Please, help me understand this subject line. I am, in particular, requesting Rev. John Harper to help me and others to understand the indispensability of the US in the SA's freedom from apartheid rule. Against the backdrop of a strong statement by the former President, Nelson Mandela, regarding who would be friends of SA, he reminded the US (then, Bill Clinton) about its whereabouts when the people of SA fought against the abhorred regimes of apartheid. Was it a deliberate intervention, cherishing the right to freedom, or was it forced by other interests either than the value of freedom and democracy?

Friends in the US, without the government of the USA fought along side the people of SA. They exerted pressure on companies in the US to disinvest in SA. And, I know that the same friends are frantically working alongside the people of SA, promoting the reconstruction not only of SA but the entire continent of Africa, also. I know many of them, some of them are AMEs. In fact, we are dearly indebted to you for the act of solidarity and sacrifice you made and continue to make to this day.

Give us another perspective on the role of the US in dismantling apartheid rule.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2003

Answers

My brother Teboho, Rev. Harper has got it very wrong! It was the US who fueled the southern Africa crisis! It was the US who supported SAVIMBI and others who have been destabilising southern Africa! We are not anti-USA and we understand and appreciate the contributions made by some Americans in the southern African liberation struggles in Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, etc. - but it is a matter of fact that the USA failed to declare war against the white racist terrorist governments of Verwoerd, Strydom, Botha amd their likes. Today we have Israel terrorising Palestinians and the US is not waging war against Israel! WHY? The Namibian Prime Minister has made known the Namibian government's position when he spoke in South Africa yesterday, and we agree with that. We do not support Saddam Hussein, but we are against this unilateral war by the USA. Perhaps I must read American authored books on southern African history before I agree with Rev. Harper, but for now, his statement is completely devoid of any truth!

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2003

Rev. Klaas: Thanks for raising an important question. It warrants a serious historical response. American invovlement with anti-apartheid actvities in SA date back to 1948. This suggests that ten (10) US Presidents (Truman-Clinton) presided over the height and gradual dismantling of SA apartheid. Historically, American governments have been reluctant to provide official assistance due to Cold War concerns about Communist sponsorship of the ANC, indifference to the plight of black Africans and America's own duplicity in ignoring calls for racial justice back home. Even landmark events like the Sharpesville Massacre of 1960 or the awarding of the 1961 Nobel Peace Prize to Zulu Chief Albert John Luthuli could not sway American opinion to take a more active role in the advancemnet of human liberty and freedom from the repressive regime of apratheid.

Twenty years after Sharpesville another development spurred by a small group of Americans led by Randall Robinson of TransAfrica Forum and US Representative Walter Fauntroy helped educate many Americans about the horrors of apartheid. This activity launced the first large-scale anti-Apartheid movement in the US. Along with Rev. Leon Sullivan (Sullivan Principles) and the imposition of US and UN sanctions against SA, the struggle to end apartheid was well underway. The chief architect of official American policy in SA during this time was the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Chester Crocker. Mr. Crocker was the designer of the much maligned, Constructive Engagement (CE) policy during the Reagan Administration. The purpose of CE was to promote social change and power sharing by encouraging the Botha Government to end apartheid without creating massive disruptions in key natural resource industries. The critics of CE argued that the policy was weak, ineffective and myopic simpy because power is never voluntarily shared but obtained by force. Despite the rhetoric and the incendiary comments calling for military intervention, the work of unsung heroes like Helen Suzman, Desmond Tutu and Chief Buthelezi prevailed. Contrary to popular opinion at that time, constructive change did not require a brutal civil war and the change culminated with the release of Nelson Mandela and the restored recognition of the ANC. Interesting how the same proponents calling for US involvement via military support at that time are now leading the cacaphonous calls for military restraint against a similar brutish regime in Iraq. The first casualty of war is always truth. The second casualty is always logic. QED

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2003

In keeping with the "truth." Vice President Chaney did not support the banishment of apartheid. He apologized during his most recent campaign.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2003

If I may answer for myself:

Organizations like the YWCA recognized the evils of apartheid and did what they could to stop funding it.

American politicians such as Maxine Waters and Willie Brown and Martin Luther King and W.E.B. DuBois spoke out against it at the highest levels of government, and help start government divestiture in South Africa.

American Universities provided public platform and debate for representatives of the African National Congress and others, including SWAPO, ZANU, ZAPU, MPLA, FRELIMO, NAMDA, NECC, and COSATU.

American students, through demonstration exerted pressure for divestiture of funds in South Africa. "Speaking of the students who demonstrated in the United States, Tutu said, "They helped to change the moral climate in this country."

American investors put pressure on Fund managers to keep money of of South Africa.

American Television (through MTV and Musicians) brought the horrible visual imagery of apartheid to our consciousness in the 80's, and brought more pressure to end apartheid.

So when I said without the US government, South Africa would still be under apartheid rule, I should have said that without Americans, South Africa would still be under apartheid rule.

But, since this government is for, by and of the people, Americans are the government.

One note: If we were not a factor (as the tone of your post implies), why did Mandela stop here to raise funds for the ANC? As for the current state of affairs, to quote a commentator: "It is ironic that democratic South Africa has dropped democratic Taiwan for a totalitarian China which still imprisons political dissenters."

Hmmmmm..............

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2003

Brethren, thank you very much for your responses. In fact, I am so glad to know that you have been following the history of South Africa with such keen interest. And, I am glad that you agree with me that it was people in the US and their organisations who were in solidarity with the majority citizenry of SA, struggling for their freedom. Of course, it is an indisoutable fact that on his release, Nelson Mandela visited the USA and I am proud to acknowledge that, among others, the AMEs were a greater part of the American people who made their contributions towards his health (referring to Bishop John Bryant and the congregation Bethel AME Church).

Now and then I write about their contributions, or think and talk about theirs, I am moved to pause and pay a tribute to these friends of the oppressed and exploited. We, the people of South Africa, will never forget your contributions towards the removal of this block imposed on our heads intende to deny us the ability to rise up.

However, what I dislike with your argument, particularly Rev. Harper's, is the spliting of hair that goes on in your response. Even democratic government, voted on the ticket of being by, for and of the people, do take misguided decisions which are way out of the popular foreign policy thoughts of its people. The people of teh US refused to delay the liberation of the people of South Africa and Southern African in way and opted to directly offer support to them. In fact, the turn about by the US government to support the sanctions against apartheid regime was the boiling point of earnest lobbying by the people of the US and their organisations. It was not a voluntary act on the part of the US government, precisely because their willingness to support the quest to be free was conditioned by whether you against communism. We were never oppressed by communism but a christian capitalist regime.

In your earlier postings, elsewhere in the Discussion Forum, you asserted yourself strongly in support of the Pres. Bush stance to attack and invade Baghdad. I suppose you did so because he is a government of, by and for the people (by the way, people of the US vote by courts). If that is the case, why is it that he did not take the people of the US serious enough to continue diplomacy in the UN and avoid war? His people marched and some have even gone to Baghdad as human shields. O...., they are not true American - therefore, not government. Indeed, if the truth was just sold, you just sold it away, for blinded patriotism.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2003

It is better to ask someone why they beleive a certain way, than to take a vehement tone.

Your quote:

In your earlier postings, elsewhere in the Discussion Forum, you asserted yourself strongly in support of the Pres. Bush stance to attack and invade Baghdad. I suppose you did so because he is a government of, by and for the people (by the way, people of the US vote by courts). If that is the case, why is it that he did not take the people of the US serious enough to continue diplomacy in the UN and avoid war? His people marched and some have even gone to Baghdad as human shields. O...., they are not true American - therefore, not government. Indeed, if the truth was just sold, you just sold it away, for blinded patriotism.

My earlier post was my opinion on this war. Rev. Hanse said it was about oil. Bill Dickens and I said it was not, and explained why. What I said was that I pray for peace and safety for all people on this planet. I said that if a madman (or woman) threatens the safety of the planet, that person must be eliminated. Saddam Hussein is that person.

You speak of diplomacy. We tried diplomacy for 12 years.

Our president could have done what his father did with Libya and simply bombed Baghdad in the middle of the night. He did not do that. He went to the U.N. to seek resolution. But it's hard to get resolution when Russia is supplying Iraq with arms, and France is trading with them as well. Even when biological weapons turned up in France, the U.N. did nothing. For 12 years, we tried diplomacy, with no result.

Yes, we have protesters back home. But what our president knows (and you should too) is this: Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. When the Congresspeople get letters and e-mail and faxes from the citizens asking that we go back to the table, President Bush will go. If the rest of the U.N. invokes Resolution 377, we will go. When Americans stand in Baghdad as human shields (and I don't know where you got that article from, but I'd like to see it) Until then, all of the posturing and dancing and public opinion polls are media filler.

Teboho and Rev. Hanse (and all of my African brethren): I know there is a great deal of anti-American sentiment in the world. There's some of it in this forum. Some of it is warranted. What I do know is this: The world has had too many Hitlers, Amins, Mussolinis, Bothas, DeKlerks, Titos, Francos, and Husseins. It is time to move forward in peace. You all know it, and you know what has to be done. Your governments know it, but money is blinding them. The United States and The U.K. (and other countries) know it, and we are doing something about it.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2003