TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (10/03/86)
From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu> > In yesterday's (Sunday Sept. > 7) Opinion section of the LA Times, Henry Kissinger had an >interesting and, to me, sensible article about the current troubles >in South Africa. I will paraphrase his discussion and, I hope, >generate some feedback. ... > In South Africa and the Third World, the state preceded the >nation, and the governments there are attempting to enforce political >boundaries which do not obey the underlying divisions of culture, >race, and tribe. Thus, there is no concept of the loyal opposition, >and disagreement with the government is synonymous with treason. In Africa, most of the political boundaries are not the fault of the national governments; rather, they are the result of the colonial governing of African territories. For example, the British defined the boundaries of their colony called "Nigeria" for administrative reasons. The territory contained dozens of separate "nationalities", but that didn't matter from a colonial governor's view -- in fact, it was an asset, since it would be less likely that a colony of fighting factions would unify to throw out the British. > Kissinger's answer to South Africa's problem is something >patterned on the American system. Curious that he proposes a solution based on the American system to a problem which he also states is very different from the situation which gave rise to the American solution. Not that i'm necessarily saying that it would not work, but . . . >Kissinger suggests a Western-sponsored conference among >moderates of all races and tribes in South Africa, with the express >goal of fashioning a federal government for South Africa. This must >be coupled with clear statements from the entire West that once such >a compromise is formed, we will brook no delays in implementing it, >and that strong pressure will be brought to bear to force the current >government to acquiesce in the change. > Comments? Yup. First, why should only the moderates be invited to this conference? What if the "radical" leaders actually represent the great majority of the people? What if one race or "tribe" had NO moderates in it? Also, there are differing definitions of "moderate" and "radical" -- to Mr. Botha (either one), Bishop Tutu is radical since he wants to dismantle apartheid, but to most Americans he is a moderate since he does not advocate violence. Ask the British what they thought about George Washington and cronies -- surely they had "radical" ideas. The sentence about "implementation" bothers me -- does this mean that the West would implement the compromise, or just monitor the implementation of the compromise by the South Africans? ~joe testa~ ------- -------
walton@ametek.UUCP (10/03/86)
Date: Sun 21 Sep 86 16:46:07-EDT From: ~joe testa~ <cit-vax!ohio-state.ARPA!TESTA-J@OSU-20> >From: Steve Walton <ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu> >... > In South Africa and the Third World, the state preceded the >nation, and the governments there are attempting to enforce >political boundaries... In Africa, most of the political boundaries are not the fault of the national governments; rather, they are the result of the colonial governing of African territories. True, but incomplete. When decolonization of Africa first began, the black Africans themselves agreed not to attempt to redraw the countries' boundaries along more rational lines, due to a fear that the resulting negotiations would be indefinitely long. > Kissinger's answer to South Africa's problem is something >patterned on the American system. Curious that he proposes a solution based on the American system to a problem which he also states is very different from the situation which gave rise to the American solution. Not that i'm necessarily saying that it would not work, but . . . No, his point was that South Africa's situation is much closer to that of 18th century America than to 18th century Europe, and that therefore an American style federal system is much more likely to work in South Africa than is a European style parliamentary system. >Kissinger suggests a Western-sponsored conference among >moderates of all races and tribes in South Africa, with the >express goal of fashioning a federal government for South Africa. >... > Comments? Yup. First, why should only the moderates be invited to this conference? What if the "radical" leaders actually represent the great majority of the people? "Radical" was a poor choice of words here, and it was mine, not Kissinger's. Perhaps I should have said "those advocating a peaceful solution to the South African question, including adherence to the principals of one person, one vote and of equal rights for all individuals and groups." But that's too long. (Footnote: A while back in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial writer said that the South African government should release Nelson Mandela and legalize the ANC [though not terrorism, of course] and allow them to place their ideas before the people of South Africa. He had no doubt that the majority of blacks would see that their desire is to replace one totalitarian government with another.) The sentence about "implementation" bothers me -- does this mean that the West would implement the compromise, or just monitor the implementation of the compromise by the South Africans? The latter, I believe. Steve Walton -------
walton@ametek.UUCP (11/03/86)
Raif Hijab (hijab@cad.berkeley.edu) writes: >The problem with [Kissinger's suggestion of a federal system for > South Africa] is that it does not takes into >consideration the right of the black South Africans to self- >determination in their homeland, or majority rule. It presumes >to impose a *Western* solution on South Africa. Why? ... Because >Kissinger would like to stack the decks in favor of the White >Afrikaaners, with whom he empathizes so much. The worst part of >it is that the solution would start from a position of overwhelming >superiority by the Whites, without any obvious way to redress >the balance. The only way for justice to prevail is for the >Afrikaaners to *lose power*, and for the black majority to take >over, just as happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I perhaps did not emphasize sufficiently strongly in my original message that Kissinger's editorial said that any replacement for apartheid should be based firmly on the principal of "one man, one vote." But a major subpoint of the Kissinger argument is that there is no "black majority" in South Africa, of which fact the tribe vs. tribe violence of recent months should be ample evidence. Hence his suggestion of a federal system. If this is advocacy of a "Western solution" to the problems of South Africa, so be it. 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? -------