mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (11/03/86)
<hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU> >The problem with this approach 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. My suspicion is that Kissinger is more interested in finding a solution that prevents the Afrikaaners from nuking their neighbours or butchering the black population of SA. Even the most cursory reading of the history of South Africa should convince you that the Afrikaaners are more than capable of doing either, *no matter what we or anybody else says or does*. The Afrikaaners are a tough, independent people; they stood the British Empire off at the height of the Empire's power. For three hundred years they've poured their sweat and blood into the Veldt, and have shown absolutely no compunction about spilling the blood of others to hang onto it. If you think they're going to cavil now, think again. >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. The Afrikaaners aren't going to "lose power" just like that. 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. 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. At that, it took seven years of bloody guerilla war for the blacks to win in Rhodesia. How long would it take the SA blacks? Twenty years to forever, depending. 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. 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. That means that the Afrikaaners need some guarantee that they'll be able to keep their homes, land and way of life. If that offends your sense of justice and equity, tough. If they don't get those guarantees, they will fight. If they fight, many, many, many blacks will die and the blacks might well lose anyway. That's Kissinger's point: South Africa is the Afrikaaner's homeland, as much as it is the homeland of the Zulu and the Xhosa, as much as the USA is the homeland of the non-aboriginal American. 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. Given this, will you still talk airily about the black majority "taking over"? Will you go to SA and die with the blacks in pursuit of this pipe dream? >Kissinger has >already messed up South East Asia and the Middle East. We do not >need more of his perverted genious. Revisionist history. There would be no peace between Egypt and Israel today if not for Kissinger's work in 1973. And the comment about SE Asia is lunacy. Nixon and Kissinger ended a war that Johnson and McNamara started. -- Rick -------