Zulu claim has its merits

Your article on the Zulu traditional leadership’s threat to secede refers (Zulu warriors to hear king’s response about land held by the Ingonyama Trust, July 4). I will probably make myself unpopular by suggesting there is merit to their wishes, but please humour me.

Zululand’s incorporation into what is now SA was a result of British imperialism, which waged a relentless war of subjugation against that nation. Before being conquered by the British, the Zulus had their own monarchy, territory, army, customs and courts of law.

In most people’s books — and certainly under international law — that would make them a nation-state. This nation-state ceased to exist not because its people wished to dissolve it, but because it was vanquished in a series of wars and its lands were divided among chiefs appointed by colonial authorities.

This same international law — SA is a signatory to a number of such instruments — recognises and respects the right to self-determination. It protects the rights of certain minority groups to nationhood, especially if such groups were previously conquered.

It is by no means a new concept to grapple with: we have recognised the rights of Bangladeshis to secede from India, of Lithuanians, Georgians and Ukrainians to secede from the Soviet Union, of Croats and Slovenes to secede from Yugoslavia, and, most recently, of South Sudan from Sudan.

If our own Constitution has a section that respects this right in section 235, should we not have a more thorough debate on the merits of the Zulu claim?

Sebastian Chatov

Parkhurst