sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) (08/01/85)
Well, someone threw down the gauntlet, and I might as well be foolish enough to pick it up and risk the slings and arrows of outrageous netters. (Pardon the plagiarism, but why get creative on throwaway lines?) 1. Should we pull out our investments, cut all ties, impose sanctions? Not yet. It might be a bit hypocritical for a society that took a couple of hundred years, a Civil War, and several decades of open strife before it decided it really had a problem with its treatment of minorities to take drastic measures now. Tightening the screws on South Africa would hurt all of South Africa--whites and blacks-- terribly, and we wouldn't have much leverage with the Botha government when we skipped town, would we? Besides, the USSR doesn't ask about human rights when it sells MIGs or provides "technical assistance." Giving the USSR an opportunity to control the southern tip of Africa is probably not high on Casper Weinberger's list of things to do today, either. 2. Should we pursue "constructive engagement?" Yes, but in a different manner. Just like teaching a trick to your pet, governments respond to both positive and negative feedback. So far, the US has practiced only positive feedback by trying to use its influence to modify the Botha government's behavior. Some activities--for instance, the state of emergency--are not acceptable, and some negative feedback is appropriate. Another thing we have to do is have a clear policy of what we intend to do, now and later, when the South African government does something right and when it does something wrong. And, for a change, really do it. 3. Talk's cheap, so what do you actually DO? My opinions, here, but you can supply your own variations. In response to recent activities, something with enough punch to let Botha know we're serious, but not enough to destroy our influence, like an embargo on some goods in and out and a threat to stop investment if no improvement by XX/XX/XX date. If no improvement or if worsening conditions, more stringent sanctions like stricter embargoes and reruns of "Three's Company" [ :-) ]. There's always the chance, too, that no incentives or penalties will change the government's actions; if so, that might be the time to totally isolate South Africa. We offer, if behavior improves, benefits like the return of our ambassador, humanitarian aid, agricultural and infrastructure aid, etc. If South Africa really shapes up, ends apartheid, and starts a democratic government, well, how does a Marshall Plan for Pretoria sound? 4. But isn't all this their business, not ours? Only if we're ostriches. Thanks for the indulgence. Please respond, mail, and flame away. -- Steve Daniels (!pyuxh!sdd) "I'm counting the smiles on the road to Utopia."
berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (08/01/85)
Not much discussion on the net about South Africa. But why should
there be? Why should we bother discussing something so relevant as
an ongoing revolution when we can discuss the fine points of
libertarianism, a philosophy based on laissez-faire capitalism
that was already obsolete in 1890? How else can we prove our
irrelevance in a world in change?
Now with that off my chest, here's my opinion on South Africa:
1) Should we divest?
Damn straight! We should have divested years ago. Trade with the
US and Britain has been the economic base of apartheid. We can and
should pull it out and let that vicious violent system fall.
2) Should we support "constructive engagement"?
This is Reagan's hypocritical policy that only excuses continued
de-facto support for apartheid in the face of nearly unanamous world
wide comdemnation of the racist regime. It is based on the tragic
assumption that any regime, so long as it is anti-communist, should
get American support. Fascists and racists make teriffic
anti-communists.
3) What about the future of South Africa?
Well it's time, really past time, to learn about the revolutionary
movement in South Africa. We could have yielded much influence in the
past. We probably still could do so to some extent if we have the courage
of our own revolutionary heritage and break immediately with the
apartheid regime.
The major revolutionary movement is led by the African National
Congress (ANC), which led a 50-year non-violent struggle against
apartheid until the lessons of history forced them to accept that
apartheid would not yield without armed rebellion.
The ANC is committed to a multi-racial society. It's 20-person
leading body comprises Africans, Indians, Whites and persons of
mixed race. It is committed to a democratic society based on social
justice and equality. (UH-OH sounds as red as Tom Jefferson!).
Their leader Nelson Mandela has been imprisoned for 20 years. The
ANC is the clear representative of the majority of the people
of South Africa, and its victory is probably close to inevitable.
The only question is how much blood will be shed before the
racist apartheid regime tumbles. US policy can be an important
factor in limiting that suffering.
------------------------------------
---Andy Berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman
------------riddle@im4u.UUCP (08/02/85)
I'm glad to see this subject come up in net.politics. Please don't forget
to cross-post articles on any African topic to net.nlang.africa, though, as
there are readers of that newsgroup who don't read net.politics but who
could probably contribute quite a bit to the discussion.
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
--- riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally, riddle%im4u@ut-sallygene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/05/85)
> 3) What about the future of South Africa? > > Well it's time, really past time, to learn about the revolutionary > movement in South Africa. Indeed it is... > The major revolutionary movement is led by the African National > Congress (ANC)... > The ANC is committed to a multi-racial society. It's 20-person > leading body comprises Africans, Indians, Whites and persons of > mixed race. Mixed races indeed. However, they all have three things in common: 1) Each is a socialist or a communist. 2) None has ever been engaged in the production of wealth. 3) While each believes in violence as a means to solve the problem, you can bet that none of them will soil their hands with blood or risk getting hurt--that's what mobs are for, after all. > Their leader Nelson Mandela has been imprisoned for 20 years. 1) The major human rights groups will not take up his defense since they consider him nothing but a two-bit terrorist. Considering that Amnesty Intl. usually becomes Migthtily Concerned whenever some low-life ends up in jail, Mandela must be one bad dude for them to ignore him. 2) The South African government has offered to free him if he would pledge to eschew violence. He refused. He can rot. > The > ANC is the clear representative of the majority of the people > of South Africa, and its victory is probably close to inevitable. What about the Zulu tribe, which comprises one third of the black population and whose leader Buthulezi (sp?) has spoken out against sanctions? He has pointed out that Boesak, who has been calling for them, is a colored and is not subject to most of the oppressive laws and would not feel the economic effects of such sanctions and the resulting heat from the SA government. > The only question is how much blood will be shed before the > racist apartheid regime tumbles. US policy can be an important > factor in limiting that suffering. While it is certainly true that the Soviet Union has been supplying the ANC with guns for the armed struggle, it is also true that 60% of the white population of SA is Afrikaaner (Boer). They have a lot more guns than the ANC and the willingness to use them. They are not a bunch of British wimps like the Rhodesians (and the other 40% of the white South Africans). It is a never-ceasing source of amazement to me that when the propaganda switch is thrown in Moscow, left-wingers all over the world start dancing to the tune. Last year it was the freeze, now its Apartheid. What's it going to be next year? -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/05/85)
I have replied to your comments about South Africa elsewhere. This particular bit of foolishness deserves a separate response. I thought about mailing it, but your views are so widely shared, I thought a wider dissemination appropriate, pending more eloquent arguments by others. > Why should we bother discussing something so relevant as > an ongoing revolution when we can discuss the fine points of > libertarianism, a philosophy based on laissez-faire capitalism > that was already obsolete in 1890? How else can we prove our > irrelevance in a world in change? > > ---Andy Berman ...ihnp4!ihlpg!berman > It is rare to find one who is so proud to wear his ignorance on his sleeve. Just because the roots of libertarianism go back farther than Karl Marx is no reason to ignore it. The principal reason so many African countries are in a pickle is because their farmers have acted rationally when faced with markets distorted by a bunch of tinpot dictators and tinhorn politicians. Most African leaders never did an honest day's work in their lives; that is, they have no conception of the process of the creation of wealth. They were educated (if at all) at some European university, where they got their economics from Keynes (at best) or Marx (more often). They have in effect confiscated food crops from their farmers by forcing them to sell to state marketing agencies at artificially low prices. This food is then used to provide the basis for a welfare state for the urban masses. It is not surprising that farmers will not produce crops under these conditions. At least it is not surprising if one has studied the "irrelevant" economics of free markets. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/09/85)
> > The major revolutionary movement is led by the African National > > Congress (ANC)... > > The ANC is committed to a multi-racial society. It's 20-person > > leading body comprises Africans, Indians, Whites and persons of > > mixed race. > > Mixed races indeed. However, they all have three things in common: > 1) Each is a socialist or a communist. > 2) None has ever been engaged in the production of wealth. > 3) While each believes in violence as a means to solve the problem, > you can bet that none of them will soil their hands with blood or > risk getting hurt--that's what mobs are for, after all. Any evidence or source for these allegations? And why do you contradict yourself so quickly: > > Their leader Nelson Mandela has been imprisoned for 20 years. Evidently at least *one* of them risked getting hurt. > 2) The South African government has offered to free him if he would > pledge to eschew violence. He refused. He can rot. He refused to falsely pledge non-violence when a lie was all it would take to free him. That's pretty damming evidence against him, isn't it? > > It is a never-ceasing source of amazement to me that when the propaganda > switch is thrown in Moscow, left-wingers all over the world start > dancing to the tune. Last year it was the freeze, now its Apartheid. > What's it going to be next year? Translation: Everyone who disagrees with me is a soviet puppet. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "My SO is red hot. Your SO aint doodely squat."
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/09/85)
In article <153@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: > >It is a never-ceasing source of amazement to me that when the propaganda >switch is thrown in Moscow, left-wingers all over the world start >dancing to the tune. Last year it was the freeze, now its Apartheid. >What's it going to be next year? >-- >Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Ha, ha, ha, ha. Here's a beautiful example of what anybody who attempts to effect social change will be encountering: accusations that they are manipulated by *THE ENNEMY*. Do you know what the Russian government says about independent (not sponsored by the government) russian peace activists, Gene? that they are CIA-backed. And now another question for your suspicious little mind: how do I know so much about Russia? Huh? Huh? HUH? Enjoy! -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/19/85)
[background (Berman? (who else))] > > > The major revolutionary movement is led by the African National > > > Congress (ANC)... > > > The ANC is committed to a multi-racial society. It's 20-person > > > leading body comprises Africans, Indians, Whites and persons of > > > mixed race. [me, originally] > > Mixed races indeed. However, they all have three things in common: > > 1) Each is a socialist or a communist. > > 2) None has ever been engaged in the production of wealth. > > 3) While each believes in violence as a means to solve the problem, > > you can bet that none of them will soil their hands with blood or > > risk getting hurt--that's what mobs are for, after all. [sonntag] > Any evidence or source for these allegations? Perhaps the original poster can refute them simply by listing the names and occupations of this benighted group...My sole source is years of watching this sort of thing happen. Remember the Khmer Rouge? The leaders of this group were as I described. See Johnson, _Modern Times_ for a list of contemporary accounts. The Khmer Rouge were not the first, and certainly not the last. [re Nelson Mandela] > > > 2) The South African government has offered to free him if he would > > pledge to eschew violence. He refused. He can rot. > > He refused to falsely pledge non-violence when a lie was all it would > take to free him. That's pretty damming evidence against him, isn't it? Right now, he's of more use in prison than out. If (and unfortunately when) Mandela is released, theSouth African government would follow him so closely that he could not accomplish anything. Inside, he's a martyr to the cause and has but to sneeze and the American left chants "gezundheit" in unison. > > It is a never-ceasing source of amazement to me that when the propaganda > > switch is thrown in Moscow, left-wingers all over the world start > > dancing to the tune. Last year it was the freeze, now its Apartheid. > > What's it going to be next year? > Translation: Everyone who disagrees with me is a soviet puppet. 1) Not a puppet--but probably not thinking for themselves either. 2) You didn't answer my question. Hasn't Trend Control contacted you yet? -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495