His foreign policy legacy includes an alliance with a racist government
Sunday, Feb 6, 2011
Reagan's embrace of apartheid South AfricaStudent demonstrators at Johannesburg's Witwatersrand University flee as police fire tear gas at them during an anti-apartheid protest rally August 31, 1989.
The regime of apartheid in South Africa, under which nonwhites were systematically oppressed and deprived of their rights, is remembered as one of the worst crimes against humanity of the 20th century.
Despite a growing international movement to topple apartheid in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan maintained a close alliance with a South African government that was showing no signs of serious reform. And the Reagan administration demonized opponents of apartheid, most notably the African National Congress, as dangerous and pro-communist. Reagan even vetoed a bill to impose sanctions on South Africa, only to be overruled by Congress.
On a trip to the United States after winning the Nobel Prize in 1984, Bishop Desmond Tutu memorably declared that Reagan’s policy was ”immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.” Reagan’s record on South Africa was also marked by at least one embarrassing gaffe, when he told a radio interviewer in 1985: “They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country — the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated — that has all been eliminated.” Of course, that was simply not true, and Reagan later walked the statement back.
To learn more about Reagan’s policy on South Africa, I spoke with David Schmitz, a historian at Whitman College who has written widely on U.S. foreign policy. His new book is a biography of Brent Scowcroft. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Where did things stand between the U.S. and South Africa when Reagan entered office in 1981?
Carter had imposed sanctions and restrictions on South Africa and also had publicly criticized the South African government many times. Reagan went back to supporting the government, and he did it under the guise of the policy of “constructive engagement.” This policy had been worked out by Chester Crocker, later a Reagan State Department official, who wrote about it in Foreign Affairs in 1980.
Can you define that term, constructive engagement?
The idea of constructive engagement was that there were moderates in the South African government and so you wanted to encourage them. And if you constructively engaged with them, they would promote gradual change, political reform and so on. But to just oppose the government would make it intransigent and that would create greater polarization, and that was a situation that only extremists would benefit from. The Reagan administration saw the African National Congress (ANC) as a dangerous, pro-communist movement. So the notion of constructive engagement was gradual reform. It was also linked to Reagan supporting the Sullivan principles as a proper way to bring about change.
What were the Sullivan principles?
They were an idea promoted by an American religious leader, Reverend Leon Sullivan, a Baptist minister in Philadelphia. What he said was that, if corporations agree to certain standards of fair employment in South Africa, they shouldn’t be subjected to protests or divestiture. At that time there were a lot of protests in the United States demanding that universities and corporations divest from South Africa. Sullivan argued that these principles would be part of a middle ground between two extremes that would allow for change and betterment of the conditions of blacks in South Africa. Reagan seized upon that. Constructive engagement was presented as a middle ground between apartheid forever and those that wanted immediate change — which Reagan and Crocker argued would lead to chaos that the Soviets would take advantage of.
So what did that policy mean on the ground? Were the two governments close?
Yes, the Reagan administration worked very closely with [South African Prime Minister] P.W. Botha. He came to Washington and there were meetings in Europe as well. Reagan gave a lot of public support to the South African government, portraying Botha as a moderate who was willing to start political reforms and would stay on the side of the United States and help us block Soviet influence in southern Africa.
How did that square with what was actually going on in South Africa?
Nothing was going on. The reforms were cosmetic at best. Sullivan would eventually say in 1987 that it didn’t work. The crackdown of 1986 and the reimposition of martial law just made a total lie out of the notion that there were moderates in the Afrikaner government.
Talk about that crackdown and the U.S. response to it.
There was a lot of pressure building up in the United States, and Congress was threatening to pass legislation that would put sanctions on South Africa and restrict the flow of American aid to South Africa. Reagan always said he would veto that. Then Botha gave a speech on Aug. 15, 1985, in the face of increasing unrest in South Africa — this known as the “Rubicon speech.” And he said that South Africa would never accept one man, one vote in a unitary system. Real democracy, he said, would lead to chaos. This disappointed Reagan. But he stuck with Botha. Pressure built both inside of South Africa and outside, and the protest inside of South Africa led to the imposition of martial law. Congress then voted sanctions.
Was this the incident in which sanctions were voted and Reagan vetoed and was then overruled?
Yes. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum took the lead of the Republicans. She said that the situation in South Africa was virtually beyond hope and that constructive engagement was irrelevant. This regime was not going to change unless forced to. The United States was just party to this continued oppression. That sort of broke the Republican unity behind Reagan on this policy. The larger context was that Reagan had just failed in the Philippines in trying to back [Ferdinand] Marcos to the end. The Reagan doctrine was collapsing in Central America as well, with opposition growing to his interventions there. So that was also now happening in South Africa. The House vote wasn’t even recorded, it was so overwhelming in favor of imposing sanctions. The Senate vote was more than enough to override the veto, which it did.
What about U.S. policy toward the opposition groups like the ANC and Nelson Mandela?
They called the ANC terrorists. It was just continuing this notion that the ANC members are the extremists and the South African government has these moderates, and you’re going to end up with one extreme against the other if you don’t work with the government. Clearly, it never worked. This was a flawed policy.
By the end of the Reagan years, had the policy changed?
Well, Reagan’s attitudes hadn’t changed, but the policy changed because Congress changed it and voted sanctions. That cut off a lot of the flow of American capital. Sullivan renounced his position. Bishop Desmond Tutu came to the United States in 1984 after being awarded the Nobel Prize. He speaks in the House of Representatives and says that constructive engagement is a farce, and that it just entrenched the existing order. He said Reagan’s policy was “immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.”
After Reagan met with Tutu, he was asked at a press conference to talk about their meeting. Reagan said, “It is counterproductive for one country to splash itself all over the headlines, demanding that another government do something.” Then he claimed that black tribal leaders had expressed their support for American investment. He was trying to discredit Tutu’s argument that U.S. policy had hurt blacks. Anti-communism trumped so much in Reagan’s view of the non-Western world.
Would you argue that Reagan’s foreign policy extended the life of the regime in South Africa?
Yes. It gave it life. It gave it hope that the United States would continue to stick with it. It gave it continued flow of aid as well as ideological support. It delayed the changes that were going to come. Then you had the big crackdowns in ’86 and ’87. So there was harm in the lengthening. There was harm in the violence that continued.
I think a lot of well-meaning people in the United States bought the Sullivan principles and constructive engagement, because it seems reasonable. Reagan would say, “If we’re willing to talk to the Russians, why aren’t we willing to talk to the South African government?” We’re going to encourage them to moderate and reform — it sounds reasonable. But there was no real pressure. It was all talk. And it was exposed as that.
This board has become painfully predictable. Painfully might not be the right word- comically might be a better word.
The critics of Obama and ardent right wing advocates think Nelson Mandela is of questionable character.
Say no more.
no man is perfect, Thirty. I mean, Mandela cheated on his first wife SEVERAL times. so his character isn't unquestionable. no man's is.
Agreed.
But in my estimation... this man's greatness far exceeds his indiscretions. I wasn't saying he was perfect, but I am saying we can do without throwing darts at him in the wake of his death.
This board has become painfully predictable. Painfully might not be the right word- comically might be a better word.
The critics of Obama and ardent right wing advocates think Nelson Mandela is of questionable character.
Say no more.
no man is perfect, Thirty. I mean, Mandela cheated on his first wife SEVERAL times. so his character isn't unquestionable. no man's is.
Agreed.
But in my estimation... this man's greatness far exceeds his indiscretions. I wasn't saying he was perfect, but I am saying we can do without throwing darts at him in the wake of his death.
To be fair to unsung, he did post that before his death.
I don't think that his past stances detract from his ultimate achievement, which was the emancipation of South Africa without a violent revolution.
People can snipe at things he said and did before that all they want, but it doesn't change what he did accomplish, which is one of the greatest achievements in modern history.
This board has become painfully predictable. Painfully might not be the right word- comically might be a better word.
The critics of Obama and ardent right wing advocates think Nelson Mandela is of questionable character.
Say no more.
no man is perfect, Thirty. I mean, Mandela cheated on his first wife SEVERAL times. so his character isn't unquestionable. no man's is.
Agreed.
But in my estimation... this man's greatness far exceeds his indiscretions. I wasn't saying he was perfect, but I am saying we can do without throwing darts at him in the wake of his death.
Same can be said of MLK
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I don't think that his past stances detract from his ultimate achievement, which was the emancipation of South Africa without a violent revolution.
People can snipe at things he said and did before that all they want, but it doesn't change what he did accomplish, which is one of the greatest achievements in modern history.
To be fair to unsung, he did post that before his death.
This was not noted by myself and certainly does change the context of the implication.
With this said... there still is an implication and to be honest... I'm not exactly sure what it is?
I don't know what he was trying to get at.
Mandela was not saint, there is a lot of evidence pointing to his willingness go the violent way of revolution before his arrest. Very understandable given the circumstances.
What makes him so special obviously was what he did after he was released from prison. That takes a unique person with an amazing amount of character. If you believe in such a thing.....saintly.
I don't think that his past stances detract from his ultimate achievement, which was the emancipation of South Africa without a violent revolution.
People can snipe at things he said and did before that all they want, but it doesn't change what he did accomplish, which is one of the greatest achievements in modern history.
Very true. Let the good things he did be an inspiration. Rest in Peace Mandela.
At almost midnight on the east coast in the US, I am about to go to sleep knowing full well that I will wake up to Nelson Mandela being dead. I truly hope the world understands what this man meant to our planet and he gets the respect he deserves. In my 30 years, I can think of no one else who deserves the respect he does.
Thank you, for standing up to what's right. Thank you for showing courage in the face of a massive majority and thank you for showing this cold world what dignity and respect means.
This is literally the first person aside from my old man that I will shed a tear for. Thank you. America can certainly take a lesson from your courage.
95 years is a damn good run. Granted some of those were in the clinker, but still it is as much time as any of us should hope for.
95 is a good ripe old age but i for one would rather live to 70 then having to endure what this man had to for 27 yrs of encarceration with the conditions he had to put up with , no bathroom of any kind no bed no electricity on &on ... he had more courage in hi's thumb than i have in my whole body ....... RIP
I find it interesting the people who, upon the man's death (for that matter, ANY man or woman's death), see the good in which he has done vs those who see only the bad that he's done. It says a lot about a person.
I find it interesting the people who, upon the man's death (for that matter, ANY man or woman's death), see the good in which he has done vs those who see only the bad that he's done. It says a lot about a person.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Some people just can't help themselves.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
He was fighting a liberation struggle. Show me one liberation struggle that didn't involve violence.
And who initiated the violence? The blacks, fighting for their freedom, dignity, and in many cases, their lives? Or the racist whites?
Funny how Mandela is feted the World over, while Arafat was quietly brushed under the carpet. If the U.S hadn't prevented the Palestinians liberation struggle from being successful, then maybe Arafat would have been accorded the same treatment. Not that Reagan didn't do everything in his power to protect and support the South African Apartheid regime too.
I find it interesting the people who, upon the man's death (for that matter, ANY man or woman's death), see the good in which he has done vs those who see only the bad that he's done. It says a lot about a person.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Some people just can't help themselves.
who is talking about the bad? all anyone has mentioned is that the man is not a saint. he was an unbelievable human being, but NO ONE is a saint.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"The extent to which the National High Command plotted their policy of sabotage...can be gauged from their ‘production requirements’— a program which they planned to complete in six months. These requirements, as the documents prove, included 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminium powder, and 15 tons of black powder. Without taking into account the explosives and detonators which the members of the sabotage squads throughout the country were enjoined by their leaders to steal from explosives magazines and various mines, the experts will say that the aforementioned ‘production requirements’ constituted sufficient to blow up a town as extensive as Johannesburg...."
Mandela states, " I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites."
...
My take...
In a system that employed unrestrained racial prejudice for the better part of 2 1/5 centuries... I'm guessing that their established system of Law and Order was probably slated in one favor of one group over the other.
What do you think?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I find it interesting the people who, upon the man's death (for that matter, ANY man or woman's death), see the good in which he has done vs those who see only the bad that he's done. It says a lot about a person.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Some people just can't help themselves.
who is talking about the bad? all anyone has mentioned is that the man is not a saint. he was an unbelievable human being, but NO ONE is a saint.
Comments
(and based on some of the footage from South Africa I've been watching, they are indeed - and it's beautiful)
The man personified dignity, courage and grace.
I hope people will continue to strive to emulate him.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Though let's not forget that our governments in Britain and the U.S supported the Apartheid regime until the very end.
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_ ... th_africa/
Reagan’s embrace of apartheid South Africa
His foreign policy legacy includes an alliance with a racist government
Sunday, Feb 6, 2011
Reagan's embrace of apartheid South AfricaStudent demonstrators at Johannesburg's Witwatersrand University flee as police fire tear gas at them during an anti-apartheid protest rally August 31, 1989.
The regime of apartheid in South Africa, under which nonwhites were systematically oppressed and deprived of their rights, is remembered as one of the worst crimes against humanity of the 20th century.
Despite a growing international movement to topple apartheid in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan maintained a close alliance with a South African government that was showing no signs of serious reform. And the Reagan administration demonized opponents of apartheid, most notably the African National Congress, as dangerous and pro-communist. Reagan even vetoed a bill to impose sanctions on South Africa, only to be overruled by Congress.
On a trip to the United States after winning the Nobel Prize in 1984, Bishop Desmond Tutu memorably declared that Reagan’s policy was ”immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.” Reagan’s record on South Africa was also marked by at least one embarrassing gaffe, when he told a radio interviewer in 1985: “They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country — the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated — that has all been eliminated.” Of course, that was simply not true, and Reagan later walked the statement back.
To learn more about Reagan’s policy on South Africa, I spoke with David Schmitz, a historian at Whitman College who has written widely on U.S. foreign policy. His new book is a biography of Brent Scowcroft. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
Where did things stand between the U.S. and South Africa when Reagan entered office in 1981?
Carter had imposed sanctions and restrictions on South Africa and also had publicly criticized the South African government many times. Reagan went back to supporting the government, and he did it under the guise of the policy of “constructive engagement.” This policy had been worked out by Chester Crocker, later a Reagan State Department official, who wrote about it in Foreign Affairs in 1980.
Can you define that term, constructive engagement?
The idea of constructive engagement was that there were moderates in the South African government and so you wanted to encourage them. And if you constructively engaged with them, they would promote gradual change, political reform and so on. But to just oppose the government would make it intransigent and that would create greater polarization, and that was a situation that only extremists would benefit from. The Reagan administration saw the African National Congress (ANC) as a dangerous, pro-communist movement. So the notion of constructive engagement was gradual reform. It was also linked to Reagan supporting the Sullivan principles as a proper way to bring about change.
What were the Sullivan principles?
They were an idea promoted by an American religious leader, Reverend Leon Sullivan, a Baptist minister in Philadelphia. What he said was that, if corporations agree to certain standards of fair employment in South Africa, they shouldn’t be subjected to protests or divestiture. At that time there were a lot of protests in the United States demanding that universities and corporations divest from South Africa. Sullivan argued that these principles would be part of a middle ground between two extremes that would allow for change and betterment of the conditions of blacks in South Africa. Reagan seized upon that. Constructive engagement was presented as a middle ground between apartheid forever and those that wanted immediate change — which Reagan and Crocker argued would lead to chaos that the Soviets would take advantage of.
So what did that policy mean on the ground? Were the two governments close?
Yes, the Reagan administration worked very closely with [South African Prime Minister] P.W. Botha. He came to Washington and there were meetings in Europe as well. Reagan gave a lot of public support to the South African government, portraying Botha as a moderate who was willing to start political reforms and would stay on the side of the United States and help us block Soviet influence in southern Africa.
How did that square with what was actually going on in South Africa?
Nothing was going on. The reforms were cosmetic at best. Sullivan would eventually say in 1987 that it didn’t work. The crackdown of 1986 and the reimposition of martial law just made a total lie out of the notion that there were moderates in the Afrikaner government.
Talk about that crackdown and the U.S. response to it.
There was a lot of pressure building up in the United States, and Congress was threatening to pass legislation that would put sanctions on South Africa and restrict the flow of American aid to South Africa. Reagan always said he would veto that. Then Botha gave a speech on Aug. 15, 1985, in the face of increasing unrest in South Africa — this known as the “Rubicon speech.” And he said that South Africa would never accept one man, one vote in a unitary system. Real democracy, he said, would lead to chaos. This disappointed Reagan. But he stuck with Botha. Pressure built both inside of South Africa and outside, and the protest inside of South Africa led to the imposition of martial law. Congress then voted sanctions.
Was this the incident in which sanctions were voted and Reagan vetoed and was then overruled?
Yes. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum took the lead of the Republicans. She said that the situation in South Africa was virtually beyond hope and that constructive engagement was irrelevant. This regime was not going to change unless forced to. The United States was just party to this continued oppression. That sort of broke the Republican unity behind Reagan on this policy. The larger context was that Reagan had just failed in the Philippines in trying to back [Ferdinand] Marcos to the end. The Reagan doctrine was collapsing in Central America as well, with opposition growing to his interventions there. So that was also now happening in South Africa. The House vote wasn’t even recorded, it was so overwhelming in favor of imposing sanctions. The Senate vote was more than enough to override the veto, which it did.
What about U.S. policy toward the opposition groups like the ANC and Nelson Mandela?
They called the ANC terrorists. It was just continuing this notion that the ANC members are the extremists and the South African government has these moderates, and you’re going to end up with one extreme against the other if you don’t work with the government. Clearly, it never worked. This was a flawed policy.
By the end of the Reagan years, had the policy changed?
Well, Reagan’s attitudes hadn’t changed, but the policy changed because Congress changed it and voted sanctions. That cut off a lot of the flow of American capital. Sullivan renounced his position. Bishop Desmond Tutu came to the United States in 1984 after being awarded the Nobel Prize. He speaks in the House of Representatives and says that constructive engagement is a farce, and that it just entrenched the existing order. He said Reagan’s policy was “immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.”
After Reagan met with Tutu, he was asked at a press conference to talk about their meeting. Reagan said, “It is counterproductive for one country to splash itself all over the headlines, demanding that another government do something.” Then he claimed that black tribal leaders had expressed their support for American investment. He was trying to discredit Tutu’s argument that U.S. policy had hurt blacks. Anti-communism trumped so much in Reagan’s view of the non-Western world.
Would you argue that Reagan’s foreign policy extended the life of the regime in South Africa?
Yes. It gave it life. It gave it hope that the United States would continue to stick with it. It gave it continued flow of aid as well as ideological support. It delayed the changes that were going to come. Then you had the big crackdowns in ’86 and ’87. So there was harm in the lengthening. There was harm in the violence that continued.
I think a lot of well-meaning people in the United States bought the Sullivan principles and constructive engagement, because it seems reasonable. Reagan would say, “If we’re willing to talk to the Russians, why aren’t we willing to talk to the South African government?” We’re going to encourage them to moderate and reform — it sounds reasonable. But there was no real pressure. It was all talk. And it was exposed as that.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions: 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa: 4 resolutions.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law: 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
RIP Nelson Mandela
if true, wouldn't that make him a hero of yours?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This board has become painfully predictable. Painfully might not be the right word- comically might be a better word.
The critics of Obama and ardent right wing advocates think Nelson Mandela is of questionable character.
Say no more.
There is a whitewashing of the mans past in the media right now.
no man is perfect, Thirty. I mean, Mandela cheated on his first wife SEVERAL times. so his character isn't unquestionable. no man's is.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
this is nothing new. happens with all the political greats when they die.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Agreed.
But in my estimation... this man's greatness far exceeds his indiscretions. I wasn't saying he was perfect, but I am saying we can do without throwing darts at him in the wake of his death.
To be fair to unsung, he did post that before his death.
People can snipe at things he said and did before that all they want, but it doesn't change what he did accomplish, which is one of the greatest achievements in modern history.
Same can be said of MLK
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
This was not noted by myself and certainly does change the context of the implication.
With this said... there still is an implication and to be honest... I'm not exactly sure what it is?
I agree 100%
I don't know what he was trying to get at.
Mandela was not saint, there is a lot of evidence pointing to his willingness go the violent way of revolution before his arrest. Very understandable given the circumstances.
What makes him so special obviously was what he did after he was released from prison. That takes a unique person with an amazing amount of character. If you believe in such a thing.....saintly.
Very true. Let the good things he did be an inspiration. Rest in Peace Mandela.
95 is a good ripe old age but i for one would rather live to 70 then having to endure what this man had to for 27 yrs of encarceration with the conditions he had to put up with , no bathroom of any kind no bed no electricity on &on ... he had more courage in hi's thumb than i have in my whole body ....... RIP
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Some people just can't help themselves.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
And who initiated the violence? The blacks, fighting for their freedom, dignity, and in many cases, their lives? Or the racist whites?
Funny how Mandela is feted the World over, while Arafat was quietly brushed under the carpet. If the U.S hadn't prevented the Palestinians liberation struggle from being successful, then maybe Arafat would have been accorded the same treatment. Not that Reagan didn't do everything in his power to protect and support the South African Apartheid regime too.
Funny old World we live in.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... on-mandela
who is talking about the bad? all anyone has mentioned is that the man is not a saint. he was an unbelievable human being, but NO ONE is a saint.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My take...
In a system that employed unrestrained racial prejudice for the better part of 2 1/5 centuries... I'm guessing that their established system of Law and Order was probably slated in one favor of one group over the other.
What do you think?
Hail, Hail!!!
Exactly, the mans whole story is important.