Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site batman.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!cyb-eng!batman!gene From: gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Thoughts on America Bashing Message-ID: <149@batman.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 00:02:10 EDT Article-I.D.: batman.149 Posted: Thu Aug 1 00:02:10 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 06:31:58 EDT References: <416@iham1.UUCP> <1056@ames.UUCP> <146@batman.UUCP> <1040@teddy.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Burroughs Austin Research Center, TX Lines: 118 I mention a particularly motley crew of Third World despots... > > > >A lot of those people would gladly trade that "exploitation" for that of > >their current "President For Life". The names Nyerere (sp?), Obote (and > >before him the ever-popular Idi Amin), Mengistu (who once settled an > >argument at a cabinet meeting by shooting his antagonist between the eyes), > >Khadaffi, Khomeini(ask a Bahai, if there are any left), Karmal, Castro, > >and Pol Pot spring to mind. [BTW--since this posting Obote has been replaced by somebody else--so much for the President-for-Life biz...] > > Its funny the crew that you mentioned. They all came to power > (with the exception of Karmal), as part of popular uprisings against > oppressive U.S. supported govts. Bull. By no stretch of the imagination were the governments of Ethiopia or Cambodia or Cuba in anything like the same league as their successors. Likewise, the government of Idris (Libya) was the best kind of government at all--it almost wasn't one. > Maybe there's a lesson there? If we don't > want the likes of Khadaffi and Khomeini, perhaps we might be more amenable to > promoting popular empowerment in those countries, BEFORE IT IS TAKEN BY > FORCE. Khaddaffi took power in a military coup. How does this qualify as "popular empowerment"? On the other hand, the Khomeini regime did indeed take over by popular demand. Indeed, most of the people (still) there think it's great. It just so happens that Moslem don't like Bahais very much, so they killed them all (the word genocide keeps rearing its ugly head). So we finally have a popular government after all--too bad its so bloodthirsty. The Bahai's were better off under the Shah. > > A case in point. When the racist regime in S. Africa finally falls, how > do you expect the new leaders to feel about the U.S. (who with Britain blocked > manditory sanctions in the Security Council last week). More Bull. Both countries abstained on the resolution calling for voluntary sanctions, which means that it was not vetoed, and was (as I recall) passed. It seems to me that voluntary sanctions ought to be sufficient for those nations awash in Liberal Guilt to have a chance to feel good about themselves--which is the whole point of the exercise as nearly as I can tell. > And if the U.S. and > allies support the White Regime 'till the bitter end, what kind of leaders do > you think will be in charge afterwards? BITTER ones! and do you think they'll > give a damn about western style democracy? There is a key point here which you left-wingers keep missing. The government in Pretoria is NOT an unrepresentative oligarchy. It is in fact more moderate than most of its supporters--the Afrikaaners. An Afrikaaner is just as much an African as a Zulu. In fact, what we have here is a tribal conflict, not unlike those which have raged across Africa for centuries. When it "hits the fan" in South Africa, what you will see is not a government falling--you will see open warfare, and it will be amazing to behold. No way are the Afrikaaners going to let themselves be pushed out of South Africa, and they've got the guns to see that it doesn't happen. If indeed the government "changes", it will ONLY be after this bloody civil war. Now, as for why we should not intervene: do we intervene in every two-bit intertribal struggle in Africa? Hell, no. To suppose that this one is special because one of the tribes happens to be white is an outgrowth of that old bugaboo Liberal Guilt. As such, it is patronizing at best, racist at worst. As for why intervention would not help anyway: the South African government has been trying to build up a moderate black leadership class. Guess who has been the chief targets of the current violence-- you guessed it-- the moderates. This is no accident. The African National Congress (ANC) is a well-known front for the USSR. As such, it is ANC policy to kill off all moderate black opposition leaders. (If I were Bishop Tutu, I'd watch my backside). This has two effects 1) it eliminates competition for the ANC and 2) it means that the level of violence on both sides increases as there are fewer and fewer moderates. This has the effect of polarizing those who were previously neutral as the government is forced to take ever more repressive measures to quell the violence. The only way out for the government is to do just what they are doing--declare a state of emergency and lock up the agitators. (I note with amusement that all the left-wingers want the state of emergency lifted so that the people can have their liberties back; but wait, I thought you guys were telling us the people didn't have any to start with....) [This is all classic Communist tactics--Marighella wrote a manual on how to do it in the sixties. The most famous practitioners of it were the Tupamaros and the Brigate Rossi. Both ultimately lost because the target governments knew the trick and eliminated the cadres instead of the mobs.] Finally, as to the best course for the USA: continued investment and the much-maligned "Constructive Engagement". Investment: The only thing that will beat a Communist-inspired revolutionary movement is a revolution of rising expectations. This is achieved when living standards are raised for everyone. This is best brought about by the US companies in South Africa that have, under the Sullivan Principles, brought about equality of treatment and trade unions, among other things. The trick is to make all the blacks rich--then they won't stand for the chickenshit treatment at the hand of the Afrikaaners, but then neither will they stand for a Communist takeover. Constructive Engagement: Believe it or not, the party in power in SA is now considered liberal. There are other overtly racist Afrikaaner parties which could well win the next elections. The role of Constructive Engagement is to press the party in power to do as much as possible without bringing one of these parties to power. If that happens, the afore-mentioned Civil War is a virtual certainty. It is a business that calls for careful diplomacy, not the ham-fisted approach of the left-wingers in the US House. Sorry about the length of this--there is much more I wanted to say. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495