showed in his work with the ANC, during his imprisonment and then when he emerged from prison as an anti-apartheid icon. He was willing to fight and die for an idea if necessary. Under attack from his own government, he was able to mobilize others to fight and die for this idea too.
With that in mind, his example carries more power for the oppressed--Palestinians, Syrians, Bahrainis, Egyptians, etc--than for the figureheads of government, who have a commitment to managing power and containing resistance to their actions. And they may have to fight until power realizes it will have to embrace justice and human rights for all.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).