Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!limbo!taylor
From: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: USENIX and South Africa
Message-ID: <809@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 6 Jun 90 17:30:20 GMT
Reply-To: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor)
Organization: Intuitive Systems, Mountain View, CA: +1 (415) 966-1151
Lines: 161

Peter Salus writes about the Usenix board having to wrestle with the
problem of dealing with South Africa, saying, in part: "As I think 
that this gets introduced periodically as a totally bogus issue..."

Well, it's not a bogus issue, Peter.  While I can appreciate and
agree with your commentary on the South African government, the actual
situation that the Usenix Board is facing is that a university in 
South Africa has applied for institutional membership in the Association.

This particular University (University of Cape Town?) also has an
exemplary record of working within the system to ease the pain and
evil of apartheid, as well as actively protesting within the chains
of command (what an appropriate phrase!) about various apartheid-
related issues.  As I recall, this particular school is also one of
the few non-racially segregated institutions in South Africa.

Slightly different from Peters' comment that "I see no reason why I 
should (even indirectly) help a police state gain better control 
through transaction processing programs, for example." isn't it?

While there is clearly a link between highed education and the power
and control of the government, there also clearly has to be a point
where the people within the country that are trying *from within* to
change the system are supported by those outside.  

As a particularly interesting example, Hewlett-Packard has a locally-
owned sales office in Johannesburg (I think) which follows the strict 
HP guidelines on the hiring of minorities, handicapped people, etc.  
The office, in fact, is one of the few in South Africa that continues 
to deal with the western technology firms *and* it's racially mixed.  
Should we be shunning HP for continuing to do business with South Africa?
Indeed, there is a vocal minority of share holders that year after
year manage to get the "divest from South Africa" question added to
the yearly stockholders election (and it fails each time).

The point here is that I personally believe that large and complex
political situations cannot be handled in the same way that we might
punish a small child by unrelated punitive damage.  More appropriate
as an analogy might be to observe that if a class full of child
delinquents has a few children that are trying to infuse some rational
thought and order, shouldn't THEY be supported by the outside forces?
(of course, "Lord of the Flies" demonstrates a possible scenario when
that *doesn't* happen, too).

If we're asked to deal with the South African government directly, or
any agency or department of the government, then I would favor us at 
the least taking a hard and tough stance in requesting that they PROVE
to us (and the US Department of Commerce) that they're part of the 
solution, not part of the problem.  Generally, I think that's a reasonable
way to deal with the situation overall, actually.  If this University in
question can demonstrate to the appropriate parties (which would include
the Usenix general membership) that they're actively working to end
apartheid, then let's give them support to make them stronger, and make
their voice louder in the halls of government!!

Btw: this is indeed an issue that we cannot decide amongst ourselves
exclusively; the United States Department of Commerce (among others)
has legal restrictions and sanctions against the government of South
Africa and we would have to work within their guidelines and recommendations
so that we, as an association, don't get slapped by our own government.

Quickly, perhaps going more into politics than I should, I'd like to 
address a few more of Peter's points; you're free to skip to the next
article if you don't want to hear this...

> I do not think that selective exports in any way restrict the oppressive 
> regime.  I see no relaxation of South African offenses against Indians, 
> racially mixed individuals or couples, Jews, or other non-Anglo, 
> non-Afrikaans groups.

What's the source of your information?  How fast do you believe that
governments can change in peacetime?  Or do you favor a complete civil
war? 

Clearly Mandela has helped ease much of the growing tension in Pretoria
and throughout the country, and clearly the government of South Africa
have made many worthwhile concessions to African National Congress (ANC)
in the past year or two.  I think that we need to compare SA not with
our outside ideas of "what it should be" but rather with what it was 
like a year, two years, five, ten, fifty years ago.  And I believe that
it's changing for the better.  I also believe that minority rule is not
the right way to run a country, but I recognize that it will take a 
number of years before the Afrikaan groups can completely let go of 
the reins (again, perhaps another overly appropriate metaphor).

Consider that currently in South Africa there is a fierce debate about,
and I quote the "Sowetan" of Johannesburg:

	"...whether a post-apartheid government should nationalize 
         the white-owned economy to raise the living standards of 
	 impoverished blacks"  Leaders of the ANC have "advocated
	 the nationalization of major industries."

	"The economic issue is seen as crucial by blacks and by 
	 many in white communities who are 'more fearful of losing
	 a priviliged life style than of ending formal racial
	 segregation'.  But common ground does exist: Both sides
	 agree that the state would not have sufficient resources
	 to buy controlling interests in big companies and that 
         actions that would discourage foreign or domestic investment 
	 should not be taken."

Meanwhile, the financial "Business Day" of Johannesburg:

	".. has been scathing in their editorials on ANC economic 
	 policy, emphasizing the movement's ties to the SOuth African
	 Communist Party (SACP).  'The ANC', it says, 'has forfeited
	 the confidence of international investors, none of whom is to 
	 be found in the bankrupt tyrannies and socialized slums from
	 which the SACP and ANC have gathered their economic ideas'"

	        [both excerpts adapted from "World Press Review", June 1990]

Sounds like there really *is* progress, doesn't it?  Sounds like things
are quite on the right track and that the people of South Africa are
aware of what the important issues are, and are facing them in their
own public forums to hew out a platform for continued reforms...

However, Peter continues his article with the comment:

> When their purses hurt enough, they may relax their oppression.

Sure, but that's not historical reality, is it?  I think that if we
continue to blindly screw the SA government into the ground they'll 
react with what will appear to be positive changes but will really be 
just barely enough to lift economic sanctions.  And as soon as they've 
accomplished that, they'd restore the previous structure of power (though 
perhaps a bit more subtly than the current - improving - organization) 
and be flush.  (look at the current GATT negotiations for a good forum 
for this type of machination, too)

Instead, just like a pop-psychology self-help counselor, I'll point out that 
change must be motivated from within, not without.  If South Africa is
really going to be successfully changed into a true democratic government,
then we need to assist those that are making the change there already,
not tar them all with the same brush (historical metaphor choosen 
deliberately).

And for the record, to fend off the inevitable flames, I most assuredly
do not support apartheid or indeed any form of rule that imposes the 
wants, needs, or desires of the minority upon the majority.  I further do
not agree with any discriminatory practices, whether they be the majority
to the minority, or vice versa.  

I simply suggest that we look at the situation -- within the bounds of
the law -- in a rational and thoughtful manner, and try to offer aid and
assistance to those organizations, groups, and agencies that are trying
to bring about change.  

Besides, if we succeed in completely closing the borders, there'll be
one hell of a bloody revolution, and I'm not sure that I want to know
that my thoughts and views contributed to the death of thousands of
innocent (and not-so-innocent) people.  Is it worth the loss of human
life on a grand scale to have the change happen in months rather than 
in a few years?  I don't think so.

						-- Dave Taylor
Intuitive Systems
Mountain View, California

taylor@limbo.intuitive.com    or   {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor