sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) (03/17/88)
In article <2367@unicus.UUCP> craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) writes: (Craig is referring to Joe Clark at the beginning) >Agreed. Now if only we could get him to convince Brian Mulroney to >stop standing so close to the dictators-for-life of the little rathole >`frontline states' north of South Africa whose human rights records are >all consistently worse than the R.S.A.. There's a word for those who >disapprove of whites oppressing blacks, but don't mind blacks oppressing >blacks: racist. Dismissing these `tribal squabbles' as normal events, >rather than as the genocidal wholesale slaughters they often are, shows >up the self-righteous of all races who are not interested in human rights >at all: The white ones who care only about the `bad behaviour' of fellow >whites. The black ones who don't object to blacks killing blacks, but only >to whites killing blacks. Both of these types, and you can find lots around, >including Mulroney, make Mr. Botha seem almost honest. Last June and July, I spent some time in Zambia and Zimbabwe, which are among the "frontline" states Craig refers to. In 23 days, I travelled through much of Zambia, and spent 4 days in Zimbabwe. Our guide was a white Zimbabwean. Based on my experience in those two countries, I would say that Craig's description is much too harsh. "dictators-for-life": this is basically correct. Although the leaders of both Zambia and Zimbabwe were fairly elected to their positions, President Kaunda of Zambia immediately outlawed all other political parties (that was around 1964), and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has just reached an agreement with his opposition that also appears to guarantee a one party state (last year: formation of ZANU-PF from ruling ZANU and opposition ZAPU parties). bad human rights records: I would not be surprised to hear of some human rights violations in either country, but certainly these are nothing like the official racism of South Africa. Both Zambia and Zimbabwe are very careful to appear fair and non-racist. "blacks oppressing blacks": no large scale evidence of this in either country. It is true that Lusaka, Zambia is the headquarters of the ANC, and that the ANC has been linked to incidents of violence between blacks in South Africa. "tribal squabbles": In Zimbabwe, the political parties at independance were ZANU, connected with the Shona tribe, and ZAPU, connected with the Matabele tribe. There have been violent incidents by an outlaw minority of Matabeles against whites, blacks, tourists, etc. The problem is that there are still a few soldiers from the 1980 civil war that just won't give up. In Zambia, the government is not strongly connected with any one tribe (there are about 70+ tribes in the country), and there is no recent evidence of inter-tribal problems. "genocidal wholesale slaughters": the only such events I know of in any of the frontline states have been in Mozambique and Angola, both of which are fighting wars against South African backed troops. All in all, the situation in southern Africa is much more complex than you would tend to assume from reading the papers in Canada. Some points: - Many of the black governments Africa are run by a "benevolent dictator" associated with only one of the many tribes in the country. Ie. Kenya is mostly run by the Kikuyu (sp?) tribe. They are often "democratic" in name only. - Many of the governments in Africa are hopelessly inefficient. For example, Zambia is probably something like 50% arable land, and has very predictable rains, and yet the country must import even staple foods. - South Africa controls southern Africa economically. For example, almost all packaged food (ie tins) in Zambia come from South Africa. Incidentally, Zimbabwe is much closer to self-sufficiency, probably because they have a much higher population of whites, who run most of the industries. - Most of the blacks in southern Africa have little formal education, and their traditional cultures do not prepare them for any of the jobs we would assume are necessary in a modern country, ie bank teller. This is slowly changing, and we saw many indications of basic schooling in Zambia even in remote villages. Countries like Zimbabwe are very dependant on their white populations simply to keep the country running. Zambia, which has discouraged its white population, barely functions at all. - Many of the governments in southern Africa have enough of a Marxist outlook that they "scare off" western aid. Apparently the experience of Tanzania under a (very) Marxist government has been sufficiently bad that its neighbours are not in a hurry to embrace Marxism fully, though. However, their traditional tribal organizations are very compatible with Marxist theory. So what are my conclusions? We should continue to support the frontline states to a high level, while at the same time realizing that South Africa is only one of their problems, and that South Africa is often used as an excuse by these countries for their own ineptitude. Our support should attempt to reduce the effects of South Africa's pressure against them, and we should encourage these countries to develop their own economies. Stuart Lomas {ihnp4,rutgers,ubc-vision}!alberta!myrias!sjl
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (03/21/88)
In article <573@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP writes: > >So what are my conclusions? We should continue to support the frontline states >to a high level, while at the same time realizing that South Africa is only >one of their problems, and that South Africa is often used as an excuse by >these countries for their own ineptitude. Our support should attempt to reduce >the effects of South Africa's pressure against them, and we should encourage >these countries to develop their own economies. > Would it be too much to ask that continued financial support be tied to democratic reform? For example, President Kaunda has been known to imprison and kill political dissidents (I guess that's what happens when you outlaw opposition parties); so the question that begs to be asked is should we be supporting such an administration? Turning back to the double standard that Dave Sherman correctly identified, it is indeed ironic to note that Dictator-for-life Kaunda gets a warm welcome from Ottawa whereas former Dictators-for-life Marcos and Duvalier were condemned as the rotten eggs that they were. The US has the nasty habit of supporting any regime as long as it's anti-communist. Canada, on the other hand, supports any "government" as long as it's not right-wing; and democratic justice be damned. Six of one and a half dozen of the other. It's beginning to look like there is an economic law which states that a nation's economy will only flourish in the long run under a democratic system of government. Hungary was a counter-example but even that country is now experiencing problems. So, as for encouraging the frontline states with their one party rule and dictators-for-life to develop their own economies, I can only say good luck. J.B. Robinson
craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (03/22/88)
In article <573@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) writes: >Last June and July, I spent some time in Zambia and Zimbabwe, which are among >the "frontline" states Craig refers to. In 23 days, I travelled through much >of Zambia, and spent 4 days in Zimbabwe. Our guide was a white Zimbabwean. >Based on my experience in those two countries, I would say that Craig's >description is much too harsh. Having not been to Zambia or Zimbabwe, I can only accept this evaluation. However, 27 days is not a long time, particularly when gauging politics. Amnesty International used to have some very bad things to say about both countries, I'm not sure what they say at the moment. >"dictators-for-life": this is basically correct. Although the leaders of both >Zambia and Zimbabwe were fairly elected to their positions, President Kaunda >of Zambia immediately outlawed all other political parties (that was around >1964), and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has just reached an agreement with his >opposition that also appears to guarantee a one party state (last year: >formation of ZANU-PF from ruling ZANU and opposition ZAPU parties). It may well be true that Africa `isn't ready' for democracy, I don't know. However, no doubt the lack of democracy in other African states has steeled the Afrikaners to fight to the death rather than become rightless scapegoats of a hostile dictatorship. If I were a white South African, I would not support any changes likely to lead to: ``one-man, one-vote, once!'' While these fears may be unjustified, there is little in recent African history to suggest so. Opposing change under such circumstances may be impractical, as it is likely to happen anyway, but not unjustifiable. >bad human rights records: I would not be surprised to hear of some human >rights violations in either country, but certainly these are nothing like the >official racism of South Africa. Both Zambia and Zimbabwe are very careful to >appear fair and non-racist. This seems to be the key issue for the West, that of `official' racism. It seems that so long as one doesn't enshrine indiscretions into law, one gets left alone. The word *appear* may be significant here, after all, the free world has abandoned South Africa, but still puts a considerable amount of aid into Zambia and Zimbabwe. >"blacks oppressing blacks": no large scale evidence of this in either country. >It is true that Lusaka, Zambia is the headquarters of the ANC, and that the >ANC has been linked to incidents of violence between blacks in South Africa. > >"tribal squabbles": In Zimbabwe, the political parties at independance were >ZANU, connected with the Shona tribe, and ZAPU, connected with the Matabele >tribe. There have been violent incidents by an outlaw minority of Matabeles >against whites, blacks, tourists, etc. The problem is that there are still a >few soldiers from the 1980 civil war that just won't give up. In Zambia, >the government is not strongly connected with any one tribe (there are about >70+ tribes in the country), and there is no recent evidence of inter-tribal >problems. Very heterogenous countries tend not to have such problems. The African racist problems best known were in Amin's Uganda and Marxist Ethiopia. In both cases the oppressed groups were largely Christians and the rulers not, so there may have been more religious motivation that racial. The minorities in Uganda and Ethiopia were large, and there are certainly not 70+ identifiable groups in those countries, perhaps encouraging scapegoating. Of course, Mulroney hasn't stood too close to Idi Amin or the Ethiopians lately. :-) >"genocidal wholesale slaughters": the only such events I know of in any of >the frontline states have been in Mozambique and Angola, both of which are >fighting wars against South African backed troops. No excuse, I'm afraid. The contras aren't good simply because Reagan gives them money, and the Mozambiquan and Angolan rebels aren't bad simply because Botha gives them money. Of course things would be more peaceful if nobody was giving anybody money to fight anybody, but I doubt that anyone's hands are clean in such situations. Guerilla wars can be fought and won without large-scale murder; Britain did it in Malaysia in the 60s. >- Many of the black governments Africa are run by a "benevolent dictator" > associated with only one of the many tribes in the country. Ie. Kenya is > mostly run by the Kikuyu (sp?) tribe. They are often "democratic" in > name only. Such governments inevitably have opponents. The question is, what happens to them, if they don't run off to become rebels ? Such systems do not encourage peaceful opposition, even if they allow it. >- Many of the governments in Africa are hopelessly inefficient. > For example, Zambia is probably something like 50% arable land, and has > very predictable rains, and yet the country must import even staple foods. > >- South Africa controls southern Africa economically. For example, almost > all packaged food (ie tins) in Zambia come from South Africa. Incidentally, Aware of this, but the fact that these states are close to S.A. does not legitimize them as candidates for our support, any more than Honduras being close to Nicaragua does so. If we don't choose each and every country and government that we aid and abet on morality rather than geography, then our politicians are simply practicing political opportunism, to everyone's detriment. Choosing to aid countries because they are close to S.A. rather than because they are struggling to maintain a democracy is bad policy. > Zimbabwe is much closer to self-sufficiency, probably because they have a > much higher population of whites, who run most of the industries. > >- Most of the blacks in southern Africa have little formal education, and > their traditional cultures do not prepare them for any of the jobs we would > assume are necessary in a modern country, ie bank teller. This is slowly > changing, and we saw many indications of basic schooling in Zambia even in > remote villages. Countries like Zimbabwe are very dependant on their white > populations simply to keep the country running. Zambia, which has > discouraged its white population, barely functions at all. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ What form does this discouragement take ? It must be severe, to stop white people from making money. :-) Probably another legislated racism. If a healthier economy will restore democracy and maintain peace, fine. But unfortunately the gains all too often go to buy arms and pay thugs. Contrary to popular ideas that dictatorships are efficient, they are not. The problem with `benevolent dictatorships' is that they must either maintain popular support, which requires propaganda, or popular terror, requiring guns. As Nick M. once observed, it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. >- Many of the governments in southern Africa have enough of a Marxist outlook > that they "scare off" western aid. Apparently the experience of Tanzania > under a (very) Marxist government has been sufficiently bad that its > neighbours are not in a hurry to embrace Marxism fully, though. However, > their traditional tribal organizations are very compatible with Marxist > theory. This has a lot to do with the popular appeal of communism to any tribal people. The idea that labor is value meshes nicely with economies where there are no professional salesmen, organizers, managers, engineers, etc. Unfortunately, embracing such ideas means they will likely stay that way. Likewise, the individual is subject to many collective restraints, the new ones imposed by communism are not qualitatively different. Communist revolutions happen in backward countries almost exclusively. Sometimes, as with Eastern Europe, it is imposed. Marx was thoroughly wrong about this, but of course he was thoroughly wrong about most things. :-) The states with the most experience, such as Russia and China, eventually simply come to abandon it, because the human and economic cost is too high. In those countries, however, `communism' has done much to erect a level playing field upon which healthy capitalisms can grow. Too bad it cost so many lives just to erase the Emperors and Czars. It probably didn't have to. >So what are my conclusions? We should continue to support the frontline states >to a high level, while at the same time realizing that South Africa is only >one of their problems, and that South Africa is often used as an excuse by >these countries for their own ineptitude. Our support should attempt to reduce >the effects of South Africa's pressure against them, and we should encourage >these countries to develop their own economies. First of all, thanks for the information. Not too many would take the time. While I have sympathy for the vision, and respect for the point of view, this just seems too much like the rationale used by the USA to support right-wing dictatorships. Much the same things could be said about them, that they use neighbouring communist governments and rebels to excuse their own abuses and ineptitude. The idea of developing their economies makes sense, but only if they take steps to become western-style democracies. Other forms of government may be `legitimate', but I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars paying for propaganda or murder, even if 95% of the population there is in favour of it. The western hand on the western purse is our biggest weapon. We can use it to favour those who favour us, who happen to be our political allies of the moment, or we can use it to favour those who favour our principles. I favour the latter. >Stuart Lomas >{ihnp4,rutgers,ubc-vision}!alberta!myrias!sjl If we had refused Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union on account of its atrocities, it is possible it would have not had the power to push its borders to Germany and absorb Eastern Europe. Large-scale murder persisted until the death of Stalin. In that situation, there was the danger that Germany would conquer and consolidate Russia and create an unassailable power-bloc, but this danger does not exist in a relatively small corner of Africa. In the 1940s, politics made us allies with murderers, with predictable results: more murder. In the 1980s, with no impending world conquest, there is simply no excuse for it. Perhaps this does not apply to southern Africa in full, but the only sensible policy I can think of is to simply apply human-rights records across the board as the *only* criterion for aid. -- Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont. craig@Unicus.COM (Internet) {uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig (dumb uucp) mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net (dumb arpa)
sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) (03/23/88)
In article <3173@hcr.UUCP>, jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes (regarding continued support of African frontline states): >Would it be too much to ask that continued financial support be tied to >democratic reform? For example, President Kaunda has been known to >imprison and kill political dissidents ... I have never heard of such events happening in Zambia during Kaunda's presidency. Could you please provide some details? I suspect you may have your leaders confused. For all its gross economic inefficiency, the government of Zambia is regarded, both in Africa and internationally, as one of the most peaceful and stable in black Africa. It also appears to be popular among the Zambian people; I saw no evidence of dissent, not even graffiti. I believe we have no business demanding "democratic reform" of a government that is (a) not guilt of major human rights abuses, (b) very stable, and (c) popular domestically. Can demonstrate that my assumptions are wrong? Stuart Lomas {ihnp4,uunet,mnetor}!alberta!myrias!sjl
sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) (03/23/88)
In article <2410@unicus.UUCP>, craig@Unicus.COM (Craig D. Hubley) replies to almost everything in my previous posting on Zambia and Zimbabwe. I'd like to deal with just a few issues here: >Amnesty International used to have some very bad things to say about >both countries, I'm not sure what they say at the moment. Zimbabwe was in the middle of a civil war 8 years ago, so bad news about them at that time is not surprising. I would be interested in what Amnesty International has said about Zambia, and what they are currently saying about both countries. Anyone? >> ... Zambia, which has >> discouraged its white population, barely functions at all. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ >What form does this discouragement take ? It must be severe, to stop >white people from making money. :-) Probably another legislated racism. The "discouragement" mostly takes the form of the state nationalizing almost any large profitable business, and trying to run the business itself. Several examples of this were related to me. It seems that the newly-nationalized businesses very quickly become unprofitable. Other businesses are left with their owners, but become strangled by government red tape. It appears generally true that the Zambian government has little understanding of business economics. However, not even the white businessmen I talked to believed that any of this had anything to do with racism. I happens that white people in Zambia are more likely to own large businesses that blacks (as opposed to the Asians, who all seem to run small shops :-)). The government does not appear to look at the race of a business's owners when deciding whether to nationalize it. Another discouragement for many whites occurred in the 60's, when the Zambian government offered citizenship to all of its residents (remember, this was a brand-new country) on the condition that all other citizenship be renounced. Many of the whites in Zambia who hold British passports were unwilling to give up those passports to become Zambian citizens. Stuart Lomas {ihnp4,uunet,ubc-vision}!alberta!myrias!sjl
acton@anchor.cs.ubc.ca (Donald Acton) (03/24/88)
In article <576@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) writes: }I saw }no evidence of dissent, not even graffiti. Since when has the presence or lack of graffiti become a definitive statement by the people concerning their support or lack of it with respect to a particular government. A comment often heard from tourists returning from the USSR is that there is no graffiti but that doesn't imply that the government there has the complete support of its populous. Maybe the presence or lack of graffiti has more to do with what the consequences are if you happen to get caught spray painting your slogan on a wall or maybe it just means that the public service cleans up the mess very quickly. }I believe we have no business demanding "democratic reform" of a government }that is (a) not guilt of major human rights abuses, (b) very stable, and }(c) popular domestically. Can demonstrate that my assumptions are wrong? It is our money we are giving away so we can demand anything we want. The recipients are under no obligation to accept it. You or I may not like the strings we attach to the money but we can certainly can attach strings to it. Donald Acton
sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) (03/25/88)
In article <1900@ubc-cs.UUCP> acton@anchor.cs.ubc.ca (Donald Acton) writes (regarding demanding democratic reform as a condition of aid to Zambia): >}I believe we have no business demanding "democratic reform" of a government >}that is (a) not guilt of major human rights abuses, (b) very stable, and >}(c) popular domestically. Can demonstrate that my assumptions are wrong? > >It is our money we are giving away so we can demand anything we want. >The recipients are under no obligation to accept it. You or I may not >like the strings we attach to the money but we can certainly can attach >strings to it. Of course we can attach strings, and I believe that we often do, although normally those strings have to do with the permitted use of the funds. In Zambia, the only Canadian aid project I heard of was improving roads in northern Zambia, south of Lake Tanganika. I don't believe it is to our advantage to try to force the whole world to adhere to our ideals about government. People have a right to govern themselves as they choose, and to make their own mistakes. Perhaps we should apply economic pressure on governments that do not appear to have the support of their people, but that does not seem to be the case in Zambia. (I could understand wanting to pressure Zambia on their record of managing endangered species, though) Coupled with responsible, non-agressive diplomacy, our international aid money buys us a lot of things, not least of which is good will. To get the best value for our money, we need to consider how the strings we apply affect the value we receive. Stuart Lomas {inhp4,uunet,ubc-vision}!alberta!myrias!sjl
steve@crcmar.crc.uucp (Steve Ardron) (03/30/88)
From article <3173@hcr.UUCP>, by jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson): > It's beginning to look like there is an economic law which states that > a nation's economy will only flourish in the long run under a > democratic system of government. Hungary was a counter-example but even > that country is now experiencing problems. So, as for encouraging the > frontline states with their one party rule and dictators-for-life to > develop their own economies, I can only say good luck. > > J.B. Robinson I think it's the reverse. Most countries that have strong economies have fairly enlightened populaces, and so can have effective democracies. There are many democracies that don't have great economies, and I can think of another, very prominent, counter examle to your statement, South Africa. That nation has an extremely strong economy, and could hardly be called a democracy. Also, how about Saudi Arabia? or any of the other Persian Gulf monarchies. It certainly helps you along to have a few resources. I seem to remember that Monaco has the highest standard of living in the world (this was a couple o' years ago), and it's a monarchy to. Maybe we should give the Queen more power? abolish the Magna Carta :-) One big problem with both Canadian and American aid is that they have this nasty habit of spreading nuclear power around. Many nations now have nuclear weapons because of these two nations. One thing that can be said about Russia is that they don't proliferate nukes. The only East aligned nation with nukes is India, and it only because Canada gave them to it. Would South Africa hesitate to use it's nukes if the other African nations invaded? Would Israel think about using it's nukes if the Arabs tried to drive it into the sea again? (both these nations havn't been proven to have nukes, but they have the potential to make them, and considering their character, probably have) How about Pakistan? Thow Pakistan doesn't have missiles, it does have nuclear warheads, and bombers still do the job. Really, something should be done, if not to correct it, then to prevent it getting worse. Is there any way to correct it? Stevie.