prof walter dietrich

good evening. >> good evening. >> all right, thank you all folks forcoming this evening. this is a very special,can you hear me now? so i'd like to formally welcomeour extended community. we have with us this evening our members of our scar advisory boardif i could ask them to please stand. i have ambassador mcdonald andhis wife crystal, casey sorres, allan grobin and lester cheney.

are there are any other ones? if you could please stand. >> [applause]>> scar's headed an extraordinaryadvisory board over the years and they continued to be committedto our great causes. we also have a wonderful set of faculty. will the scar facultymembers please stand? we've got several of you. >> [applause]>> all right.

>> [applause]>> all right, and our scar students,could we ask you to please stand? >> [applause]. >> andi know there are some alumni out there. how about some alumni? >> [applause]>> all right, there we go. there we go. and to the members of the greatercommunity and those who loved scar. how about you all standing too?

>> [applause]>> all right, thank you. well most of you know me,my name is sandra cheldelin. and i am the vernon andminnie lynch professor at s-car, and in that role since 2005. i've had the pleasure oforganizing annual lynch lectures. as you can see hopefully fromthis long list over here, that we have been blessed witha range of experts building theory, improving our practices, engagingprevention and peace making activities. and all informing the work that we are sodeeply committed to doing.

tonight is a very specialoccasion in many ways. it's a year of transition of leadership. we have a new dean. it's my pleasure toacknowledge our 11th leader of s-car since 30-some years ofits existence, dr. kevin avruch. >> [applause]>> he began his deanship on the 10th of this month, and so thank you, kevin. and would we please ask the firstlady of s-car to stand, and sheila since your life is going to besignificantly changed from now on.

>> [applause]>> so two important events are happening rightnow, that we're going to be celebrating. the first is the lynch lecture series. 25 years ago we began the lynch lectureseries, and the second is the inauguration of the phd program,the phd program 25 years ago also. so this is a 25 year celebration. and let me begin by thankingthe family responsible, first for the lynch lecture series. edwin and helen,dear to our hearts, wonderful and

extraordinarily generous to us. they endowed a chair on behalf ofed's parents, vernon and minnie. and they gave us a stunningpiece of property, their own home at mason neck, they call,and we now call, point of view. they believed in our mission thatwe must find a way to finally make this a more peaceful world. and, they had the vision to help tocontinue to broaden the knowledge, our knowledge,of conflict theory, research, and practice, within our school,within our faculty and students,

within the university community andat the field at large. and one way to do that was tocreate an annual lecture series. let me tell you about ed lynch. through out his long life hewas a northern virginian. he was born in amendale,not too far from here. graduated from strayer college. he worked for a short time in the usgovernment in the department of agriculture andthen became very active in real estate. working with his dad over the last partsof his life before his dad died and

he became the general partnerin lynch limited partnership. sadly he left us on march 17th,2004, when he was 91 years old. wonderful long life. he was not your typical realestate kinda guy though. ed was a member of the virginia houseof delegates, for seven years. he's self described left of centerpolitician, and a democrat. decades earlier,active in county politics, he was president ofthe fairfax county young democratic club. he served on many, many boards, andactive in much of the communities.

he was on the mason foundation trusteewhere he served the mason medal. he was an original memberof the icar advisory board. he was president of virginia savings andloan, and board member of alexandria national bank. he was board member of the nationalassociation of the southern and of the salvation army. he was a trustee of shenandoah college andof the conservatory of music. he was a patron ofthe wolf trap foundation board. and awarded many scholarshipsto aspiring musicians.

he called himself an old farmerwho loves the good earth. but what i remember him calling, thanks to chris and louis mitchell,when they invited gene and me to dinner to meet he just said,i'm just the son of a pig farmer. so. ed was an extraordinarilysuccessful businessman. he owned three farms infairfax county over his lifetime. the elmdale dairy farmwhere he was born and raised in annandale became a golf course.

the spring lake farm where he andhis family lived for 20 years was once a horse sporting farm. and now a residential subdivisionshopping center called burke, virginia. so what is this point of view? the last 20 years of his life,he lived in meadowood farm on mason neck. this became a gift to mason in 2000. a particular thrill for me, cuz ihappened to be the director at the time. and the gift was specificallysaid to support the work of to create an international retreat andconference center.

how cool is that? to support the work of icar,how unusual is it for a tiny department in a giant universityto get this kind of calling out? well, ed believed in peace. he believed in us,he believed in our mission, he believed we must have a morepeaceful world for the next generation. so here are some of the thingsthat he did to make that happen. in 1987, he andhis wife endowed the icar's first chair. they created this annual lynch lecture.

he was a major key player inestablishing the phd program. in 96, he andhelen created the john burton endowment. and if you get to the fenwick library, you should check out hisvietnam war protest collection. there you've got materials related topamphlets, booklets, correspondents, protests, reprints, newspapers clippings, multitude of meetings ofseveral anti war groups, and notes from business students who alldid the protest against the vietnam war. so thank you we say to the lynchesthis evening and to bill and

molly who have kept already keptthe lynch legacy active and thriving. so now we'll turn to the 25 yearcelebration for our phd program. mariann natalie baker sent me a brochureof the first marketing program and this is part of whatcame on that brochure. they’d already had a master’s degreegoing on for four or five years. and it said, both degree programsare the first of their kind in the us and both rest securely on the mission of thecenter to advance the understanding and resolution of significant and persistenthuman conflicts among individuals, groups, communities, identity groups and nations.

it's pretty much the samemission that we have today. that was 25 years agowhen this group did this. it's going to be my pleasure now, tointroduce two colleagues representing our 25 year celebration and who willmove our program along this evening. most of you know our belovedchristopher mitchell, professor emeritus. he arrived 25 years ago to jointhe then center's core faculty. that core faculty made up of dennissandole, who was our first faculty member, at the center. along with john burton, jim lowe,

rich ribbonstein and chris mitchell andjosie meeker, i'm sorry. with graduate degrees in economics andinternational relations from london university,chris had taught around the world but i bet you didn't know that he hadtaught in birmingham university. in the 1960s,chris were closing with john burton at university college in london where thedeveloped basic ideas conflict resolution of problem solving workshops and track twointerventions into protracted conflicts. chris is going to beintroducing willie estherhuyse, our guest speaker this evening.

it's also with special pleasurei introduce yani bodis. yani's a graduate of icar at that time anda member of the first phd class. he's associate professorat the school of public and international affairs atthe university of baltimore. he got his masters degreeat american university, got his bachelors in theater andliterature with a minor in history and a one year honors degree in linguisticsat the university of stellenbosch. yani's primarily responsible forsecuring our speaker this evening as they are long time friends andfellow afrikaners.

chris supervised yanni's dissertationresearch 20 some years ago and together today, they are interviewingthe mothers and fathers of our field in oral history and intellectual mathof the field of conflict resolution. as i step away, until the end ofthe program when i'll come back, yanni will say a few wordsabout the first phd class. then he will introduce dr. mitchell, whowill formally introduce dr. esterhuyse. so thank you.>> [applause] >> thank you sandy, ladies and gentlemen i have a little bit ofa challenged voice, you can hear me?

okay, thank you again forthis opportunity to remember the first doctoral studybeginnings of scar. ladies and gentlemen, i showed professor esterhuysethe johnson student center this week, and it is hard to imagine that spot as the twopre-fab buildings where the then-icar, the institute for for conflict analysisand resolution was first housed. i don't think most people in this roomcan still imagine that what that was like 25 years ago andhow humble those beginnings were. professor mitchell told me yesterdayit was also known as the hut.

well, it was there in the fallof 1988 when professor mitchell. mitchell came as a faculty member,that i joined the first doctoral class. sadly, no official class pictureswere taken in those days. however, the much-beloved professor,jim lawie, his wife actually marianne,always invited doctoral classes to their house once a semester, andmany pictures were taken there. actually, many of the earlier picturesof classes only exist because of those get-togethers and those pictures. the picture i'm about to show youwas provided to me also by mary anne

and it is, i believe, the only existingpicture of first doctoral class. and here we are with a late jim lowry. three of these nine first year studentsdeparted with master's degrees. so let me focus on the nowfirst six doctoral students. at the top, from the left,second from the left, bury a heart. now a faculty member ateastern mennonite university's conflict transformation program two hoursdrive from here in southern virginia. next to him, someone i hope you will know,recognize as our new dean. so, pointed out this week hehad more hair 25 years ago.

>> [laugh]. >> so, ladies andgentlemen next to me who worked in, >> consulted on the hill in washington dc. and diane who also consults and has done very interesting work in indigenouspeace making in the united states. at the end of the top row,the tall gentleman, frank dukes from uva,university of virginia. the regional director of the institute forenvironmental negotiation. and in the front row here onthe left in the blue [foreign].

the only other foreign studentin that first semester, who returned to turkey where she's from. and is now at the [foreign] university. you might note that the first generationof doctoral students was much older than they are now. plus minus 15 or so years older. most of us had other careers beforewe became doctoral students. and ladies and gentlemen i don'tthink you can imagine of this but we actually took a hugerisk in joining a new and

in many ways experimental doctoral degree. mr. mitchell actually acknowledgedme maybe three days ago and i was so glad i didn't know that. that for the first two, three years it wasn't sure thatthe program was going to continue. >> [laugh]>> ladies and gentlemen if you all in this roompromise me, and i want a promise, not to tell the firstgeneration of faculty the late. chris mitchell who is here,richard rubenstein who is here.

here, sandoli v. sandolios here i believe [inaudible]does not here that i said so, i would tell you this,i would tell you that i think we stayed, cuz we really loved and respected them forthe knowledge and how they treated us. mrs. lari continue to hold subsequent doctoral classes attheir home and take more pictures. and here is another one. i'm sure many people in this roomwill recognize many of those faces. i don't have time to gothrough them tonight.

we promise to create a websiteon escar's website and put, she gave me about another 30 pictures,to put all those pictures up there. so, at the end of my first doctoral year, some somewhere towards the end,or middle, rather, of 1989. i went back to south africa, and specifically wantedto visit my alma matter. i thought you'd like to see this,university of. you thought uva was pretty? go to.

>> [laugh]>> my mission was to call on another much beloved>> professor under whom i never studied, but whom i knew personally andprofessionally the philosopher [foreign]. i would actually like you to see a secondpicture of the university of [foreign] surrounded by three mountains. mrs. anna maria [foreign] sittinghere in the front looking at me, a then math professor alsohere with us tonight, told me her husband was flying in from londonwhen i tried to make contact and see him. he was landing very earlythat morning in cape town,

about two hours from stellenbosch. hour from stellenbosch,depending how you drive. [laugh] andshe graciously invited me to lunch. bravilly, as he was known,with jerry known as bravilly. >> took me for a walk after lunch. he said he wanted to tell me something,but i had to promise not to ask him why he wasmaking the statement he was about to make. he repeated, "jonni,you cannot ask me why i say this." and then he made this very simple statement.

>> apartheid is over. you can come back if you want to. how did he know? as i later found out, that morning he returned from the secrettalks to end apartheid in london. in less than a year, mandela was free. last summer,when i visited him in south africa, he no. noted, how ironic. here we are 25 years later with a sharedinterest in second track diplomacy,

in problem solving workshops. and that ladies and gentlemen is mysegue to man who has probably forgotten more about problem solving and secondtrack diplomacy than i will ever learn. a parent of the field in his own right,our very own, professor christopher mitchell. chris? >> [applause] >> okay, all right somewhat to my surprise, i find that i have to makefour introductions to you this evening.

i have to introduce an idea,i have to introduce part of the film, i have to introduce a book andthen i have to introduce a speaker. i'll get around to you soon. >> [laugh]>> the idea, the theme actually arises fromour speaker's choice of title for this evening's presentation, andthat's the theme of talking to the enemy. i've come across thisphrase anyway in an old arab proverb which goessomething like this, that you do not make peaceby talking to your friends.

you make it by talking to your enemies. which on the surface of it soundsperfectly obvious and perfectly sensible but it has no real echo ofthe difficulties of actually doing this. talking to your enemy is very hard andit can be extremely dangerous. it can be very hard to start up. and as the excerpt from the film thatwe're going to show you will emphasize, it is equally hard to keep going. not to walk away. the film, which professoris sort of indicated to me,

has dogged his footsteps likean unpleasant hound over the last few years,was actually made in 2009. and it is an account of a seriesof conversations that took place between a number ofreally brave south africans. at a time when conversations anddiscussions between on the one hand the membersof the africana community and the nationalist party in south africathen in power were very unwilling to be seen talking in any way,shape or form to their opponents. particularly their opponents fromthe african national congress, the anc.

to undertake talks like thiswas a very risky business. it could actually layyou open to accusations. so the best of naivety at hopelessoptimism or worse the treachery. so that the people who took part inthis conversations which lasted from 1997 which was almost a hightook the south african government policy of separatedevelopment as it was called apartheid. and 1991, when the anc was unbanned andits leader, nelson mandela, was finally releasedfrom prison after 27 years in jail. and, it seems to me quite clear,in reading the history from that time,

the set of conversations played a major, major role in bringingthe apartheid system to an end. the film tracks thisthrough from efforts to set up these conversations,which were allegedly, and actually in reality secret, off the record,out of the public eye. but at which people managed to talk toeach other as human beings rather than as representatives of particularpolitical movements. it is a film which i would commend to you. but we're going to show you a coupleof extracts from it to give

you some idea about the process bywhich the conversations took place, what they discussed,some of the obstacles. and it ends on sort of a triumphantnote in 1990, with the release of the leaders of the anc, withthe un-banning of the opposition parties. and the beginnings of serious negotiations to turn south africa away from a, forgive the word, racist regime, to something more like a multi-ethnic, multiple philosophycountry that it is now.

we start these extracts from the filmabout a third of the way through. the first third of it more orless deals with problems that the sponsors of this initiative have beentrying to set up the actual meetings and gather people who are willing tosit down and talk to one another. the south african nationalistsgroup of course was led by professor hooley andon the other side of the table was one ofthe leaders of the anc. so could we have the film now? >> walter knows about these talks.

>> i'm instructed to report back to himvia dr. barnard, in national intelligence. i'm to be their trojan horse. >> you take a risk telling me this,professor. >> it would be a risk not telling you. without trust, we'll achieve nothing. >> tambo says if weare to win our freedom, we must first banish bitterness. this will be the test of it. >> for all of us.

>> [inaudible] in south africa today aftera bomb exploded outside a shopping center in near johannesburg. four civilians were killed,18 others injured. a spokesman claimedthe target was a nearby bank. he declined to give details onthe operational difficulties which caught the explosion. [inaudible]>> is that how you justify your campaign of indiscriminate bombings? killing of innocent civilians.

>> i have never supportedthe killing of civilians. >> tell that to the women and childrenthat you might have killed with your bombs and your pipe bombs,there are dead children. legitimate collateral damage topromote your cycle of terror. >> i can quote you chapter and verse ontheir children, professor, names, ages and dates, my son included. >> yes, i think a break is in order,gentlemen. hm? >> anc policy is, and always has been,

that only>> military and economic targets are. >> smells like crap andit sounds like crap. chances are it is crap. >> to justify the excesses inthe south africa security forces. if you persist it's. can digest it dog. >> i think if they say itenough times they'll bite. >> it's really not productive soeven if we move on. >> the timing on the [inaudible]bomb isn't coincidental.

the circle authorized it>> in the full knowledge of our meetings. they will get a tactic. once the talking starts, if you think that's going to straighten or end any with the government, you seem to [inaudible] [music] [sound]

this is the situation. all the anc bombing operations followedthe commander in controlled structures in lusaka. but some of our countries believein force to be the only way. sometimes act without authorityoperations can get bungled. innocent people get killed. but you have my word that iwill do everything in my power to ensure that civilians nolonger suffer from our inadequacy are you telling us that you are unableto control some of your renegade

countries mr. mbeki? >> if you knew the truth of oursituation professor, you will see that the issue of violenceis irrevocably connected to the other issues we wrestle>> only when we can participate in a truly democratic process will ourown struggle become obsolete. only then will the conflictbetween us end. [noise] i apologise, i lost track of. morning.

>> should we start by returning tothe outstanding items from yesterday? >> i wonder, do you mind? i am sorry. on behalf of my brother i havesome issues for clarification. if you will bear with me. one, when would it be possible forthe embassy to embark on talks about how to progressfrom negotiations with the government? two, what would yourpreconditions be to such talks? and three,what agenda would be acceptable to you?

>> you can tell the president, there will be nopreconditions on our side, and we leave it to himto determine the agenda. as for timing, we are ready when he is. and your position onthe cease fire revivance. we were ordered that all violence besuspended while negotiations take place. when a new constitution has been agreed,we will give the instruction that the armed struggle is to be abandoned. >> we owe you so much more.

takes a big man to make himself invisible. >> thank you. thank you. and you comrade >> i think some of you may have recognized william hurt struggling to getthe africana accent right. >> [laugh]>> and whom i'm succeeding. the book of course is professor estherhouse'sown 2012 version of

the events that you've just seenin a rather hollywood production. the film is something that he haddescribed to me as faction, that it's not totally inaccurate butit doesn't go far enough. so i hope you won't mind a commercial plugwhich says see the film, buy the book. >> [laugh]>> all right, my last introduction is of coursethe most important because if that was action then we havethe very good fortune of having somebody who's not read aboutthese events or seen them on what

in my young day was called the silverscreen, but has actually lived them. i'm sure in his talk he will expand upon someof the aspects of this very very difficult talk with the enemythat he was part of. we shouldn't forget, however,that of course, professor esterheis has a very distinguishedcareer as an academic and not simply as a peacemaker. he has been professor of philosophyat the university of stellenbosch until the late 1990s,while all this was going on.

he probably came toprominence in the 1970s by actually producing quitea stunning book for somebody who was, i think, labelled at that time asa national party progressive and he wrote a book in 1979called apartheid must end. and if you think about that at a time whenit looked as if it was going to go on forever and ever it was quitean extraordinary piece of work to produce. i've gone on for too long. i think now it's my greatpleasure to introduce my last introduction of the evening.

you'll be glad to hearprofessor esterheis, to talk to us abouttalking with the enemy. >> thank you very much for the welcome. my mother tongue orthe tongue of my mother is afrikaans. it's a language spoken by at least 25%of the total population of 50 million, white and black. i hope that you willfind my talk interesting. and that you will also find myversion of english interesting. >> [laugh]>> i have to start my talk with.

our first simple andhappy task is to say thank you. thank you very much to you all. thank you that you choose to care,because you could have decided otherwise. thank you that you elected not to forget, because our fate could havebeen a passing course. mr. mandela in london after his release. i was in london when he made that speech,and i remember the sentences as if it was forever embedded in my consciousness.

thank you but you chose to care. thank you that you elected not to forget. our fight could havebeen a passing course. and at this 25th annual lecture,i would like to indulge mr. mandela's words of recognition andgratitude. talking to the enemy would nothave taken place in my country without the pressures applied forthe international community. we thank you that you chose to care,that you elected not to forget. and that you preventedthe cause of freedom and

democracy in my country frombecoming a passing cause. and thank you forinviting me to do this lecture. i'm always impressed by those who are prepared tospend their money on good causes. and what i saw here was somethingwhich i hope i'll see more and more in my own country. and thank you to your university. it is school forconflict analysis and resolution, and all those involved in making it possiblefor me to participate in this event.

in the year,you organize your first links lecture. i had my first meeting,1987 with leaders from the inc in exile. and in fact in the year theyorganized the second meeting. 1998 i had three meetingswith thabo mbeki and a few others including the incumbentpresident mr jacob zuma. i'm always intrigued by historicalcoincidences and some irony in history. there is one i don't like to talk about. my birthday was on the 19th of august,1956. and it was the exactdate when joseph stalin

started with his mock trials againsthis enemies and his old friends. but please forget about what i've said. one of africa's many culturalcontributions is storytelling. the south african story isa story of many voices. my voice is but one of somany other voices. michel foucault, the frenchphilosopher who was thought to have an influence on myintellectual development, said during his inaugural address more orless the following. i wished i could have slippedin unobserved in this discourse.

part of an anonymous discourse,a voice which has preceded me, but nevertheless,captured me, swept along. my voice,personalized as the speaker tonight, contains many voices,many stories, many discourses. i was, for instance, captured and swept along by numerous american voices. i have to honor some of them,harold volpe, a member of the house of representativesit was my improbably and impossible friend, harold.

then when frederick's an honorsecretary of stated one time and later involved the ford foundation. he was a very persuasive person buthe was a gentle american. john delan from the houseof the representatives also served as the directorof the peace corp, and then hellen the flag bearer ofthe united states south african leadership exchange program. then i met one person, mcdonald, and he's sitting there in front with his wife.

and i owe everything to him because of thebooks i read about second track diplomacy. he published with someone else,i will refer to it in 1987. i read that book in 1988. there was a reason. i had no idea how to do anddeal with these stocks. so i had to start reading,and i read this book. and i'm so thankful that [inaudible]what i really want to say, thank you, because your voice through your books,play throughout in my story in my country. thank you very much.

>> there was another voice, and that was the us state department,can you believe it. >> [laugh]>> in 1978, and i think mr. carter was the president,i still have to find out whether they borrowed the money to make mytrip possible in your country. and in san francisco iexperienced one of my many [cough] defining momentsduring a tough discussion of after midnight with a fewblack professionals. i walked away, i think it wasabout 2 o'clock that morning,

with a book which one of them gave me. and he was one of the writers. and the titled of the book andi have the book in my hands. the titled of the book was black rage,the writers william grier and m cobbs, two black psychiatrists. and the book captures me, serve me well,i have the book in my hands. and it is a book that i always treasure,very much. because what happened,there was something in this book, it was written by fred harris, andhe was a united states senator.

and there's one single sentence wasin that book, which captured me. and the sentence was, it is still no easything to be a black person in america. and i had to ask the question, and tell myself it is not an easy thing to be a black person in my country,south africa. i want to proceed as follows in broadoutline, tell you the story of my involvement with what we'll calltalks about talks with the inc, starting in september 1987 andending in june 1990. and then secondly, say something aboutthe model which emerged during the talks.

how it developed over time,and what we have learned and then thirdly, address the question,where do we stand today in regarding peace andto the reconciliation in south africa. three points. i started theology and the place wherei started theology in telenbosh. my professor taught me and said listen,you must have three points in a sermon. i think it has to do withthe number three of the trilogy. but in any case i have my threepoints here in front of me. now the story.

south africa's history, particularlyduring the '80s, was written in blood. the country was entrappedin deadly conflict. but the south african governmentfighting a people's war. now, this particular war,the people's war, was inspired by talks in1978 between inc leaders, including thabo mbeki andthe vietnamese, general giap, who was then,i think he died a couple of months ago. people's war, like many areas insouth african townships, ungovernable. children with sticks and stonesconfronting men in uniform with guns.

it was during those dark daysthat i was confronted by question which haunted me for many years,and in fact still haunts me. are non violent resistant movements reallymore successful that movements opting for violence to bring about settlements andmeaningful change. a number of factors during the 1980snecessitated like that and the need for an negotiated process settlementprocess in south africa. the first one the global scene changed and the soviet union a primaryresponsive in sea breaking up. there is a story i think it's true buti call it story.

my friend that cites the precedent ofthe nc oliver turnbull and judge the military wing visited moscow,met with president gorbachev, and flywell was interested in money andguns. and then president gorbachevtold the delegation you have to stop talkingwith these afrikaners. they're in pretoria. then he gave mister slawela signed photograph of himself with no guns and no money.

the global scene changed. secondly, southwest africa, or namibia, with the assistance of the majorinternational international powers, including the usa,firmly on the route of independence. the end of apartheid should also be linkedto what happened in angola and in namibia. and thirdly, the ungovernabilityof many areas in south africa due to the effects of people's wara hurting stalemate emerged between apartheid's fire power orhardware and people's power or software. many whites, afrikaners included,

began to realize that the oppressed and their children are prepared to die forthe cause of freedom. and it caused a reevaluation oftheir prospects for the future, and also a sharpening of modelsensitivities, and very important, the questioning, serious questionof addictions to old loyalties. and then firstly,the south african economy, and the rest of interests of the white elite,came under pressure. financial sanctions crackedthe comfort zone of white business. sanctions were successful ingetting the white elite to accept

the idea of a negotiated settlement,and to start talking to the enemy. i hesitate to put this andother factors in one basket. but i feel it can be liable as fallace, that time was right,ripe for sincere talks to quit andhis book from 1985 which are also read in an attempt to understandthese sort of processes. it has to be said that many changes took place during the 1980samong key government officials, who argued against a lot of criticism,

that south africa was in needof a political solution for its predicament and not a military one. it was during these times thatthe national intelligence service moved to the front of the political debit withinthe national party and within government. and the national intelligence society, nis was in competition butmilitary intelligence. as an institution it eventually becamemore involved in the preparatory process. and i was andis fully intrigued by the fact that intelligence services are idleto play that kind of role.

the minister of justice wasthe political head of intelligence. he started talking confidentiallyto nelson mandela in 1985. it was the beginning of a series of talks. it became known as the present talks. and through him and intelligent servicea number of these talks took place. more than 40 of those confidential talks. the president, d w warther wasthe only person who was informed of the single honor of the person ofthe cabinet for politicians was in fall. the present docs were crucial,very crucial pre-negotiation talks.

extremely risky anda good reason for confidentiality. and i've learned one thing during thisperiod that risk taking is part and parcel of these kind of talks. these talks, whatever the initial noticecould have been, were not just exploring. mandela's views on a negotiated settlement as it has been published nowadays orsaid nowadays. they would also aim at preparingsouth africa's president, d w warther fora meeting with nelson mandela. at that stage a most unlikely andeven revolutionary idea.

the dilemma in this regard wasneatly described in 2004 by the intelligence boss who said, and i quote, to put the matterof discussions with mandela into perspective let mesuggest a comparison. the state of national security at thattime in south africa made it as likely. for warther to talk to mandela,as it would be now for president george bush to inviteosama bin laden to the white house. and i think it was a neat andnice description. underly 1989,four years after the secret talks,

the present talks startedwith strict security measures in place andclassified as top secret. prisoner mandela met withpresident d w warther. the prisoner became a presidentwithin five years after that. the meeting was dubbed the tea party. it was short but,it went extremely well but, it was different from your department. my moment in a segment of the complex anddelicate pre-negotiation process started with two telephone callsduring the first half of 1987.

the fourth first call from londonin mark of a british company, consolidated cultures. the second call came from pretoria. i never asked them how why they made thatphone call, but it was a few weeks apart. and as it turned out, it wasthe person on that side of the line, and who i met later wasfrom national intelligence. and they asked me whether i would bepaid to facilitate professor petrov, professor peytin in a group that discussesthe future of south [inaudible]. very vague and so on, but

i had a good idea what they wereactually trying to tell me. after careful consideration i agreed. having my talks with the leadersfrom the nc exile in mind. at that stage, i was not inthe know about the informal and confidential contacts with nelson mandela. between 1987 and 1990 a total of eightthree-day meetings took place in britain. a couple of one-on-one meetingsbetween and myself also took place. we called it talked within talks. two of the bigger meetings at the requestof the nc participants included

very prominent offthe corner business men. one of the meetings in britain tookplace during on the weekend of mandela's release, on the weekend ofthe 9th through 11th of february. and it was really an emotional experience. our meetings covered a veryspecific set of agenda points. one, violence by some meansto achieve political ends and how this issue should be dealt with. secondly, how to create a climate fornegotiations and what the conditions shouldbe to start the process.

we spent a lot of time on whatwe called the preconditions. who should participate in the processwas the third agenda point. last one, the role of the economy,and business in a future dispensation, and related tothis issue, the issue of sanctions. the consensus was, andi think it was an important consensus, a wasteland will destroy the potential fora successful transition. the present talks were one ofsouth africa's best kept secrets. but neither the full cabinet deservedseats, not even the clerk in the know. the talks about talks that we had inbritain, there was one leak in 1989.

one of the problems we facedwas to practice damage control. there are always spoilers around. and you need to find out andidentify who the spoilers are. during may 1989, andthis is an important date, i was requested to travel to london andmeet gustavo becky who tell him that national intelligencewants to talk directly to him, and that he must providea reliable telephone number. i also had to convey to him the code word his caller will use,the code was john campbell.

becky's code was john simelani. i deliberately plannedthe meeting with [foreign] for the 31st of may, apartheid southafrica's day of the republic. we become a republic after south africawalked out of the commonwealth. that was symbolic forme to meet with him that particular day. the first meeting between becky andjacob zuma and two senior officials of the national intelligence tooksome time to materialize. there were telephoniccontact between them, pretoria and lusaka.

that meeting took place only onthe 12th of september 1989 in lucerne, switzerland, a few days afterde klerk's election as president. de klerk, still not in the knowabout the initiatives, was informed about a few days beforehis inauguration as president. he was caused by surprise,initially even angry. however, that day, he made the mostimportant decision in his life. because he said, after he listened to these agentsdecided i'll run with the ball. and he started running with the ball,

which brings me to our second point,what have we learned. there was agreement thatthe exploratory phase in environments of deadly conflict shouldbe regarded as a high risk gamble, not a place formore realistic sentimentalist. chances of failure are muchhigher than chances of success. this reality more than anything else necessitated three commitmentsby the participants. first one, confidentiality. second one, the right to deniability,

by those in the know, butnot directly involved. and then the third one,responsibility by those directly involved to acceptwhatever comes their way. now i was very much influenced by the works of dietrich bonhoeffer. and that particular work was why i worked i mean in the discussions,that we should take responsibility, whatever the outcome that thiswere exactly what we did. one of the first informal protocolswe agreed upon during our talks about

was the issue of who shouldparticipate in the preparatory and confidential phase of the settlement. national intelligence wasstrongly opposed to what has been referred to as civil diplomacy. efforts on the part of institutions,organizations and individuals from civil society to bring the state andthe anc in contact with each other. both the south african government andthe anc wanted to control all facetsof the settlement process, without international involvement,as happened in the media.

it was in those days that i beganto understand becky's positions, africans must resolve africa's problems. one of the first informal agreementsreached in switzerland between government officials andanc was about the exclusion of persons and bodies that would excite the informal andformal negotiation process. two issues, that, the one was the issue of trust confidence. the second one, the issue ofthe transfer of communication, and communication ofmessages in information, and

insight to the relevant decision makers. in my attempt to come toan understanding of these two issues, i was significantly influencedby when i read about the negotiations on nucleardisarmament in vienna. and the book, i've already mentioned, conflict resolutiondiplomacy published in 1987, with the editors, john mcdonald and d.b.. the vienna story, which i'm not goingto relate, is a fascinating story, because i don't want my tongueto sort of catch up with me.

a fascinating story, andi even went to see the play, walk in the woods, that was written bylee blessing on the vienna story and the negotiations that took place then. in fact, the guy was very muchinvolved in the vienna story, father theodore hesberg from notre dame. i went to see him at notre dame and i had a wonderful discussion withhim in his office at notre dame. and it is so that one can learn, from plays, films and also literature.

in our relationship-building andre-humanizing of each other during these talks about talks, we had todeal with a very difficult issue, which is calledthe construct of the enemy. and which was somethingvery real in south africa. we were in a civil war. i deliberately also use the wordwhen i talk about these things about the protracted site of violence and conflict in south africa,because it had a very long history. it had a structural history andalso more visible history

in my experience the construct of theenemy fulfilled the following functions. the function of divide and rule. second one, demonizing,demonizing the other. legitimizing violent response,mobilizing support, and then the last one,militarizing the country. we realized very soon thatcontext analysis was not enough. and that honest conflictanalysis was needed, an expanded andshared understanding of the conflict. or at least, a serious attempt atunderstanding the views on the reasons and

nature of the conflict fromthe perspectives of the talking enemies. the talks about talks were a deliberateattempt to dismantle the construct of the enemy andto create a construct around the idea of mediating andeventually negotiating partners. mandela was well aware of the barrierscreated by the construct of the enemy. i quote him, to make peace withan enemy one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes your partner. the peace process is all about getting and working together of unlikely andimprobable people.

i would like to also quote. where he said said there was no. within the anc, this is the cry wasto catch the bastards and hang them. but we realized that you couldnot simultaneously prepare for a peaceful transition while sayingwe want to catch and hang people. so we paid a price forthe peaceful transition. if we had not taken this route, i don't know where the countrywould've been today. had there been a threat of nurembergstyle trials over members of the party

establishment, we would never haveundergone the peaceful change. i agree with him. i do not want to take up too much time,but we organized the talks about talks more orless as follows. one, a formal mutuallyagreed agenda facilitated by an independent non-south african, and executed as a problem solving workshop,not just a talk show. and then secondly,enough time for socializing. walking in the woods,drinking south african wines and

eating south african fruit,on the sanctions list. >> [laugh]>> no, i won't say this,because of in business ethics, but i smuggled some of the fruit andwines into britain. >> [laugh]>> the rule was, and i think this was important duringthat informal session, which included a very formal dinner in typical englishstyle on the evening of arrival. the rule was no politics or controversialsubjects should be discussed or even raised at the suppression.

the critical issue with regardsto unofficial, un-mandated and confidential second talks between enemiesis the issue of the transfer of messages, information, andinsights to key decision makers. in the case of the present talks,transfer was not an issue for senior officials, the minister of justice,and president pw botha. their talks in britain werea little bit more complex because i was the go-between,in the end, between becky and many of the others atthe national intelligence agency. both the, intelligence agency andbeg to believe that what i was saying, was

what i think i was saying, that i was notsaying what they don't think i was saying. it was a very complex issue, andmaybe i should just [inaudible] when it was a fantastic experience to bedebriefed by intelligence officials. i've never heard the word, butit was quite an experience. how to preserve,i think this the important thing. how to preserve a high measureof trust and confidence in such a situation remained a constantchallenge to the participants, because selling out oreven worse falling into a trap, follows all pre-negotiationinitiatives like a dark shadow.

one of the things i did, was i madea commitment begging but i write it up. and still, i said listen this isa trap by national intelligence. i've got a document in london, in a safe. and as a journalist with access to thatdocument, if something happens to you or me, then she will be ina position to just publish it. the idea of talking in goodfaith is a motivating idea, but how do we make it work,is something else. and that's the reasonfirst [inaudible] on my connections with pretoria whichnational intelligence said

to me they will decide on that i said no,it's my decision. so that's why i decided to do that, andi think it was a very important decision. let me just summarize this,two other characteristics at the talk, the success, reason forthe success of the talks about those. the first one was very interesting. we started to make progress onthe issue of the way forward. we had agenda item the way forward, but we started to make progress the momentthere was agreement among us. that complete victory for one side was outof the question, and it took us some time.

and then secondly, we did not avoidputting hard truths on the table, enabling the participants tounderstand each other's positions. the issue about the violence wasone of the problematic ones. and then thirdly, we spent much time on the socioeconomicconditions in our country. the afrikaner businessmenacknowledging at the very early stage of the dialog that the destructiverealities of race-based discrimination, high unemploymentrates and the need for re-dress have to be part ofthe envisaged peace process.

so, where do we stand today? does south africa experiencesustainable peace and development after nearlytwo decades of democracy? we are so involve in a process ofpeace fighting and peace voting. amidst conflicts andviolence of all sorts, histories of protracted conflict andviolence do not end with a relativelypeaceful democratic election. in particular,if the root causes of the conflict and violence were not addressed, butexchanged for quick fixes of the symptoms.

this is the reason why resolute and honest conflict analysisis of paramount importance. was, i think,to think of violence in a very the restricted political notmultidimensional manner. the system of apartheid,brutalized those on the receiving end. and brutal cultures create legacies. create legacies. whether that is a benefit from the system,benefited from the system of apartheid liked it or not, the fact of the matteris, is that this apartheid system,

a form of structural andpractical violence, created the legacy. and how to deal with this legacy andunderstand its role and place in a comprehensiveconflict analysis is the tricky issue if youare committed to peace holding. the metaphor root causeswhich i used earlier on. it's a very important metaphor. it suggests potential growthunder certain positive conditions if the roots remain a reality. and these roots can lie dormant for

many years in a consciousness andmemory bank of people and new generations untilthey get trigger to grow, inspiring revenge and retributive justice. peace processes andreconciliation on the basis of forgive and forget do not cater for sustainability. it represents a form of denial-ism. to align myself with hanaorin errant. it is all about forgive and remember. but the memory energized byan experience of justice, a just peace.

what does this entail? translations from authoritarian rule and structurally social orderare protracted and complex processes. managed transformationsof time which radically changed the relations of power and influence of the old order of things andnew elites emerging. i use the following toassess our transition. i use the following four criteria. first of all, a broadening anda deepening of democracy,

based on a functional constitution andvibrant civil society. i'll give it eight out of ten,i think we made it. secondly, wealth andjob creation, rising incomes. let me give you a figure. a significant change is taking placeon the level of the middle class. in a recent study, it was foundthat the black middle class has reached a total of 4.2 million,and is still growing. the buying power, $42 billion. the white middle class stands at 2.8million with signs of stagnation.

the buying power, $38 billion. the wealth still on the sideof the white middle class. however, i must say on the downside. two other criteria,equitable distribution of wealth, visible. alleviation of poverty and then socialcohesion or a stable social fabric. and the existence of commonly sharednational identity and destiny. we do not score well. it is extremely problematic at the moment. we are not a nation celebrating a nationalidentity despite our diversity.

we're not, as a nation,inspired by common vision and a founding idea on wherewe want to be tomorrow. despite trying very hard to becomecomfortable with diversity, we still have a long way to go. for instance, illustrated on sundaysin the majority of churches, one of the most segregatedspaces of the week. admittedly, social cohesion andthe cultivation of forms of bonding and breaching and linking social capitalin environments which have experienced protected forms of social andphysical violence is a complex process.

a part that created raciallyprescribed social distances. having a direct impact on an issuei've mentioned earlier on, trust and confidence building. what i'm trying to say isthat the problems generated by the construct of the enemywere exacerbated by legally constructed separateidentities in south africa. and how to liberateourselves from this legacy in order to becomecomfortable with diversity proves to be a daunting task.

i want to refer to something thati got from john paul lederach when i spent some time atnotre dame university. he referred to the justice gap. we have a justice gap in south africa. and i have to share with yousomething very personal. i'm currently involved with the thabo mbeki african leadershipinstitute located in pretoria. marcos deals with the issue ofpeace building in deeply divided societies plagued by deadly conflict.

participants come from south africa andfrom across the continent. i experienced them as the newemerging professional, moral, andintellectual leadership of the future. whatever i cite,which textbook and authority, i quote,all name of an african leader who has dealt with the issue of peace i mentioned, all their questions always hadreturned back to one single issue. the connection between peace andjustice, the justice gap. as a kenyan participant stated last year,i quote him,

the absence of open conflict andviolence is a bonus, but not an indicator of sustainable peace. justice is the name of the game. his remark opened an intensedebate on the issue of structurally producedforms of inequalities and violence and the need forsafety and quality of life. we have a serious problem in south africa,the justice gap. lederach makes a point. the justice gap happens when open violencediminishes through national courts, but

people's expectations forsome level of incremental improvement of their basic needs are notmet in a practical manner. the deep sense of betrayal and of a cheap political peaceoften is experienced. i agree, i agree with ex-president joaquim chissano ofmozambique on what is needed. capable states, i quote him,good governance, a serious fight against corruption. it is the same processof national dialogue.

it's the same process. brigalia bam, we did a greatjob to take us through three successful elections as chair ofthe electoral commission recently said. we may have been doingmany remarkable things. but we seem to have unlearned the powerof real dialogue which has served us so well in the past. we confuse dialogue with robust debate,conferences, and consultations. which leave most people deflated anddisillusioned. and i go on with the quote.

our negative experiences ofbeing in contested spaces, where the battle for the supremacy ofideas destroy our ability to unite around the common missionare reinforcing a growing fatigue andthe belief that it does not help to talk. the inability or maybe,even unwillingness to get the real dialogue going,creating spaces for dealing, for instance, with the justice gap isan achilles heel of my country. we do have something on the table,the national development plan. a medium to long term vision ofthe future which should be the primary

focus of a national, regional,and localized dialogue across party political, ideological,and ethnic barriers. an inclusive discourse,sweeping us along, capturing the nation. a truly non-racial dialogue. i want to conclude with brigalia bam, who is currently involved inwomen in dialogue organization. our young democracy is now enteringinto a phase where we can no longer ignore the value of a dialogue. no longer can we rely on our strugglecredentials and our past heroes.

we need to become the heroes of today andtomorrow. our legacy should not be foughtin monuments for fallen heroes. but a united nation that unlocksthe potential of all its peoples, especially the youth,end of the statement. we, south africans,except the future, belongs to us. africans, black, white, colored nation. our fight is, however,not only in our hands. your choice to care and not to forget, to quote mandela, is part of our future,

dealing effectively with the justice gap. >> [inaudible], thank you.>> thank you. >> so, you could stay here. we have some time for a few questions and we have two students who are going tobe covering two sides of the room and they will do a question from the front andthe back. so, we'll sort of zigzag our way around. so, if you could please stand so that we'll see that you wouldwant to ask a question.

we'll bring you a microphone. >> thank you very much,thank you for coming. i want to pick up on the peace andjustice letter at point and your point about nuremberg you had madea brief statement that had something like nuremberg occurred, it may have been verydifficult for the peace to move forward. and that in one sense itseems that south africa chose peace over justice ora certain notion of justice. and i've been thinking a lot aboutthis accountability that we're often discussing in many circles.

and when you're focused on thisaccountability, in some ways are we preventing peace andif this just applies to south africa or would you say that it also couldapply to other circumstances. does my question make sense. i'm asking that it seems tome in south africa that there was a choice of peace over justice. there was a lot of collectiveaccountability that was pushed aside in order to move ahead. >> i'll try to make it short andsweet because it's a new water here and

nothing in the water. >> [laugh]>> the problem with peace, let me say, because of mandela, and i think it is incredible legacy, reconciliationbecame the name of the game. it was necessary. without that,we wouldn't have been where we are now. i go a little bit further andsay, it's very important, but we need to talk about peace. you can talk about peace in two ways.

the one is negative peace, when you say,listen, i don't like you, and i'm not going to like you. but i will not kill you, the negative. nothing to. and then positive peace about somethingelse is when he spoke about de klerk. he said, listen, we need to worktogether for a common vision. not in a sense that this visionis a partly political one. but it's a vision, in my opinion, where wehave to look at the socioeconomic self, but particularly, the justice gap,which particularly,

in my sort of really simplified manner,say, the poor. because the poor in south africaare getting younger and blacker. and that's the lower end of the pyramid. there's no way that this pyramid can be held together bystories about reconciliation. peace, in the end, is about what's going to happendown at the bottom of the pyramid. whether we create jobs for the people,where we give them an opportunity to live their lives inthe manner that is dignified.

>> understood, thank you. >> my name's i'm from angola,i'm your neighbor. and i was wondering, what is your take on violenceagainst immigrants in south africa. >> the violence. >> yes,against immigrants in south africa. >> the nature of the violence insouth africa of course has changed. it's not too much political violence. it's criminal violence and it's.

let me. i have a document there which i gotfrom the minister of art and culture. i am supposed to be an advocate fora advocate for social coercion. my like these sort of titles, so he sent me a document, a fantasticdocument about social coercion. and what i was saying here waswhat he said in his document. what i am trying to say is also thatgovernment people on the administerial level are admitting they've gota couple of problems, serious problems. and one of the things that he emphasized,he said, listen, and

we made a declaration at soweto,last year, on social cohesion and unity. and it's included in the document. and one of the things that he pointed out, and also that conference, was the kind ofviolence that we now get in south africa. not just governmental violence, butviolence against children, violence against women and violenceparticularly and old people is one. my focus because i've read the [inaudible]is also forms of structural violence where the economicstructure in the country is still inhibiting and frustrating and

in a certain sense even blocking andequitable redistribution of wealth. so this is known the ministerwill not say this in public but i can say this in public,we've got a new class structure, a new class structure with poor,mostly blacks at the bottom. and then another class at the top. so the less thing has also beenintegrated with a class problem yeah. >> in regard to immigrants,he was asking really, in regard to immigrants in zimbabwe. >> yeah we do have a serious problem withimmigrants that are coming from ethiopia,

from somalia many of them and there is now a reason forthe xenophobia, that is my reason. it's not there in this document, i wantedit to be written into the document but i couldn't get it to where i wouldsay that because of the poverty experienced by indigenous south africans. the xenophobia has to do with that, withthe socio-economic gap or the justice gap. it has to do with that,not because they're somalians or kenyans. it has to do with that. >> thank you very much.

>> my question to you issomewhat simple but complex. who's justice. if you say there's a justice gap,who's justice do you refer to. justice becomes politicized, becomesan issue, it becomes a debating point. so when you say there's a justice gap,whose justice are you referring to. >> it's a very important question. the thing for another reason reason butin the ethical context where i move now, with these students from they are talkingabout the justice of the west. when asking questions,now what kind of justice is that?

and the double sentence, and in fact,it's fascinating how they use, and the american who was oneof the lecturers on this falk, f-a-l a paper [inaudible] presented. they use him to confront me and i have to answer the difficult questions,but it was fascinating. i think in south africa, andi want to focus it on south africa, the, justice, it's a very practical sort of meaning. justice.

the legal system works, it's okay. access to the legal system is the issue. because if you've got money, and you'vegot access to that, it's one element. the other element is that the, all right let me give you an example. we're now experiencing violenceon the local level in townships against poor service delivery andpoor civilism finest. we'll see more of it. why?

because those we havethe rigth to get good services don't get [inaudible]reason corruption. so the justice gap is notjust something philosophical, or whatever it has to do with bread andbutter stuff. and with service delivery that they havea right to, but it's not been given. that is. and let add to it, andthou should i blame. the councilors ormembers of their own party. >> so we'll take perhaps two morequestions and then, yes sir.

>> thank you professor very much foryour enlightening talk. as you know yanny badisthe keeps me posted on many things that i never eventhought about in south african. i'm a retired foreign service officer. i'm wondering if we could go to kindof a more global look at some of the things you mentioned. it's evident that it was crucial ingetting talking about talks started that there'll be secrecyat very high levels. do you think that's possible these days?

>> in many, if not most,if not all of the kinds of situations that face the global community. >> [laugh]>> on a lighter sort of, i'm soglad that i did what i did in the 80's. >> [laugh]>> and not today. there is my answer. but i need to say something else. when you're really serious dealing with violent conflict that's happening

in the sudan and in somalia. and there are delicate but talks, back in price. some of the talks andthe kurds, kurdish group. i've met with them. many interesting national intelligence, turkish national intelligence wasinvolved with talks with was sabotaged. by the military, of turkish military. now what i do not understand inmy conception of responsibility

is that this kind of information, that should be kept confidential becauseit has to do with peoples' live and the possibility of peace,that but for whatever purpose, it is my public andthen the process is destroyed. what i'm saying,if something that they got from mitchell, in fact, before i met him. they're spoilers,i regard them as spoilers. and whether they say they'regood journalists or not, i say. because it's something else ithink you need to weigh it out.

so i have a very strong deal on that. i'm not popular. >> so perhaps one more. i know that dennis is had his hand uphere, so maybe we could take this side, and then we'll have to wrap it up. >> professor it's a pleasureto have you here sir. i've heard that the community played a very important rolein bringing apartheid to. i was wondering if you could talk aboutthat role and also to understand you think

the or the south african british communityand the global business community. can still play a role in reducingthe justice gap in south africa. thank you.>> thank you for that question. i took a group of afrikanerbusinessmen on two occasions to meet with the anc in exile. there's a reason they asked forit, i didn't propose it. what was the reason of the anc leaders? they said, listen, we want to talk tothese people because they're closer. through the [inaudible] andthey have a much

closer identification with the continent. with the continent. it was an interesting argument. the wasteland argumentalso applied to raul. and i think that was an important argumentfrom the start of the end sea because they sad they don't want toinherit the wasteland. what must they do with the wasteland? so your second pointis actually the point. what, i mean this is why i so much enjoyedwhat i've seen here on the screen.

not the the links. what would the world have been if therewere not people with the philanthropic attitude? we do not have enough philanthropistsin south south africa, white and black, white and black. and i think the businesscan play a decisive role in making the nationaldevelopment plan work. and i think if that alliance orpartnership can be put together, because it's also inthe interest of the government,

that business cooperate as it is inthe interest of government, of business. and if that partnership,this is what mandela had in mind, and i think we're moving closerto that kind of partnership. the labor legislation andstuff like that plays a role and the unions problem within the unions also. but i'm very positive that we will see closer cooperation between government andpolicy. let me just say. there's one thing i learned when ispent some time here at the world bank.

i tried somany things which didn't succeed. nevertheless, they said, you can't havegood projects in a bad policy environment. and this is where must come in. but and we do have the policies. >> solet's again thank our guest this evening. >> well, we're not very old. we are 25 years old. and we don't have a 25 year tradition. but we have a two year we tradition.

we can actually blame rich rubinstein ithink for this tradition. because what we're going to do is togive you our, when we changed our name from i-car to s-car we decided to promote the i-car sorry, i have to get this ribbon off of this thing. and so this is rich's idea. [laugh] of s-car-go. [applause]for you to remember us.

[applause]>> and we also, we have about 20 books out in front that are available forpurchase, if people are interested.

prof walter dietrich,and i'm sure we can talk him intostaying around for a few minutes for individual questions if you'd like to. thank you for coming this evening,and thank you for our celebration. >> i like the.