The FW de Klerk Foundation says it is not a platform to attack governments, nor is it a platform to "lobby for certain groups internationally." That follows the departure of its executive director, Christo van der Rheede, after he called US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision to impose visa restrictions on a select group of South Africans "a profound strategic blunder" those risks handing the ANC an election gift. In an interview with Biznews, the foundation's director, Coetzee Bester, said he had a very good working relationship with Van der Rheede and that the resignation came as a bit of a shock to the board. He described the split as a difference in methodology rather than policy. Bester said the foundation will not address many international positions because they are not its objective, and it does not try to create or break leaders. It focuses on reconciliation and peace globally, with a very strong stance on nuclear weapons, and on constitutional reform and maintenance at home, so that the constitution is known, used and respected. Bester said the board will work on a new strategy for the foundation, and the finished plan will be announced on 2 February, the anniversary of former President De Klerk’s unbanning of the ANC. A new executive director will only be sough after that..Listen here.Edited transcript of the interview.Linda van Tilburg (00:00)Last week the FW de Klerk Foundation announced that its executive director, Christo van der Rheede, has stepped down. His departure follows his criticism of the US government's decision to impose visa restrictions on a select group of South Africans. With me in the studio to discuss that, and the foundation in general, is Coetzee Bester, director of the FW de Klerk Foundation. Coetzee, thanks so much for joining us today.Coetzee Bester (00:31)Good afternoon, Linda.Linda van Tilburg (00:33)Can we start with the statement you released after Mr van der Rheede said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio's visa restrictions were a mistake? He actually called it a profound strategic blunder, one that risks handing the ANC a political gift ahead of the local government elections. The foundation then distanced itself from that view. Why?Coetzee Bester (00:56)You know, let me start by saying that I consider Christo van der Rheede to be a friend. We worked very nicely together and had a very good working relationship, so when he decided to resign, it was a bit of a shock to the board. But let me get back to the process. The foundation, as it said in its statement, is not a platform to attack governments, and it is not a platform to lobby for certain groups internationally. The foundation has its views and its objectives, and we work according to those.One of the reasons this is important is that we work with the name of a person who was a very important South African leader, but also a global leader and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. So, the foundation is looking very closely at our relationships, internationally and nationally, and obviously at the processes the foundation would like to see, and we will come to some of them. Christo then decided that he wanted to go elsewhere. A couple of weeks ago he mentioned that maybe he must go into politics. He will definitely lift the quality of politicians in South Africa if he goes that way, but I cannot speak on his behalf. We were shocked and we were not happy, but eventually it was his decision.Linda van Tilburg (03:00)So, it was related to policy differences, not personal differences.Coetzee Bester (03:05)Policy differences is a hard word. I would describe it as a difference in methodology.Linda van Tilburg (03:16)Okay. But he was supposed to leave only in December, and then you announced that this is happening sooner. It actually happened last week.Coetzee Bester (03:26)Yes, you see, what happened was that the board was waiting for some feedback from his side on certain matters. He then decided to enhance the process from his side by resigning, and the board was confronted with his resignation. The board looked at it and accepted it. We then agreed that, while we are waiting for the end of December, because we also want to be kind in this matter, the processes inside the foundation should start as soon as possible. Those processes include certain projects, but also a very constructive decision the board took, which was to turn this resignation into an opportunity. In the next four or five months we will look at the strategy of the foundation for the next five years. To start that while you still have somebody in the office is obviously not an easy process, so Christo and I decided that he should leave office now. The board will now go into a strategic planning process. We are sharing some documents with each other and looking at the international environment. Then on the 10th of November we are going to have a strategic planning session, where we want to at least put on the table the different views of board members, and also the different challenges and opportunities.Coetzee Bester (05:48)These are for the foundation to follow in the next five years. Then we want to refine that document into something that, if everything goes well, we will announce as the new five-year plan in February next year, on the 2nd of February. As you know, the 2nd of February is also a very important date for the FW de Klerk Foundation, namely the date on which Mr de Klerk made his 2 February 1990 speech.Linda van Tilburg (06:29)Would you then be appointing a new executive director?Coetzee Bester (06:33)Yes, it's important that you ask that. Instead of appointing somebody now and then going through the process, let's see what the process brings about. Let's see what the objectives are for the next five years, and then invite people to apply for that position, knowing what they are going to do, knowing the focus of the foundation and knowing the strategy for the next five years.Linda van Tilburg (07:06)If you are going to a new strategy, tell me now, what is your position on South Africa's relations with the United States? You said you don't like to criticise.Coetzee Bester (07:16)Yes, let me answer your question as follows. There are many international positions that the foundation will not reply to or address directly, because it is not our objective. The different conflict areas, the different governments all over the world, even in South Africa, where we talk from time to time to different political leaders. We try not to use the foundation and its profile to create or break leaders. We like the concept of leadership, which is quite different, and we can discuss that later on.You will also find, for instance, that although we are from Africa and would like to see better development in Africa, we do not interfere in African politics, African infrastructure or African strategies, other than where it touches on the foundation itself. And although it is a huge issue internationally, the foundation does not respond every day to matters such as climate change. It is important, and yes, it must be addressed, but just not by us on a daily basis.Linda van Tilburg (09:10)So, what is your area of focus when it comes to international relations?Coetzee Bester (09:15)To answer that, you must look at the focus of the foundation. We have three areas. The first is reconciliation, globally, peace and reconciliation, linked to the very strong stance that we have on nuclear weapons. You will find that that is our focus. Secondly, in the country where we operate, we obviously want to emphasise the memory of Mr de Klerk, not only as an individual, but also as a leader who took responsibility for processes and outcomes which were not always pleasant to handle, but we had to take responsibility and start the processes. You were in South Africa at that time, so you know how painful it was, how urgent it was, how necessary it was. And I am still convinced that, even if we exist for another 100 years, the FW de Klerk methodology will be an example for many to come, not only in South Africa or in Africa, but globally.Thirdly, inside the country, we would like to focus on constitutional reform and constitutional maintenance, making sure that the constitution stands and is respected and is known and is used. If we don't use the constitution, it will become an obsolete document.Linda van Tilburg (11:28)You mentioned nuclear weapons, so that position goes back to Mr de Klerk's decision to dismantle South Africa's nuclear programme. Why is that so important to the foundation today? And isn't it also rather contentious if you look at the current war against Iran?Coetzee Bester (11:44)Yes. You will notice that during the past couple of months, and I don't want to say weeks, different international leaders have referred to their nuclear capabilities, and that concerns the foundation. We are a voice to advocate the stance on nuclear weaponry. The world cannot be a good place when nuclear weapons exist, or even worse, when countries are threatened by the use of nuclear weapons. We cannot allow that. The scientists who work on the predictions paint a very, very [word unclear, check audio] picture of what happens when one country starts using nuclear weapons and other countries respond.And therefore, yes, based on the views of Mr de Klerk, we find that many countries and individuals are talking to us about this. Why did he do that? And remember, dismantling the nuclear weapons was not an easy decision to take. Even today Mr de Klerk is criticised by some who ask why we didn't use the nuclear weapons to negotiate international support, and others say you dismantled them because you didn't trust the new government. We get it from all sides, but we are happy and glad that Mr de Klerk took that decision. It creates, and in future we will see it create a better world.Linda van Tilburg (14:10)One thing I want to ask you, because on social media especially you often see quite harsh criticism, is whether the foundation is still relevant. What would you say to that?Coetzee Bester (14:23)Yes, luckily, we invite the media to all our events, and up to now they attend, so they are not that angry with us. There are some who are very critical, but the foundation will exist and will be relevant as long as reconciliation, the creation of peace and nation building are important in South Africa, and that will obviously be important for a couple of years to come. That is one of our core values and principles, and we will keep on working on it.We are working with amazing people, people who were previously enemies of the pre-1994 government. Today there is a good relationship with those people, and one day, in a couple of weeks or months from now, you can arrange a discussion with Mrs Elita de Klerk, and she can tell you about the work she is doing at grassroots level on reconciliation between different forces and different communities. I don't want to jump the process, but I will be very surprised if the FW de Klerk Foundation does not focus a lot more on reconciliation and peace building in South Africa in the next five years. And then obviously remembering Mr de Klerk. Say again?Linda van Tilburg (16:26)And worldwide as well? Coetzee Bester (16:33)Yes, you see, and let me not get ahead of the agenda, but within a couple of weeks we are going to have a meeting with the Japanese ambassador in South Africa to talk about this. For South Africans, and for nations all over the world, the reality of nuclear weapons is an academic discussion. But for the Japanese it is reality. We must listen to them and take note of their experiences, not only immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also thereafter, and in the psychological planning of their nation. We must learn from the Japanese, because they are the only victims up to now.Linda van Tilburg (17:46)Sorry, I interrupted you when you were talking about working on reconciliation in South Africa.Coetzee Bester (17:52)Yes, you know, in South Africa we have this tendency to think that if I don't do it, it's not done, and that's not true. There are many organisations in South Africa working on reconciliation between different groups. I would like us to be one of those organisations, but also one that will objectively help create a platform where the work on reconciliation can be coordinated better. For instance, last year we had a wonderful idea, what was it called, the national dialogue. Unfortunately, due to various views and politics, it was put on ice. I hope we can revitalise that process, because reconciliation starts with discussions and talks and sharing of views.We had that prior to 1994, and it worked well. We had institutions like the Urban Foundation. We had institutions like the Peace Corps [check audio]. You remember the Peace Corps? They did wonderful work. Let's go back and learn from them, learn from their mistakes, but also from their successes, and see where we go with nation building.The fact that we must attend to this is not only because many people see it as a racial thing, where black and white and coloured and Indian people must talk to each other. No, it's much more than that. It's also a cultural thing. Let's call it the anthropological side of different ethnic groups, their cultures, their languages, their priorities, and how that fits into the bigger picture.So, if you ask me whether the foundation is relevant, yes, it is, and it will be relevant for many years to come..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.