South Africa, better or worse?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
I see I didn’t make my position crystal clear.

Change of regime in South Africa was a right thing to do.

Change of regime in Iraq was a right thing to do.

Clear now?
[/QUOTE]

You seem to be trying to draw a parallel between the two situations.

Don’t try. There are none.

South Africa was not subjected to a foreign invasion or occupation.

Furthermore, South Africa – having a system that was more or less democratic, at least for white people – started with a situation that was more than likely to produce a functioning democracy once the existing government was abolished. Iraq did not.

22

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
I see I didn’t make my position crystal clear.

Change of regime in South Africa was a right thing to do.

Change of regime in Iraq was a right thing to do.

Clear now?
[/QUOTE]

Well, since you put it that way…clear as mud.

“Regime change” is SA was the result of an* internal* insurgency, coupled with the effect of sanctions. In other words, a fairly peaceful process was used (google “CODESA” to learn more), with minimal bloodshed. The KwaZulu violence, while somewhat sectarian in nature, was in no way related to national politics, but rather regional control (imagine if SoCal and Bay Area-ers fought over control of California - something like that), and was never going to tear the whole country apart.

Sanctions were in place on Iraq. Surely all the US had to do was wait for them to take effect, I mean, it took more than 10 years in SA. Possibly materially sponsor a domestic insurgency, the way that Russia and Cuba sponsored the South Africans, or Europe (and the US, to a much lesser extent, because of the Communism links) took in exiles. But nooo, you had to go invade. That lost it all, right there. and then

23

Consensus seems to be that invasion is wrong. You can sanction, obstruct, pressure, even bomb, but invasion is wrong.

I don’t agree, but I respect your position.

24

What sort of logic is that?

Fiji has a government
Nazi Germany had a government
It was right to invade Nazi Germany
Its right to invade Fiji!

But I do think this leap of logic brings up a good question question…

Would the changes in South Africa have gone better if we had invaded, arrest their government, set up “enduring bases”, POW camps and the works?

Let’s compare that to a time when we did just that. It’s a little country that starts with a “V” and ends with an “ietnam”. Are they better off thanks to us?

What did work in South Africa was sanctions and International UN led pressure- exactly what everyone in the world beside GWB and his hawks were proposing!

Also, in the future it may not be a good idea to mention South Africa when painting the US in a rosy light. We, in defiance of the UN and the International community on the whole, supported the Apartheid regime in numerous very real ways.

25

What sort of logic is that?

Fiji has a government
Nazi Germany had a government
It was right to invade Nazi Germany
Its right to invade Fiji!

But I do think this leap of logic brings up a good question question…

Would the changes in South Africa have gone better if we had invaded, arrest their government, set up “enduring bases”, POW camps and the works?

Let’s compare that to a time when we did just that. It’s a little country that starts with a “V” and ends with an “ietnam”. Are they better off thanks to us?

What did work in South Africa was sanctions and International UN led pressure- exactly what everyone in the world beside GWB and his hawks were proposing!


Also, in the future it may not be a good idea to mention South Africa when painting the US in a rosy light. We, in defiance of the UN and the International community on the whole, supported the Apartheid regime in numerous very real ways.
26

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
I see I didn’t make my position crystal clear.

Change of regime in South Africa was a right thing to do.

Change of regime in Iraq was a right thing to do.

Clear now?
[/QUOTE]

You also fail to mention another similarity between to two regimes… Both were heavily supported by the west for most of their time in power. And lasted longer, and were more powerful, because of this support. The US and UK were very reluctant to censure the Aparteit regime because it was viewed as an anti-communist bastion during the cold war, and only did so when they were forced to so by public opinion. Likewise Saddam was viewed as a buffer against Iran, and was actively supported even while he was busily (and openly) filling the mass graves we are now uncovering in Iraq.

That is hypocracy of the pro-war crowd, when intevening in Iraq (not invading mind you, just the mildest of diplomatic sanctions might have been enough) COULD have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, they kept quiet. Years later when when the mass slaughter was over and Saddam had been isolated and weakened, used those massacres, which we sat by and let happen, an excuse for a pointless war.

27

[QUOTE=even sven]
But I do think this leap of logic brings up a good question question…

Would the changes in South Africa have gone better if we had invaded, arrest their government, set up “enduring bases”, POW camps and the works?
[/QUOTE]
Well, talk about “leaps of logic”.

Such ultimate 'what if’ scenario, to be realized, requires at least a few preceding ‘what if’ steps.

To make the invasion justifiable requires that instead of gradually relinquishing power and allowing more democratic freedoms, the SA National Party would instead crack down brutally hard on ‘coloured’ opposition and suppressed all the freedoms.

What if Mandela and other opposition leaders were murdered instead of released?

What if all other political parties were suppressed instead of given more freedom?

What if mass protests were met with machine gun fire instead of being allowed to take place?

Would all that justify an armed intervention from abroad, or would the sanctions still be considered sufficient?

28

[QUOTE=griffin1977]
You also fail to mention another similarity between to two regimes… Both were heavily supported by the west for most of their time in power. And lasted longer, and were more powerful, because of this support. The US and UK were very reluctant to censure the Aparteit regime because it was viewed as an anti-communist bastion during the cold war, and only did so when they were forced to so by public opinion. Likewise Saddam was viewed as a buffer against Iran, and was actively supported even while he was busily (and openly) filling the mass graves we are now uncovering in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
For all I know there might be some truth in your description of Apartheid regime being supported by US and UK, in contradiction to the wishes of progressive international community.

However, your allusion to Saddam in a similar context is simply disingenuous. There is a clear point in time and history when Saddam was condemned by the whole world. That point is his agression against Kuwait. Prior to that, no country had problem with Iraq (except Iran and Israel); after that, Saddam has instantly become everybody’s enemy, with US and UK immediately taking the lead and doing almost all the hard work in opposing him, beating him back, containing him and finally removing him from power.

29

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
For all I know there might be some truth in your description of Apartheid regime being supported by US and UK, in contradiction to the wishes of progressive international community.

However, your allusion to Saddam in a similar context is simply disingenuous. There is a clear point in time and history when Saddam was condemned by the whole world. That point is his agression against Kuwait. Prior to that, no country had problem with Iraq (except Iran and Israel);
[/QUOTE]

But the evidence was there prior to that, those atrocities (the worst of his reign) were being carried out and the world knew about them (ironically the Amnesty International report on the Anfal campaign at the time was later quoted by Rumsfeld as a justification for war, though at the time it was not even enough justification for withdrawing support).

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
after that, Saddam has instantly become everybody’s enemy, with US and UK immediately taking the lead and doing almost all the hard work in opposing him, beating him back, containing him and finally removing him from power.
[/QUOTE]

Even after the war there was clearly decision taken to keep Saddam weakened and in power, as the alternative would have been instability and chaos in the center of the middle east(the Lebanization of Iraq in words of James Baker). At that point would not have taken an invasion, most observers believe steps as minor as forcing him to come and sign the ceasefire in person would have made him lose enough face so his generals would have deposed him (certainly disarming his republican guard would have been enough). What was disgusting is were not open about this decsion from the outset, we incouraged the Shi’ites to rise up and then did a U-turn, and abandoned them to their fate (even allowing Saddam to use his helicopters against them in clear violation of the ceasefire agreement).

30

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
Well, talk about “leaps of logic”.

Such ultimate 'what if’ scenario, to be realized, requires at least a few preceding ‘what if’ steps.

To make the invasion justifiable requires that instead of gradually relinquishing power and allowing more democratic freedoms, the SA National Party would instead crack down brutally hard on ‘coloured’ opposition and suppressed all the freedoms.

What if Mandela and other opposition leaders were murdered instead of released?

[/QUOTE]

**Steve Biko. Neil Aggett.Victoria Mxenge **And that’s just from Asimbonanga.

Mandela was released after the NP had effectively caved. What about the 27 years he was in prison? There was no gradual release of power. The old regime held on to power to the last - the late 80s were the bloodiest decades of our struggle, not the gradual easing you seem to think.

Oh, and “coloured” has a different meaning here than the one you give it, just FYI.

[QUOTE=New Iskander]

What if all other political parties were suppressed instead of given more freedom?

[/QUOTE]

Again, after the NP had caved. The ANC and Communists were banned for decades. Why no invasion then?

[QUOTE=New Iskander]

What if mass protests were met with machine gun fire instead of being allowed to take place?

[/QUOTE]

Google “Sharpeville massacre”, “Soweto Riots”, “Trojan Horse massacre” and tell me mass protests were “allowed to take place”.

You just sound completely ignorant about what actually went down here. This would be amusing to me if it wasn’t so sad.

31

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You just sound completely ignorant about what actually went down here. This would be amusing to me if it wasn’t so sad.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously, you know much more than I do, as you must.

However, I don’t accept your criticism. I was extremely careful to put things in historical prospective. True, many atrocities were perpetrated by Apartheid regime. Also true, the world preferred to look the other way. But as you said yourself when the pressure on the regime was finally applied, the regime caved. There were gradual positive changes, ending in free elections and transfer of power to ANC. It’s not my interpretation. Wikipedia says:

That’s the whole difference: Saddam didn’t cave.

32

So, once US and UK finally got serious about South Africa, it took five years to remove apartheid completely.

Compare that with 12 years of sanctions and warfare against Saddam that produced no change inside Iraq whatsoever.

33

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
Obviously, you know much more than I do, as you must.

However, I don’t accept your criticism. I was extremely careful to put things in historical prospective. True, many atrocities were perpetrated by Apartheid regime. Also true, the world preferred to look the other way. But as you said yourself when the pressure on the regime was finally applied, the regime caved. There were gradual positive changes, ending in free elections and transfer of power to ANC.
[/QUOTE]

My point, though, was that Apartheid didn’t just emerge in 1990 just to get gradually eroded, those brief years leading to democracy(1989 to 1994, really) came at the end of decades of armed struggle and international pressure. There’s a whole lot of “historical prospective[sic]” you’ve ignored.

It’s an error to think that the NP caved “when pressure was finally applied”, as you put it. Pressure had been applied for a long time before that. It was just that the internal struggle was winning. I personally believe that’s also why the US and UK finally came on board - they saw which way the wind would blow, not a sudden attack of altruism - I mean, seriously, from Thatcher?

So your point about gradual positive changes is wrong. First there was the armed struggle, then the talks by a defeated NP. I still don’t see any parallels to Iraq.

34

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It’s an error to think that the NP caved “when pressure was finally applied”, as you put it. Pressure had been applied for a long time before that. It was just that the internal struggle was winning. I personally believe that’s also why the US and UK finally came on board - they saw which way the wind would blow, not a sudden attack of altruism - I mean, seriously, from Thatcher?
[/QUOTE]
There is no need to invent new explanations when the old ones suffice. US and UK tolerated South Africa during the Cold War against Communism. As Cold War was winding down, that support was no longer justified.

35

New Iskander

My family is South African, although we left in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Of course South Africa is better off now, nobody is going to argue that. High levels of crime are a problem, but it is a true democracy and still the jewel of Africa.

But your whole OP is off base, the whole premise doesn’t make sense. If we look at countries where people are being oppressed – the category that includes Apartheid SA and Iraq – you have a whole mess of countries on your hands (NK, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Cuba, for a start). South Africa wasn’t the worst. Iraq wasn’t the worst either. Iraq was invaded for a whole other reason.

The problem is that nobody can tell us where Iraq will end. Regime change to overthrow despotic regimes (whether by invasion or revolution) pretty often install even worse leaders (see Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Cuba for example). So you ask if it was worth it, as if regime change, by itself, is a good thing. Regime change means less than nothing if it ends up installing a worse regime. In South Africa, we had a man, Mandela, who will stand up as one of the top peacemakers of the past millenium. He wrestled a country to follow him in forgiveness and to start putting pieces back together for a true democratic South Africa. If Iraq had a Mandela, it may have been worth it. But Bush’s vision of Mandela, Ahmed Chalabi, turned out to be an Iranian informant, an embezzeler, and worse, had absolutely no popular backing.

If in 15 years Iraq looks like 2006 South Africa, of course it would be worth it. It would stand with post-war Germany and Japan as one of the greatest things the US has ever done. Anyone who can look at the course of the war and rebuilding in Iraq and thinks that can happen is more optimistic than me. As it stands, it could be one of the worst things the US has ever done.

36

[QUOTE=New Iskander]
There is no need to invent new explanations when the old ones suffice. US and UK tolerated South Africa during the Cold War against Communism. As Cold War was winding down, that support was no longer justified.
[/QUOTE]

That’s fine and good - I, for one, am under no illusion about the motives of the US and UK in this, nor about the habit of abandoning former allies as the wind changes.

However

negotiations by the NP government started before the change in stance of the US and UK. When Thatcher was still calling the ANC a “terrorist” organisation (sound familiar), the NP were trying to get the ANC to abandon the violent struggle and negotiate. Of course, this went hand in hand with brutal suppression, so the ANC didn’t cave. Took the NP to do that.

Let me lay it out for you:
Early 80s - ANC armed forces (MK) are blowing shit up, including attacks on refineries and nuclear power plant.
1984 - popular (i.e. non-MK) revolt begins in series of riots, continues for years
1985 - govt. declares “State of Emergency”
**1985 **- Govt. secretly starts making overtures for peace, publically denies negotiation as tactic
1986 - US Comprehensive Antiapartheid Act passed (still just so much talk, though)
1987 - Thatcher says ANC will never form govt. - “living in cloud cuckoo land”, I believe was the term
1989 - US bipartisan commission approves sanctions, release of Mandela and ANC govt. UK on board, but demands ANC renounce violence first. ANC never renounces violence.

Tell me, if the NP govt. starts suing for peace in 1985, and US/UK pressure only really gets applied in 1989, how is it not obvious to think that they caved because of the ongoing insurgency rather than the still-to-come US/UK prerssure? Armed struggle coupled with general UN (but not US/UK) sanctions is sufficient to explain the end of apartheid. Eventual US/UK support was nice, thanks, but it wasn’t the camel’s backstraw. More like tossing a load on the back of a precollapsed camel, and going “look what I did”.

37

[QUOTE=edwino]
…you ask if it was worth it, as if regime change, by itself, is a good thing. Regime change means less than nothing if it ends up installing a worse regime. In South Africa, we had a man, Mandela, who will stand up as one of the top peacemakers of the past millenium. He wrestled a country to follow him in forgiveness and to start putting pieces back together for a true democratic South Africa. If Iraq had a Mandela, it may have been worth it. But Bush’s vision of Mandela, Ahmed Chalabi, turned out to be an Iranian informant, an embezzeler, and worse, had absolutely no popular backing.
[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the thoughtful response.

There no guarantees in life. You had no guarantee Mr. Mandela will prove himself “one of the top peacemakers of the past millenium”. His wife certainly didn’t pass the test of Greatness. He was your best hope. That’s all you had - Hope. Nobody knew what was going to happen once Apartheid is abolished. Lots of people warned about disastrous consequences, many of which did take place. Still you decided you can’t to live under Apartheid.

38

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Tell me, if the NP govt. starts suing for peace in 1985, and US/UK pressure only really gets applied in 1989, how is it not obvious to think that they caved because of the ongoing insurgency rather than the still-to-come US/UK prerssure? Armed struggle coupled with general UN (but not US/UK) sanctions is sufficient to explain the end of apartheid. Eventual US/UK support was nice, thanks, but it wasn’t the camel’s backstraw. More like tossing a load on the back of a precollapsed camel, and going “look what I did”.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think we want to go there.

For example, I can employ your approach to ‘prove’ that, say in Nicaragua, it was the Contras that forced the Sandinistas to hold free elections (which might not sit well with some people here).

International pressure is extremely important, especially when US and UK join in.

Also, international pressure is beneficient, because international support is usually lent to at least somewhat more worthy individuals and organizations. Almost all the regime changes that happened mostly internally and without organized international support were unmitigated disasters, such as Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Iranian etc. Those regime changes that were blessed by international support usually turn out better, such as in South Africa, Nicaragua or Serbia.

39

I think you give US/UK support too much credit, and discount that of the rest of Europe, the (then) USSR and non-aligned states too much. You’ll note that I did credit the general international sanctions - it’s only the US/UK that I see as bandwagon-jumpers. I’ve given my reasons for that, and I don’t see how spuriouus comparisons with Nicaragua shed any more light on the matter. There, it was clearly a US-backed insurgency, the exact opposite of the SA case. So I don’t see how “my approach” (which, as far as I can tell, is to lay out the facts, but perhaps you mean something different by the term?) would work there, but you’re welcome to try, I don’t have any investment in either side of that fight, nor any direct experience of that conflict.

I think you’ll find that regime change in some of the places you mentioned such as Cuba did happen with international support - just not Western support. The two are not the same thing. I know Soviet & Cuban support played a big role in the middle years of our own struggle, for instance.

But anyway, what happened to change the ANC, in two short years, from a terrorist organisation to a “worthy” one? Certainly, the ANC didn’t change.It never abandoned armed struggle.

But my central point , you haven’t addressed, so I’ll repeat it more clearly - it didn’t just take 5 years of negotiation, it tokk >25 years of armed struggle first. Makes the 12/13 years of Saddam-sanctions look a trifle impatient, doesn’t it…

More Importantly: You still haven’t clarified what any of this has to do with Iraq, you know, the OP?

40

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
So I don’t see how “my approach” (which, as far as I can tell, is to lay out the facts, but perhaps you mean something different by the term?) would work there,…
[/QUOTE]
You take a single fact and give it undue weight. What was more important, secret contacts between AMC and SA Gov’t or a bipartisan act of US Congress demanding Apartheid removal? I think it’s at least arguable.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
But anyway, what happened to change the ANC, in two short years, from a terrorist organisation to a “worthy” one? Certainly, the ANC didn’t change. It never abandoned armed struggle.
[/QUOTE]
What happened to change Gorbachev from a foe to a media darling in about the same time? He was still USSR Communist boss, preserving all the old policies vs. the West. The world was changing; one couldn’t put a finger on it, but the feeling was unmistakable.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
More Importantly: You still haven’t clarified what any of this has to do with Iraq, you know, the OP?
[/QUOTE]
It has to do with all the gloom about possibility of Civil War in Iraq.

Granted, no sane people would support a Civil war anywhere, however, the very real prospect of civil war (and genocide) in South Africa after Apartheid was never considered as an obstacle to Apartheid removal.

In South Africa during the 90-s you had pitched battles between different tribes and/or political parties, you had mass slaughter, you had enormous crime wave: still all decent people say that it was ultimately worth it.

But when it comes to Iraq, why, just in this thread there were repeated statements that the invasion was pointless, useless, criminal and so on.

The only thing I can discern is that the very act of Invasion was wrong, on principle. That is respectable position, at least.