Phil Craig Addresses AfriForum National Congress on Afrikaner Self-Determination

Self-determination: Our undeniable right (23 Aug 2024)

I was absolutely delighted when the Afrikaner Verklaring was made earlier this year.

The country we live in in 2024 is very different from the one we were promised and agreed to in 1994.

Afrikaners and other minorities have been systematically undermined by successive ANC-led governments, and all too often we have capitulated rather than stand our ground.

For as long as ‘United in our diversity’ really means ‘there are more of us than you, so you will do what we say’, then we are not free but a subjugated people. 

The Afrikaner Verklaring was a powerful statement of intent and a line in the sand drawn by the Afrikaner people ….. And I absolutely loved it.

I hope that here today I too can play some small part in advancing in what I hope will become an Afrikaner revolution.

In the next 30 minutes, if there was any doubt in your minds whatsoever, I want to reassure you;

• that your future as the Afrikaner people lies entirely in your own hands, 
• that the law stands squarely behind you, 
• that you can change the course of history, both your own and South Africa’s, and
• that you can do it peacefully and legally,

But only if you act courageously and decisively now whilst the opportunity remains.

And like all revolutions, the Afrikaner revolution must start in our own minds.

White South Africans are like a boxer who has become trapped on the ropes, covering ourselves up, as our opponent hits us again and again. The more we show weakness, the more emboldened our opponent becomes. Many white people have already thrown in the towel and conceded defeat, leaving their homeland in the hope of salvation elsewhere. 

We simply cannot win by fending our opponent off for as long as we can, we have to get off the ropes, onto the front foot, and we need to start hitting back with everything we have, because this is the only way that Africa’s white tribes have a future here on the African continent.  

‍Afrika is nie vir sissies nie

So where exactly must we begin?

We must begin by recognising just how much ground we have already conceded. 

We mustn’t repeat the mistakes of the past, but neither can we allow ourselves to be shamed into silence.  

1994 was a negotiated settlement. South Africa belongs equally to all who live in it. Ethnic minorities are not second class citizens. Black South Africans have no more claim to South Africa than do Afrikaners or other minorities. We are all entitled to dignity, respect, and justice. The legacy of colonialism was not all bad. By far the most brutal leader that South African has ever known was Shaka Zulu. Transformation has become a code word for state sponsored racism. And whether it is uncomfortable for some or not, all lives matter.

Afrikaners belong in South Africa, they must be allowed to determine their own destiny as equals at the table of government, and they must never allow themselves to become a powerless minority.

Which then brings me to my subject for today, the Afrikaner’s unquestionable and undeniable right to self-determination

Self-determination is a right we have allowed ourselves to be bullied out of. In some cases we have literally become too scared to even say the words self-determination.

And i’d like to illustrate this in a way that I hope you will find suitably shocking

Which of the main political parties in South Africa do you think speaks most regularly about the right of self-determination?

The answer is the ANC

Every single ANC president from Mandela through to Ramaphosa has repeatedly spoken out in support of the right of self-determination …… for the Palestinians, for the Western Saharans, for the South Sudanese, ….. Just never for you and I.

And now it is time that we change that.

So what exactly is the right to self-determination and why does it exist in the first place?

Well this is how it was summed up in a 2014 United nations report:

‍In its essence, the right of self determination means that individuals and

Peoples (Afrikaners) should be in control of their destinies and should be able to live out their identities, whether within the boundaries of existing States or through independence.

‍More than an outcome, self determination should be seen as a process subject to revision and adjustment, and its outcome must correspond to the free and voluntary choice of the peoples concerned, within a framework of human rights protection and non discrimination. 

In other words, Afrikaners cannot find themselves trapped as passengers on a ship which somebody else is steering, and which is not going in the direction which Afrikaners want to go in.

And of course this is exactly the situation in which Afrikaners find themselves in South Africa today.

The majority of Afrikaners have never once voted for the ANC and they do not want to be governed by it, or any other African nationalist party.

To the contrary, Afrikaners know that if they can take control of their own destiny, that they can live safer, more comfortable, and more fulfilling lives. 

At present, without control of their own destiny, Afrikaners, and particularly the youth, are being driven en-masse out of the country of their birth, and into exile.

And I think there is a question that every single Afrikaner must honestly ask themselves: 

In 100 years time, where will my descendents be living and will they still even be Afrikaans?

Sometimes it is the little things that hit home the hardest. I am not an Afrikaner, but every time Marnus Labuschagne comes out to bat for Australia, it gets me right here

Hy’s nie meer Marnus Labuschagne nie, he’s Marnus La-bu-change

Is that the future you want for Afrikaners?

With that question in mind, i am going to read you an extract from an covenant of international law, which South Africa has signed, and which South Africa’s parliament has ratified rendering it law in the republic of South Africa:

‍Afrikaners [All peoples] shall have the right to existence. 

‍Afrikaners [They] shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self- determination. 

‍Afrikaners [They] shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy Afrikaners [they]have freely chosen.

This is Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, and of course for emphasis I have replaced the generic term ‘All peoples’ with the specific term, ‘Afrikaners’ in this context.

And let us all be very clear, Afrikaners are most certainly not ‘pursuing their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen’.

The question then is; what are we going to do about it?

AfriForum has been an inspiration, and not just to Afrikaners. It has been fantastic to observe the growing respect AfriForum receives from other communities who have increasingly shifted from disdain, to begrudging respect, and ultimately on to outright admiration.

Ons sal self

But to successfully exercise the right to Self-determination, a peoples’ claim must stand on two legs: 

firstly, they must be in control of the reality on the ground (and this is referred to as de-facto self-determination), 

and then they must consolidate and protect that reality in law (and this is referred to as de jure self-determination)

Afrikaners are living in a country where:

• they are not being governed by the government of their choice;
• that government is not acting in what Afrikaners consider to be their best interest;
• And where that government is not delivering the services which Afrikaners require and are entitled to.

AfriForum has recognised this, hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners have signed up to  AfriForum’s mission, and together they have actively worked to remove the South African government from certain aspects of their lives, and to begin in those areas to govern themselves. This is a textbook example of de-facto self-determination.

But ultimately, on its own, de-facto self-determination can only bring us so far.

South Africa’s political environment is in constant flux and what today’s government may be willing to turn a blind eye to, tomorrow’s may vociferously oppose. Even today’s actions are inherently limited by what concessions the current government is willing to make. 

Afrikaners will never again govern South Africa, but through self-determination, they can govern themselves.

This is where the other leg of self-determination becomes critical, establishing the legal framework for Afrikaners to self-determine. De jure self-determination.

And the Afrikaner Verklaring promises to take this fight to the heart of Government.

The legal basis for Afrikaner self-determination is rock solid.

We have already heard what the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights says, All peoples have the right to self-determination. 

We could just as well have referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural, and Social rights, both of which make the same statement, and both of which South Africa have also signed and ratified since 1994.

But not only has South Africa agreed to this principle, it has no choice in the matter anyway. 

In a 2017 paper titled, ‘The Law on Self-determination Today’, Dr Alfred de Zayas, the author of the 2014 UN report said:

Today, international law recognizes self determination as peremptory. Rights holders are peoples. Self determination is not a prerogative of States to grant or deny.

But in the case of Afrikaners, you don’t in the first instance even need to rely on international law, because Afrikaner self-determination has been written into the South African Constitution.

Section 235 says:

The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the notion of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.

What does this mean in reality?

Behind the unnecessarily complicated wording, s235 says two things:

Firstly, that the constitution does not rule out self-determination for Afrikaners 

And secondly, the way for Afrikaners to formalise their right to self-determination is through national legislation.

This then brings us to another critical question.

As we have watched South Africa, over a period of thirty years, falling apart around us, and conditions for Afrikaners progressively worsen under a series of governments which they never voted for, why have Afrikaners never formally claimed de jure self-determination?

I think this has been a mistake. It is my opinion that without de jure self-determination, within the next few generations Afrikaners will effectively be wiped out in Southern Africa. I don’t want to see that happen, and I am absolutely certain that neither do you!

From my observations, there appear to have been two main obstacles to claiming de jure self-determination:

1. The impossibility of achieving sufficient parliamentary support to pass an Afrikaner self-determination bill through parliament; and
2. The inability of Afrikaners to agree on a specific course of action, which is both practically achievable taking into account the Afrikaners wide geographical distribution throughout South Africa, and upon which the majority of Afrikaners are demonstrably agreed.

Neither of these are insurmountable

When it comes to the national legislation, we need to think a little bit laterally.

In the first instance, tabling national legislation is far more important than it being passed.

We must never lose sight of the fact that under international law self-determination is an undeniable right which South Africa has repeatedly sworn to uphold. South Africa cannot deny Afrikaners self-determination, if they ask for it.

But for 30 years, the ANC have been able to avoid this legal dilemma simply because Afrikaners have never formally and officially asked for self-determination.

Were Afrikaners to table a self-determination bill in parliament, it would force South Africa to officially make the decision whether it is going to grant or deny Afrikaners self-determination.

This is instantly a win-win. 

Should parliament recognise its legal obligations and pass the bill, de-jure self-determination will have been achieved. 

Should parliament reject the bill, South Africa’s refusal to honour its legal obligations will have become a matter of official record, opening the way for both legal challenges and intense international lobbying. 

If the bill is rejected, Afrikaners could in the first instance approach the Constitutional Court. 

Helpfully, when certifying section 235, the ConCourt has already declared that the legislative component is not intended to frustrate the right of Afrikaners to self-determination, but rather to provide a mechanism to record whatever solution Afrikaners and the state agree upon.

Should the ConCourt rule against Afrikaners, they could then approach the UN’s Human Rights Council, or even the International Court of Justice if they can find a state sponsor just as South Africa itself has done in support of the Palestinian people.

The upshot of all of this, is that Afrikaners should not for now be unduly concerned about getting the self-determination legislation passed in the national assembly, they should rather focus on developing legislation upon which the majority of Afrikaners can agree, and securing a mandate through which to authorise its tabling.  

More simplistically, Afrikaners need to answer three key questions for themselves:

1. In what form are we going claim self-determination;
2. Who is going to prepare and table the legislation; and
3. How will we obtain a mandate from a majority of Afrikaners to support the legislation?

So then, in what form should Afrikaners claim self-determination?

Whatever they decide:

• It should be practically viable for the Afrikaner people, 
• And they must be able to make a compelling justification - initially to the South African Government, but also to the international bodies who may ultimately have to be called upon to arbitrate the Afrikaner’s claim to self-determination.

The initial pursuit of Afrikaner self-determination post ’94 was primarily focussed on the creation of a Volkstaat. This ran into a number of thus far insurmountable obstacles, most notably that Afrikaners are widely dispersed throughout South Africa and not located in one geographical region, and that there was a lack of popular support for the concept of a Volkstaat amongst rank and file Afrikaners.

Allowing the concept of a volkstaat to dominate the discourse around Afrikaner self-determination has been counterproductive because it has limited the discussion of other potentially more viable forms of self-determination.

Self-determination can be exercised both within the boundaries of an existing state, internal self-determination, or by breaking away and forming a new state, external self-determination.

Self-determination is an on-going process and there will never be a definitive end point in achieving it, therefore Afrikaners should not allow themselves to become divided over any internal vs external debate. Starting the process is the most critical step, regardless of where it may ultimately lead.

Given the current challenges in pursuing Afrikaner self-determination externally, or a volkstaat, internal self-determination is the logical place to begin.

The 2014 UN report is once again helpful in articulating this.

(Section 12) By internal self determination, we understand participatory democracy, as laid down in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and

the right of a population group within the State to participate in decision making at the State level, which may also entail the right to exercise cultural, linguistic, religious and political autonomy within the boundaries of an existing State.

The and is critically important.

Afrikaners having equal voting rights in South Africa is not self-determination, and cannot negate the Afrikaner’s right to self-determination. 

The Afrikaner Verklaring highlights this issue and deals with it very well. It is also dealt with in a seminal judgement of International Law, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Quebec judgement.

And we could spend a very long time talking about just this issue, but there is one quote that for me sums it up just perfectly:

‍Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

Helpfully, the UN report went on to give some specific examples of how internal self-determination could be exercised, using terms with which we will all be familiar. 

(Section 63) It is possible to reach solutions that guarantee self determination within an existing State entity, e.g. autonomy, federalism and self government. 

Clearly, it is not for me to say how Afrikaners should exercise their right to de jure self-determination, but it seems that a consensus has already broadly emerged and what is needed now is for someone to take a lead in the process just as AfriForum has done with de-facto self-determination.

The Afrikaner Verklaring identifies three specific areas where Afrikaners would like to exercise self-determination, and these are:

1. Control over cultural institutions such as schools, universities, and trade unions 
2. The creation of special cultural zones for Afrikaners
3. Participation in government as a cultural community on an basis equitable with the rights already granted to other cultural communities in South Africa

The Afrikaner Verklaring then concludes with aspirations of a cultural accord between Afrikaners and the South African Government.

Alas, the ANC has done nothing in thirty years to suggest that it will, of its own volition, do what is right and sign an accord with Afrikaners. Instead, even in its own public documents, it is driven by its balance of forces doctrine. 

In my opinion, the quickest and most effective way to use the balance of forces doctrine against the ANC is for Afrikaners to table legislation in accordance with section 235 and force the ANC’s into a response. As we have seen, the law is firmly on the Afrikaners side.  

The next question then is, who would prepare and table self-determination legislation?

Two political parties, the Vryheidsfront Plus and the DA, are heavily dependent upon the Afrikaner vote, and in the case of the Vryheidsfront, Afrikaner self-determination is its raison d’etre. For that reason, the Vryheidsfront may well be the obvious choice.

The bill does not need to be written by the party which tables it, and if in fact the bill is written by civil society, it may be easier to keep party politics out of the issue to the benefit of all.

Once the legislation has been prepared, Afrikaners would then need to deal with the final question: 

How will they obtain a mandate from the majority of all Afrikaners in support of the legislation?

Regardless of which party tables self-determination legislation, it must be done on behalf of the Afrikaner people collectively and not just voters of the political party tabling it.

There is no prescribed way in which this should be done.

One option to consider would be holding a referendum of all Afrikaners and asking them. The Referendum Act empowers the President to call such a referendum and for many reasons it would certainly be worth formally requesting one. It is however unlikely that he would accede to such a request.   

This is a situation which the Cape Independence movement is all too familiar with and it has led us to an innovative solution which might suit Afrikaners very well, holding a private referendum. This tactic was successfully used in 2014 by the Venetian people in Italy to obtain greater autonomy and was conducted digitally, with independent international observers then ratifying the result.

Having spent the last twenty years of my life living in an Afrikaans community, of one thing I am absolutely certain; Afrikaners are gatvol verby with living under ANC-led governments which they didn’t vote for, and they will endorse Afrikaner self-determination in a heartbeat if presented with an even half-sensible proposal.

I would therefore like to close my address with that very much in mind.

Without self-determination, Afrikaners have an extremely challenging future ahead. De-facto self-determination can and already has made a significant contribution to the welfare of Afrikaners, but if the legal rights of Afrikaners cannot be formally claimed and recorded in the law of the Republic then Afrikaner self-determination will be a house built on sand.

The Afrikaner verklaring recognises this reality and declares the intent to act upon it. All that remains is for Afrikaners to turn those powerful words into action.

I hope today I have been able to emphasise that de-jure Afrikaner self-determination is not at its heart a complicated affair.

It needs one group or organisation to take the lead, to develop one piece of legislation which translates the Afrikaner’s already publicly stated ambitions into a practical legal framework, which must then be tabled in accordance with section 235 of the South African Constitution.

I can testify from personal experience that this is nowhere near as hard as it may seem. I had the privilege of leading the team which wrote the Western Cape Peoples Bill which the Vryheidsfront Plus then tabled, and I scoped out a Western Cape Federal Autonomy Bill. Each took little more than a few weeks of time and some good legal advisors. During the process, experts literally fell over themselves to help. In our case, everyone even worked for free. People want change.

Our Quasi-federal Constitution is positively laden with precedents and opportunities begging to be exploited.

One of the most exciting observations of my research into the right of self-determination is just how reluctant apex courts are to deny anyone self-determination. We have seen it in Canada, we have seen it in the UK, and with the certification of the South African Constitution, we have seen it here too.

The moral of this story is simple: When it comes to self-determination, if you don’t ask, you don’t get.

‍

NOTE: The Referendum Party believes, just as international law says, that 'All peoples have the right to self-determination'. Phil Craig has spoken out in support of many communities including the Western Cape people, the coloured community, the Zulu people, and now Afrikaners. Where these communities form part of the wider South African people, they must do so of their own free will and with agency to make their own decisions.

‍