Remembering when Ronald Reagan embraced Apartheid South Africa

By Marc McDonald 

After many years of struggle, the evil system of apartheid in South Africa came to an end in the early 1990s, thanks to the brave efforts of Nelson Mandela.

But apartheid's end arrived with absolutely no thanks to Ronald Reagan, a man who embraced the racist apartheid regime.

In 1986, during the growing struggle against apartheid, Reagan used the words "immoral" and "utterly repugnant." 

Unfortunately, Reagan wasn't talking about apartheid. Instead, he was using those words to describe his views on the Anti-Apartheid Act, a proposed law that called for imposing sanctions against South Africa.

Reagan's position was too extreme, even for his fellow Republicans. Reagan's veto of the Anti-Apartheid Act was overridden by the GOP-controlled Senate in October 1986.

The Gipper's position really shouldn't have been surprising. After all, throughout the 1980s, the Reagan administration maintained close ties to the South African government. Reagan even demonized foes of apartheid, such as the African National Congress, as "dangerous and pro-communist."

It's no wonder that 1984 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu called Reagan's policy "immoral, evil and totally un-Christian" during a visit to the United States.

Read more »

Gingrich defends his praise for Mandela

By Richard K. Barry

Having made positive statements about Nelson Mandela upon his passing, Newt Gingrich received significant criticism from fellow conservatives who continue to view Mandela as a terrorist, or something of the kind. A public statement and video appeared on Gingrich's website as a response to his critics.  The full statement is also linked below. 

I'd say Gingrich's response speaks for itself and he deserves credit for saying what he said. I wonder, however, how often the United States has found itself on the wrong side of wars and conflicts for the sake of national liberation, and how easily Gingrich's comments could be applied in those cases as we look back over the course of history.

Gingrich:

Yesterday I issued a heartfelt and personal statement about the passing of President Nelson Mandela. I said that his family and his country would be in my prayers and Callista’s prayers.

I was surprised by the hostility and vehemence of some of the people who reacted to me saying a kind word about a unique historic figure.

So let me say to those conservatives who don’t want to honor Nelson Mandela, what would you have done?

World leaders should tape this to their walls

By Carl

A Haaretz op-ed opines that Israel should follow Nelson Mandela's lead in trying to come to grips with the Palestinian question:

The first and clearest lesson one can learn from Mandela is that peace is only achievable if the putative peacemakers believe in it. "One cannot be prepared for something while secretly believing it will not happen," Mandela once said. Does Israel's current leadership truly believe in peace? Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett are on record as saying that they don't. Netanyahu maintains that he does, though I can't help looking for the fingers crossed behind his back whenever he says it.

Peace is both an abstract concept – "a winner is a dreamer who never gives up," according to Mandela – and a very finite calculation of profit and loss. Peace means making compromises – and Mandela came perilously close to losing his base of support among South Africa's blacks in compromising to the extent that he did. He was prepared to take significant risks in the interest of peace. Are Israel's leaders prepared to do likewise?

Mandela was able to take risks and make compromises because he believed in what he was doing and he had a clear vision of the South Africa that could emerge. Addressing the court at the conclusion of his trial for treason in 1964, he said: "I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

And there it is: one has to wonder what the Israeli leadership really wants. Hegemony? Over a billion Muslims, most of whom could care less whether Israel lives or dies, and a minority of whom want to destroy that nation?

Mandela did take risks, but then he was willing to lose it all, even after his release from prison, even after his ascendancy to president. He had courage, which Mandela defines as not the absence of fear but the strength to overcome it. It seems odd to me that a nation whose people have courage in boatloads can't bring themselves to use that courage to create a niche for themselves that doesn't involve the constant vigilance of armed forces.

Read more »

A perfect place for bloodythirsty NRA members to move

By Carl 

South Africa:

To understand South Africa's gun culture, it's crucial to go back nearly two decades. In 1994, apartheid ended. The official system of racial segregation, in place since 1948, took rights away from black Africans and gave virtually all power in every aspect of life to whites.

For generations, violence born out of apartheid spawned a kind of arms race; blacks and whites fought against each other, and everyone else armed themselves, afraid to be caught in the cross fire.

Gun violence was at a record high as the country made its first effort to become what archbishop and peace crusader Desmond Tutu envisioned -- a rainbow nation.

Sort of sounds familiar, doesn't it? A waning white majority panicked over the rise of people of darker complexion purchases crates of guns to protect itself in an overheated paranoid delusion.

Not surprisingly, that forced South Africa to toughen its gun possession laws. Less surprisingly, the anti-apartheid and liberation movements also stockpiled weaponry in response to the perceived threat that white people would start shooting black people on sight.


Read more »

Justified

By Capt. Fogg

It isn't common for the U.S. media to make an issue of the level of violence in South Africa, but Oscar Pistorius is a celebrity and the woman he's accused of murdering was a celebrity. The lives of our secular pantheon are important to the public and particularly if the celebrity has to do with sports. Are the successful athletes we love to appoint as role models, whom we love to pretend to emulate, really paragons of virtue and discipline or does their drive, their ego, their motivation spill over into something sometimes less than wholesome? I'm not going to generalize about the famous, but like the U.S., South Africa is a violent nation and one with a long history of violent racism and violent crime, and a population with a large difference between haves and have-nots. The murder rate is high, about 50 per day, and while I read that only about 12% of South Africans own guns, the probability is that many more are not reported and are illegally owned.

White middle- and upper-class South Africans live in fear, and those who can afford to live in gated enclaves behind iron barred doors and windows, behind electrified fences with sophisticated alarm systems and armed security guards -- and they own guns. The standard of living is lower for non-whites, but the level of fear is high for all, and one can argue that it's justified. Guns are used in 77 per cent of house robberies and 87 per cent of business robberies, and they are the cause of death in more than half of all murders. Many burglars are seeking guns over other items.

South Africa is often described as a "gun-loving" country. Yes, of course, if one lives on a remote farm in the bush, there are leopards and lions and hippos and elephants that argue for heavy arms, but I think that for the most part owning a gun is all about crime and a sense of security in a violent nation.

Read more »

Nelson Mandela... terrorist?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, the U.S. says so:

Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.

The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.

Yes, countries that supported the apartheid regime, or that did little or nothing to oppose it, let alone to try to bring it down.

Now, to be fair, the ANC wasn't exactly the most peace-loving organization in the world back then, and Desmond Tutu, among others, was a vocal critic of its efforts at violent resistance, but, lest we forget, it was fighting South Africa's brutal regime. And it was that brutal regime that called it a terrorist group and that imprisoned Mandela for 27 years.

If anything, the ANC is now far more corrupt than violent, but it is South Africa's ruling party, and has been since 1994. Condi Rice is right that "it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter" that current South African officials, such as its foreign minister, are on the terrorist list. It's worse, however, that Mandela is on it.

Mandela is one of the great moral and political leaders of our time, a statesman of historic grandeur. To the U.S., though, he's officially a terrorist. (Whether he ever was or not is another matter, and a matter of perspective. Is one a terrorist who resists with violence a regime such as the apartheid regime of South Africa? Or is that one not a hero and a patriot? If Mandela was a "terrorist," then so, perhaps, were many of the American revolutionaries. Lest we forget. Lest Americans forget.)

Let's hope this "embarrassing matter" is resolved swiftly.

Around the World: Venezuela, Kenya, Chad, South Africa, Taiwan, and Georgia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Quick links to some interesting international stories:

1) Venezuela: Anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise in Venezuela. Hardly surprising. After all, Hugo Chavez is best buddies with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

2) Kenya: Memories of Rwanda. One of the preferred weapons in the bloody post-election clashes among the various tribes -- Kikuyo, Luo, Kalenjin, etc. -- is the machete. (For background, see here.)

3) Chad: An EU peacekeeping force may be deployed as early as this month. Most of the 4,000 troops will be French, but their task, an enormous one, will be to protect about 400,000 refugees from Darfur.

4) South Africa: Finally, at long last, a black coach of the national rugby team. The Springboks will be renamed the Proteas as one of the last bastions of apartheid-era racism is uncovered and reformed.

5) Taiwan: The victory of the opposition Kuomintang party in Saturday's parliamentary elections could mean closer relations with China. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which supports Taiwanese independence, won only 27 of the 113 seats, with the Kuomintang picking up 81. Thankfully, most Taiwanese want the country to remain independent.

6) Georgia: Thousands took to the streets of Tbilisi today to protest last weekend's presidential election, which opposition groups say was rigged. President Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power in 2003's Rose Revolution, "won" the election with 53 percent of the vote. (For my take on Saakashvili, a pro-western tyrant, see here.)