Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!OHIO-STATE.ARPA!TESTA-J%OSU-20 From: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Kissinger and South Africa Message-ID: <12243702056.49.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:24:08 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12243702056.49.MCGREW Posted: Thu Oct 2 20:24:08 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Oct-86 07:40:36 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 60 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: Steve Walton > 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~ ------- -------