WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (12/16/86)
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu> Personally, I can't see that the nations of black Africa grant much more freedom to their citizens than the Afrikaners give to black South Africans, and that includes Zimbabwe. Would Idi Amin be an improvement over P.W. Botha? You forgot about Bostwana which is a democracy but currently being bullied by the white tribe (i.e. the Afrikaners see the Wall Street Journal and the Economist over the last few months) in South Africa. You should also note the curious fact that hundred of thousands of whites who fled Zimbabwe to SA are now returning to Zimbabwe (again see the Wall Street Journal and the Economist over the last few months). These whites originally left for fear of the blacks doing onto them what they have done onto the blacks (i.e. subjugation) and also for the belief that the blacks are going to screw the country up. Now they obviously think that Mugabe is an improvement over P.W. Botha. SA is worried about the economic success of Zimbabwe as it is the first front line country that over time will be strong enough to threathen SA. Furthermore the British have investments in Zimbabwe and are helping in training the Zimbabwean military, building the railroad to Beira, a port in Mozambique so that Zimbabwean goods can get out without going through SA (see the latest issue of the Economist). There is also talk of having white settlers along the Beira railroad to protect it from the SA backed guerrillas. Furthermore, the former Zimbabwean minister of agriculture (a white) has been abroad canvassing for financial support for the revitalization of the Beira line. As an aside, in a recent issue of Forbes, Zimbabwe now has the most sophisicated (i.e. highly computerized) and the world's largest tobacco auction floor in Harare. It is built by a Zimbabwean white. There was also a report on human rights in Zimbabwe which said that the whites have experienced very little atrocities committed against them. So don't you think that the Zimbabwean whites are doing pretty well under black majority rule? As another point, many African nations have served us well by showing the world what a big lose communism is. It was reported in the Time magazine that it was Machel (a Marxist) the late leader of Mozambique that persuaded Mugabe not to repeat his mistakes. Until his death, Machel was starting to move to our camp (the British and the West Germans are starting to return to Mozambique). I don't think the black INDIVIDUALS in SA would repeat the mistakes of the other African nations (which are now admitting the mistakes of Marxism and starting to experiment with elements of the free market) when there is majority rule. I do find it troubling that some people still think that black Africans don't know what it is good for them i.e. economic freedom which include the freedom to own property and businesses. SA has a long way to go with regard to this even if you were to ignore the right to one man one vote. Furthermore a black African leader (I think it was Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia where the ANC is headquartered) said that SA is the jewel of Africa. I don't think he would want to see it destroyed by a careless implementation of majority rule. SA, the so-called friend of capitalism, will not let any of the front line nations become economically successful even via capitalism for SA wants these nations to be subservient to SA. It is a matter of time before SA's interests conflict with our national interest (i.e. more pro-West, economically viable and stable states in southern Africa). One would be curious to see then if the white tribe in SA would find the communists in all-white Russia and Eastern Europe more preferable to the racially mixed but democratic and capitalistic USA. Willie ------- -------
WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/23/86)
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
The Afrikaaners are a tough, independent people; they stood the
British Empire off at the height of the Empire's power....(more
salutation to the Afrikaaner).....
These Afrikaaners are the same people that the British at the peak of
colonial rule called stupid, drunks, lazy etc. These same labels are
also given (by the Afrikaaners) to the blacks, to the Irish by the
"Brahmins" when they first came to Boston and to the Koreans by the
Japanese. The Afrikaaners and Irish sure proved the bigots wrong.
The Koreans are now challenging the dominance of the Japanese
electronics and automobile industry. Do you expect the blacks to be
the exception to this trend? Why?
The Afrikaaners aren't going to "lose power" just like that.
The blacks are not going to give up their fight for their basic
rights. Having lived in a anti-communist country with almost no
tolerance for dissent, I find the courage of anybody willing to stand
up and fight for their rights (knowing very well that they have a very
good chance of being severely punished) extremely admirable. In fact
it is more admirable than the stubbornness of some irrational and
selfish tribe which has no respect for the basic rights of fellow
countrymen who just happen not to be in the same tribe.
They *may* lose a civil war -- but I wouldn't bet on the blacks --
numbers and moral superiority don't win wars; disciplined armies and
weapons do.
This contradicts your earlier admiration of the Afrikaaners in their
defeat of the British Army. It also contradicts:
1) the success of the Afghans in their defeat of the British
2) the ability of the Afghans to force Russia into the current
stalemate
3) the success of our (US) revolution
4) the success of the French revolution
5) the success of the Bolshevik revolution
6) the success of the Haitian revolution against the French when
the Haitians became the first black country to defeat a colonial
power.
Military might alone is not enough, you need the will, determination
and support of the people. And yes, moral superiority does help when
it comes to the supreme sacrifice---it makes it easier if you know you
are dying for a morally superior cause. If you don't have a moral
basis for your struggle, it is a matter of time before the frequent
killing of school children gets to you.
The Afrikaaners are 20% of the population of SA; the whites were
only 5% of the population of Rhodesia, weren't nearly as tough or
well-armed as the SAs, and both ZANU and ZAPU were better-armed and
financed than the ANC.
The ANC suffers from a lack of will when it comes to taking up arms.
Some young radical blacks think that the ANC is being soft on the SA
regime. In a few more years when the younger and more militant ANC
members come into power, you will see something more like ZANU and
ZAPU. The ANC will then be receiving more aid from those commies. As
Ronald Reagan would say, you ain't see nothing yet! From what I have
read, right now the ANC receives more (humanitarian) aid from Europe
(Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries) than the (military) aid
from the commies.
Even if the SADF managed to wipe out the ANC today, unrest in SA will
not disappear. Other groups will emerge as there is enough resentment
of the current regime to support them.
At that, it took seven years of bloody guerrilla war for the blacks
to win in Rhodesia. How long would it take the SA blacks? Twenty
years to forever, depending.
Remember that Rhodesia had the support of SA. SA does not have the
support of any of its neighbors. If the Afrikaaners manage to survive
forever, other supremacist/hate/racist groups throughout the world
(e.g. Northern Ireland, Russia, Punjab, Japan, Indonesia, Iran, ....)
would adopt their techniques and we'll end up with a world where hate
groups are perpetually fighting each other (i.e. a stalemate). That
would be bad news for humanity and democracy.
The chance that the war will last forever ranges from very unlikely to
impossible. Here are the supporting arguments:
1) History: There is no war that has gone back all the way to the
ancient history. Furthermore there is no civilization that have
been supreme throughout history. Supposedly "barbaric" and
"inferior" cultures had managed to become dominant over time e.g.
a) the "barbarians" of Northern Europe during the height of the
ancient ROMAN and GREEK civilizations, b) the Monguls in Asia,
c) the more modern groups mentioned above.
2) Economic cost: A prolonged war makes apartheid the great
equalizer. While the Afrikaaners are expending a lot of
energy protecting their economically inefficient system, other
African nations further north (i.e. outside the war zone) will
be building up their economy. Even if there is no war, apartheid
is a very costly political system. It was estimated that SA's
economy would grow by an additional 2% if SA does not have to
incur the cost of propping up the apartheid system. Furthermore,
the Afrikaaners will opt for a growing population to offset their
numerical inferiority. They need a growing economy to sustain
their standard of living. That means trade with the rest of
Africa and the world. Already most of SA trade is with the other
countries of southern Africa. Trade with the rest of the world
means more transportation cost. More trade means a more
palatable political system in SA.
3) Technology: Even though SA has the technological edge now, that
is not going to last forever. The other African nations will
eventually become technologically superior. Already the
rate of technology transfer is speeding up as a result of the
armed conflict in southern Africa. E.g. The modern weapons
Savimbi is getting from the US. Remember SA would have to nuke
a large part of Africa (with a substantial ecological cost to SA)
in order to keep the blacks in line while all that is needed to
take care of SA (with a lower ecological cost to the African
nations as a whole) is to just nuke it. The other African
nations will eventually acquire nuclear, robotics and advanced
military technology. There is only one SA but many black African
nations. Each of these nations are experimenting with their
own form of political and economic system. Eventually one of
them will succeed and that is enough to take on SA. Hence the
odds are against the Afrikaaners.
Ironically the best chance for the survival of the Afrikaaners is the
dismantling of apartheid. Our best chance of a non-communist and
democratic SA is through negotiations. But the Afrikaaners have to be
forced to negotiate. Now they only want to negotiate with weak black
leaders so that they can dominate the negotiations. It might very
well turn out that we can pre-empt the commies by letting the war go
on for a little bit (like in Zimbabwe) and then get the parties (after
being sufficiently bruised) to negotiate.
And in the meantime we'd see the worst bloodbath outside of China
in this century, rivalling even the Holocaust. And almost all of
the blood that gets spilled will be black, and a fair amount of it
might well be Angolan, Mozambiquean, and Zimbabwean.
The cost in terms of human lives will have to be decided by the
blacks. If they think it is worth it, there is nothing anybody else
can do about it. So don't bother sheding any crocodile tears.
There is *no way* to *force* the Afrikaaners to hand over power.
The best we can do is to persuade the Afrikaaners to share power
with the black majority.
Agreed but I don't think that means that we have to kow-tow to the
Afrikaaners. Though it looks almost impossible now, a day might come
when the US (or some other non-Communist nation) begins providing
military aid to the foes of apartheid.
That means that the Afrikaaners need some guarantee that they'll be
able to keep their homes, land and way of life.
The modern way of life of the Afrikaaners have come about through very
statist means. About 40%-60% (I think the exact figure is in the high
end of this range) of the Afrikaaners (i.e. the labor force) are
employed by the SA government. The SA government has been responsible
for transforming the Afrikaaners from a poor rural people to a middle
class urban people. As far as they are concerned, keeping their way
of life means keeping their form of government.
If that offends your sense of justice and equity, tough.
Would you say the same thing of stubborn commies (or statists or
Nazis)? Or a stubborn terrorist group? Or of any group that has done
a great injustice to humanity? What does it take to offend your sense
of justice and equity?
If they don't get those guarantees, they will fight.
That attitude will change as the Afrikaaners become more and more
prosperous. They will acquire more marketable skills (i.e. become not
just bureaucrats, policemen and soldiers) that will allow them to make
a better living elsewhere. Then they will really have a choice. If
the choice is between a better living elsewhere like the US,
Australia, Canada, etc and the chaos is SA, the choice is obvious.
(Remember that a lot people with stronger and more justifiable roots
to their land have left their country of origin and emigrated to the
US.) Now many of them are so mediocre (skillwise) and dependent on
the government that they wouldn't make it anywhere else.
If they fight, many, many, many blacks will die and the blacks might
well lose anyway.
You seem to have a hidden desire for the blacks to lose. (I remember
reading something (I think it's from you) about SA going into robotics
to ensure their survival through eternity.) That ain't good news to
non-Afrikaaners (of any race). Suppose all the blacks in SA were to
disappear right now. You'll end up with something like Northern
Ireland---the non-Afrikaaner whites being the second class citizens
since the Afrikaaners will be the ones with the political, military
and economic power (they already do). They will have a preference for
their own kind when it comes to election, employment and economic
activities within SA. They will also be the legitimate majority of
the all-white SA. They have tolerated the non-Afrikaaner whites for
they pose the least threat.
.....The Afrikaaner has nowhere else to go, and, like anyone with
nowhere else to go, will fight to the death for his home and way of
life.
Neither do the blacks and so will the blacks.
Given this, will you still talk airily about the black majority
"taking over"?
Is it your point that there should not be a democracy in SA? Is
minority rule more preferable to a democracy in SA?
Will you go to SA and die with the blacks in pursuit of this pipe
dream?
A rather ridiculous suggestion for silencing those people who don't
agree with your views. Marcos, Stalin, Mao, Hilter, Amin, and Botha
must be proud of you. However they don't pretend they were/are living
in a democracy and thus don't have to tolerate opposing views. I
presume that someone with the same mentality as yours could pose the
question about you dying for the Catholics in Northern Ireland in
their fight for human rights.
The blacks don't need your condescension. They are not even asking
that you die for them, all they are asking is the right to determine
their own destiny. More and more blacks are prepared to make the
supreme sacrifice so that their descendants will have that right.
They have enough gallant fighters there that they don't need outsiders
to fight for them.
I am rather surprised that the blacks in SA are not already
communists. They have lived in a quasi-socialist system for a long
time with the SA government being the landlord and dictating to them
regarding a) where they can and cannot live, b) where and what they
can and cannot work, c) where their children is to get their
education, d) what news to listen to, e) what business they can and
cannot own, f) who has the right to vote, etc.
(Well that's all the flame I have for no. Have to go to sleep so that
I can get to cast my vote in about 7 hours. So enjoy our American
system of democracy meanwhile.)
Willie
-------walton@csvax.caltech.edu@ametek.UUCP (12/23/86)
Willie Lim writes at length in response to my comment about black
African countries not being democracies for the most part. His
message gives me hope. I had been aware of some of Zimbabwe's
success, thanks to an NPR report on agriculture there, and I tend to
avoid the Wall Street Journal. (As an aside, anyone want to help me
write a generic Wall Street Journal Editorial?) It is clear that
Willie at least does not believe that black rule, in and of itself, is
an automatic guarantee of peace, freedom, and prosperity for South
Africans of all races, which was my misinterpretation of an earlier
posting.
However, Zimbabwe and South Africa are somewhat different. As
others have pointed out, the Afrikaners (whom Willie appropriately
calls the "white tribe") is both larger and more deeply rooted in
South Africa than were the whites in Rhodesia. Also, Robert Mugabe's
tribe is a clear majority of the population in Zimbabwe. In South
Africa, the largest tribe is the Zulu, with some 6 million members of
a population in excess of 20 million. Thus my endorsement of
Kissinger's recommendation for a federal-style government for South
Africa rather than a parliamentary style one such as Zimbabwe adopted.
Michael Kinsey, author of "TRB from Washington" in the New
Republic and "Viewpoint" weekly on the Wall Street Journal's OpEd page
(did you see last week's? The one where he dismembered this year's
Nobel Economics Prize recipient and the WSJ's editorial support for
it?), has pointed out that by Jeanne Kirkpatrick's own criteria, South
Africa is a "totalitarian" and not an "authoritarian" regime, since
the government claims the power to decide where people can work and
live and whom they can marry. I think it is axiomatic that a
totalitarian state cannot have a free market, and thus Willie is also
correct that applying the term "capitalist" to SA is a misnomer.
So, I don't think Willie and I disagree at all, except perhaps
as to the means to arrive at the desired end, which is a fair "one
person, one vote" government for the long-suffering peoples of South
Africa. I hope he is correct that the movement away from centrally
planned economies in Africa is far-reaching and permanent. If true,
it is the most hopeful thing to happen on that continent since
decolonization.
Steve Walton
-------WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/23/86)
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu> So, I don't think Willie and I disagree at all, except perhaps as to the means to arrive at the desired end, which is a fair "one person, one vote" government for the long-suffering peoples of South Africa. Yes Steve, we both (and so do most freedom leaving people) want to see a stable, prosperous, democratic and non-communist SA, perhaps one with a well-written Bill of Rights. I hope he is correct that the movement away from centrally planned economies in Africa is far-reaching and permanent. That is my hope too. Already our (the West's) favorite, the not-so-left Chissano (but sigh, still a Marxist), has been elected by Mozambique's ruling elite to be the head of state. The future of Mozambique is very dependent on whether SA wants to continue distablizing it and on whether Chissano can attract investments from the West. In general, it is up to the Africans to make their economies work. We already got enough propaganda points from them on the failure of Marxism. Willie ------- ------- -------