Die AVP se volgehoue standpunt dat die proses wat deur die de Klerkregering in 1994 aan die gang gesit is, onwettig was, was ook deurgaans die standpunt van die Herstigte Nasionale Party en die hoofrede waarom die destydse leier van die HNP gewaarsku het om buite die bestel te bly en nie met die regime te onderhandel nie.
Soos wat u uit die onderstaande briefwisseling in die Citizen van 20 Desember 1996 sal kan aflei, was die behoudende Afrikaner se stryd om de Klerk te stuit, van meet af aan deur sommige van ons eie Afrikaners en Afrikaner organisasies in die wiele gery.
Mense wat onder die dekmantel en met die skyn van nasionalisme, hulleself uit die Nasionale denkstroom uitgeprop het en ingeskakel het by die liberales wie se beleidsrigting by herhaling deur dr. Verwoerd as vernietigend uitgewys was!
Die enigste haalbare en effektiewe benaderings om de Klerk te stuit, was deur sogenaamde “regses” gekortwiek. Dit was baie effektief in ons vyande se belang en word steeds aangewend deur deelname, samesprekings, onderhandeling en aanvaarding van die oorname van ons land as onomkeerbaar.
Noudat elke voorspelling van dr. Verwoerd in vervulling gegaan het en sigbaar en voelbaar realiseer, is daar steeds mense wat die “Helen Suzmanbeleid” van multikulturalisme goedpraat en meewerk om dit te laat slaag! Daarvoor is daar net twee moontlike verklarings. Óf kranksinnigheid, en/of deel van ‘n sameswering!
20 Desember 1996.
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
It is regrettable that "Another Afrikaner", in trying to refute arguments in the letter of Observer in Citizen of December 12th, have recourse to half truths. In stating that Observer's letter is saturated with false information, Another Afrikaner must obviously have access to the true information?..The truth is: Mr Jaap Marais' insistance on white general elections was not a limited strategic option. De Klerk had no mandate for what he was doing to the country. The only orderly ,non-violent and constitutional way of stopping him was to close ranks on the Right and demand general elections, in which he would have been defeated. If he had persisted in refusing to allow general elections to obtain a mandate for his capitulation to the ANC-SACP, the whites would have had the moral and political right to defend their rights by whatever other means they had. This was the only basis on which armed resistance could be
justified by the military pensioners. Gen. Constand Viljoen in a recorded interview with the Rightwing Committee Leaders on 18 AUGUST 1993, of which I was the chairman, admitted that the rightwing would have won general elections by 50% to 60%. "But, he asked, was it in the interest to bring down the National Party?" and when pressed further he asked: "What would you do, if you won general elections?". So, clearly he did not want to stop De Klerk through elections. What is even more remarkable is that Gen. Viljoen, when pressed by the comittee about armed resistance, said:" We will again fight and we will again lose". So neither was their any will or intention to use force to stop the sell out. (The minutes of this meeting was signed by general Viljoen.) The AVF under the leadership of Gen. Viljoen and Gen. Groenewald was therefore committed to the limited and ridiculous strategic option of handing the whole of South Africa to the ANC and then negotiate for the return of a small piece as a "Volkstaat"! When this failed, they opted for seats on the gravy train and received the praise of ANC-SACP (As reported widely), for their contribution to the "peaceful transition".
Another Afrikaner is also wrong on the history of Mr Marais' demand for general elections. The AVF, was formed in May 1993, rejected the idea of demanding general elections and refused to advocate it. Only when the HNP in September, October and November 1993 persistently pressed for solidarity in demanding general elections, was a press conference to this end initiated by the AVF. But thereafter the AVF did not lift a finger in furtherance of this objective. The conference was purely a formality unrelated to the AVF's course of action. They were clearly not intent on stopping De Klerk, as witness Gen. Viljoen's remarks, quoted above.
P.O. BOX 177,