Path: utzoo!yunexus!unicus!craig
From: craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Clark's speech to CIC; frontline states
Message-ID: <2410@unicus.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 88 05:51:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: unicus.2410
Posted: Tue Mar 22 00:51:59 1988
References: <560@auvax.UUCP> <2367@unicus.UUCP> <573@myrias.UUCP>
Reply-To: craig@Unicus.COM (Craig D. Hubley)
Organization: Unicus Software Inc., Toronto, Ont.
Lines: 181

In article <573@myrias.UUCP> sjl@myrias.UUCP (Stuart Lomas) writes:
>Last June and July, I spent some time in Zambia and Zimbabwe, which are among
>the "frontline" states Craig refers to. In 23 days, I travelled through much
>of Zambia, and spent 4 days in Zimbabwe. Our guide was a white Zimbabwean.
>Based on my experience in those two countries, I would say that Craig's
>description is much too harsh.

Having not been to Zambia or Zimbabwe, I can only accept this evaluation.
However, 27 days is not a long time, particularly when gauging politics.
Amnesty International used to have some very bad things to say about 
both countries, I'm not sure what they say at the moment.

>"dictators-for-life": this is basically correct. Although the leaders of both
>Zambia and Zimbabwe were fairly elected to their positions, President Kaunda
>of Zambia immediately outlawed all other political parties (that was around
>1964), and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has just reached an agreement with his
>opposition that also appears to guarantee a one party state (last year:
>formation of ZANU-PF from ruling ZANU and opposition ZAPU parties).

It may well be true that Africa `isn't ready' for democracy, I don't know.
However, no doubt the lack of democracy in other African states has steeled
the Afrikaners to fight to the death rather than become rightless scapegoats
of a hostile dictatorship.  If I were a white South African, I would not
support any changes likely to lead to:

	``one-man, one-vote, once!''

While these fears may be unjustified, there is little in recent African
history to suggest so.  Opposing change under such circumstances may be
impractical, as it is likely to happen anyway, but not unjustifiable.

>bad human rights records: I would not be surprised to hear of some human
>rights violations in either country, but certainly these are nothing like the
>official racism of South Africa. Both Zambia and Zimbabwe are very careful to
>appear fair and non-racist.

This seems to be the key issue for the West, that of `official' racism.
It seems that so long as one doesn't enshrine indiscretions into law,
one gets left alone.  The word *appear* may be significant here, after all,
the free world has abandoned South Africa, but still puts a considerable 
amount of aid into Zambia and Zimbabwe.

>"blacks oppressing blacks": no large scale evidence of this in either country.
>It is true that Lusaka, Zambia is the headquarters of the ANC, and that the
>ANC has been linked to incidents of violence between blacks in South Africa.
>
>"tribal squabbles": In Zimbabwe, the political parties at independance were
>ZANU, connected with the Shona tribe, and ZAPU, connected with the Matabele
>tribe. There have been violent incidents by an outlaw minority of Matabeles
>against whites, blacks, tourists, etc. The problem is that there are still a
>few soldiers from the 1980 civil war that just won't give up. In Zambia,
>the government is not strongly connected with any one tribe (there are about
>70+ tribes in the country), and there is no recent evidence of inter-tribal
>problems.

Very heterogenous countries tend not to have such problems.  The African racist
problems best known were in Amin's Uganda and Marxist Ethiopia.  In both
cases the oppressed groups were largely Christians and the rulers not, 
so there may have been more religious motivation that racial.  The minorities
in Uganda and Ethiopia were large, and there are certainly not 70+ identifiable
groups in those countries, perhaps encouraging scapegoating.  Of course, 
Mulroney hasn't stood too close to Idi Amin or the Ethiopians lately. :-)

>"genocidal wholesale slaughters": the only such events I know of in any of
>the frontline states have been in Mozambique and Angola, both of which are
>fighting wars against South African backed troops.

No excuse, I'm afraid.  The contras aren't good simply because Reagan gives
them money, and the Mozambiquan and Angolan rebels aren't bad simply
because Botha gives them money.  Of course things would be more peaceful
if nobody was giving anybody money to fight anybody, but I doubt that
anyone's hands are clean in such situations.  Guerilla wars can be fought
and won without large-scale murder;  Britain did it in Malaysia in the 60s.

>- Many of the black governments Africa are run by a "benevolent dictator"
>  associated with only one of the many tribes in the country. Ie. Kenya is
>  mostly run by the Kikuyu (sp?) tribe. They are often "democratic" in
>  name only.

Such governments inevitably have opponents.  The question is, what happens
to them, if they don't run off to become rebels ?  Such systems do not
encourage peaceful opposition, even if they allow it.  

>- Many of the governments in Africa are hopelessly inefficient.
>  For example, Zambia is probably something like 50% arable land, and has
>  very predictable rains, and yet the country must import even staple foods.
>
>- South Africa controls southern Africa economically. For example, almost
>  all packaged food (ie tins) in Zambia come from South Africa. Incidentally,

Aware of this, but the fact that these states are close to S.A. does not
legitimize them as candidates for our support, any more than Honduras being
close to Nicaragua does so.  If we don't choose each and every country and
government that we aid and abet on morality rather than geography, then our
politicians are simply practicing political opportunism, to everyone's
detriment.  Choosing to aid countries because they are close to S.A. rather
than because they are struggling to maintain a democracy is bad policy.

>  Zimbabwe is much closer to self-sufficiency, probably because they have a
>  much higher population of whites, who run most of the industries.
>
>- Most of the blacks in southern Africa have little formal education, and
>  their traditional cultures do not prepare them for any of the jobs we would
>  assume are necessary in a modern country, ie bank teller. This is slowly
>  changing, and we saw many indications of basic schooling in Zambia even in
>  remote villages. Countries like Zimbabwe are very dependant on their white
>  populations simply to keep the country running. Zambia, which has
>  discouraged its white population, barely functions at all.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~
What form does this discouragement take ?  It must be severe, to stop
white people from making money. :-)  Probably another legislated racism.
If a healthier economy will restore democracy and maintain peace, fine.
But unfortunately the gains all too often go to buy arms and pay thugs.
Contrary to popular ideas that dictatorships are efficient, they are not.
The problem with `benevolent dictatorships' is that they must either maintain
popular support, which requires propaganda, or popular terror, requiring guns.
As Nick M. once observed, it is better for the prince to be feared than loved.

>- Many of the governments in southern Africa have enough of a Marxist outlook
>  that they "scare off" western aid. Apparently the experience of Tanzania
>  under a (very) Marxist government has been sufficiently bad that its
>  neighbours are not in a hurry to embrace Marxism fully, though. However,
>  their traditional tribal organizations are very compatible with Marxist
>  theory.

This has a lot to do with the popular appeal of communism to any tribal
people.  The idea that labor is value meshes nicely with economies where
there are no professional salesmen, organizers, managers, engineers, etc.
Unfortunately, embracing such ideas means they will likely stay that way.
Likewise, the individual is subject to many collective restraints, the new
ones imposed by communism are not qualitatively different.  Communist
revolutions happen in backward countries almost exclusively.  Sometimes,
as with Eastern Europe, it is imposed.  Marx was thoroughly wrong about this,
but of course he was thoroughly wrong about most things.  :-)  The states
with the most experience, such as Russia and China, eventually simply come
to abandon it, because the human and economic cost is too high.  In those
countries, however, `communism' has done much to erect a level playing field
upon which healthy capitalisms can grow.  Too bad it cost so many lives
just to erase the Emperors and Czars.  It probably didn't have to.

>So what are my conclusions? We should continue to support the frontline states
>to a high level, while at the same time realizing that South Africa is only
>one of their problems, and that South Africa is often used as an excuse by
>these countries for their own ineptitude. Our support should attempt to reduce
>the effects of South Africa's pressure against them, and we should encourage
>these countries to develop their own economies.

First of all, thanks for the information.  Not too many would take the time.
While I have sympathy for the vision, and respect for the point of view,
this just seems too much like the rationale used by the USA to support
right-wing dictatorships.  Much the same things could be said about them,
that they use neighbouring communist governments and rebels to excuse
their own abuses and ineptitude.  The idea of developing their economies
makes sense, but only if they take steps to become western-style democracies.
Other forms of government may be `legitimate', but I sure as hell don't
want my tax dollars paying for propaganda or murder, even if 95% of the
population there is in favour of it.  The western hand on the western purse
is our biggest weapon.  We can use it to favour those who favour us,
who happen to be our political allies of the moment, or we can use it to
favour those who favour our principles.  I favour the latter.  

>Stuart Lomas
>{ihnp4,rutgers,ubc-vision}!alberta!myrias!sjl

If we had refused Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union on account of its 
atrocities, it is possible it would have not had the power to push
its borders to Germany and absorb Eastern Europe.  Large-scale murder
persisted until the death of Stalin.  In that situation, there was the
danger that Germany would conquer and consolidate Russia and create
an unassailable power-bloc, but this danger does not exist in a relatively
small corner of Africa.  In the 1940s, politics made us allies with
murderers, with predictable results:  more murder.  In the 1980s,
with no impending world conquest, there is simply no excuse for it.
Perhaps this does not apply to southern Africa in full, but the only
sensible policy I can think of is to simply apply human-rights records
across the board as the *only* criterion for aid.
--
	Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont.
	craig@Unicus.COM				(Internet)
	{uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig	(dumb uucp)
	mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net		(dumb arpa)