Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 21, 1990 TAG: 9006210355
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
This is the old United Nations game of rallying the Third World against the West, and looked at from their perspective it is understandable. The irony is that both Israel and South Africa have a stronger claim on democratic traditions than those who propose to overthrow them in the name of democracy. The problem, of course, is that these democratic traditions are based on a "favored-people" theory having little charm among the unfavored.
While it appears generally acceptable in the world today for whites to oppress other whites, or blacks to oppress other blacks - which is apparently the case in most African states - it is plainly unacceptable for whites to oppress blacks.
By and large, the history of post-colonial Africa could be summarized under the heading of "one man, one vote, one time." George Ayittey is a Ghanaian economist in exile. In his recent book, "Africa Betrayed," Ayittey says only six out of more than 150 heads of state in post-colonial Africa have relinquished power voluntarily. Responding to the clamor of Western liberals that South Africa immediately grant universal suffrage, Ayittey says: "Do they realize that I have never voted in my own country?"
Hardly a week goes by that the morning paper does not add to the catalogue of woe. Recent headlines that come to mind are "Kenya expels Indians;" "Nigeria expels Ghanaians;" "Tribal emigres blamed in Burundi massacres."
In the decades of British rule, thousands of Indians migrated to Kenya. In time, they came to control a large share of local, small business.
In a country with so many poor blacks, it is not surprising perhaps that prospering Indians became the object of envy. Attacks on the Indian minority were followed by confiscation of their property and outright expulsion from the only country most had ever known.
Kenya, which became independent in 1963, was declared a one-party state in 1969. While "voters" can choose among candidates offered by a single party, the secret ballot was abolished in 1988.
At the time of its independence in 1960, Ghana was perceived as having good prospects by reason of a strong economy. The words of a British colonial administrator are recalled: "What a pity it is," he said, "that socialists trained at the London School of Economics will be calling the shots instead of the chiefs up country who run the plantations upon which the country's prosperity depends."
Its economy in shambles, hundreds of thousands of Ghanaians found work in neighboring Nigeria during the oil boom of the 1970s. When the oil boom collapsed, the government of Nigeria is said to have expelled a million of them. Most had no alternative, apparently, to walking home with what belongings they could carry on their backs.
As far as the nine-year tragedy in Ethiopia is concerned, perhaps the less said the better. A recent press report quoted international relief sources as estimating as many as two million in immediate danger of starvation.
There is, of course, no reason for the West to feel smug. What's happening in Africa today might be compared to the European wars of religion, or the long cycle of wars for territorial hegemony, which may have killed 50 million.
Nor should we forget that Queen Elizabeth still uses the title "Defender of the Faith" first awarded to Henry VIII, who had the distressing habit of executing his wives among other "enemies."
A short history of white South Africa would start with the Dutch settlement at the Cape of Good Hope (Capetown) for the provisioning of ships in the East Indian trade. Settlement, particularly among Protestant dissenters from "official" European state religions (shades of the Mayflower!) followed.
As Britain succeeded Holland as the world's greatest commercial nation, it cast covetous eyes on the cape. Refusing to live under British rule, the Dutch (Boer) farmers abandoned their lands and migrated to the interior. When gold, diamonds and other valuables were found upon these new lands, British intervention was not far behind. This culminated in a protracted war (1899-1902), which produced a settlement in which the Boers recognized British suzerainty in return for promises of local (white) autonomy in domestic affairs.
As the South African economy developed along modern, industrialized lines, tens of thousands of blacks (and Indians) were attracted or recruited to serve the white masters in the hope of gaining a larger share of prosperity for themselves.
While South African whites of whatever nationality - and immigrants have come from most of the nations of Europe - enjoyed such things as a free press, freedom of speech, the secret ballot, etc., blacks could only benefit from the leaving. That they might enjoy a standard of living and a degree of protection not generally available to blacks elsewhere in Africa is beside the point.
We do not, however, have to speculate upon the fate of all the peoples of South Africa if Mandela's policies could be immediately imposed. The evidence is everywhere to be found: "One man, one vote, one time" and the virtual certainty of civil war into the bargain.
The president of the Union of South Africa, F.W. deKlerk, appears to recognize the need for a broad settlement as quickly as possible, which might include partition. If a tragedy on an immense scale is to be avoided, Americans might consider measures more helpful than moralizing, divestment, etc.
by CNB