Ah, thanks.
I am under the impression that practically nobody who argued for “constructive engagement” did so honestly or sincerely.
Their true motive being not strident anti-Communism, but instead…?
The bottom line. Lots of business opportunities investing in SA. And “strident anti-Communism” was not even high on their list of purported motives; the main stated motive was that “constructive engagement” would be the best way in the long run to get rid of Apartheid. And I don’t believe anyone who said that really believed it or meant it or much cared whether Apartheid ended or lasted.
Thanks. That’s much more useful than tossing “stated” or “he said” into other posters’ statements.
I’d love to hear your response to post 136.
Even if true, it’s something unknowable except in hindsight. No excuse for the constructive-engagement crowd back in the day.
Not totally unknowable, Cuba and Iran were already in the books as examples of harsh sanctions that ground the average citizen into deeper poverty without accomplishing the desired political change, and arguably strengthening the grip of the regime.
Also unknowable at the time of Reagan’s veto was that the collapse of the Soviet Union was imminent, which greatly changed the nature of the situation in South Africa. See my quote of de Klerk. Had that collapse not occured, a bloody civil war between a socialist ANC and the minority government might well have broken out, which would have proven Reagan correct.
When conservatives realized that change was inevitable and unavoidable, they went for the next best thing, gradualism, constructive engagement. Mustn’t move too fast, mustn’t be disruptive, that would be bad for business. It was the duty of white people to bring the colored along towards full equality at a prudent and cautious pace. That way, they wouldn’t be so vulnerable to outside agitators coming in to get them all riled up with impossible promises.
“Get your foot off of my grandmother’s neck! NOW, goddamit, not one toe at a time!”
- Dick Gregory