Herbert W Armstrong

On July 31, a joint Congressional conference committee reached agreement on a bill to impose limited economic sanctions against South Africa, including a ban on the import of Kruger rand gold coins. The bill, which must now be passed by the full Senate and House of Representatives before it can be sent to President Reagan (who opposes sanctions), also would ban nearly all U.S. bank loans to the South African government, as well as sales to it of computers and nuclear energy equipment. A ban on new United States investment is to be considered a year from now.

Supporters of the bill say the action was needed to "send a signal" to Pretoria to lift the present state of emergency and to move faster on political reforms. New York Congressman Stephen Solarz said that "what we're doing today, in effect is saying 'kaddish' [a Hebrew prayer for the dead] for the [Reagan administration] policy of constructive engagement" with South Africa. Opponents of the bill say it would only result in the loss of jobs by blacks — the very people everyone says should be helped. "If we do anything to cause South Africa to fall into the arms of the Soviet Union," warned Senator Jesse Helms, "we will live to regret it.... If South Africa goes, the whole continent goes." The Soviets, Helms added, are "delighted every time we shoot ourselves in the foot."

The U.S. and most other Western countries are reacting to events in Africa in an almost schizophrenic manner. Just look at the comparisons between policies toward Ethiopia and South Africa. For Ethiopia, rock stars hold concerts, "Live Aid" being the biggest. The callous Marxist government, meanwhile, demands exorbitant port fees from ships that dock with free food from the West; the money goes to Moscow to pay for weapons to fight Ethiopia's anti-Marxist rebels. Other ships draw water in the outer harbor for up to, in one case, three weeks, waiting for a berth. Vessels from the East Bloc transporting weapons have unloading priority. The government in Ethiopia proceeds with its program to forceably relocate people from drought-gripped rebel-held areas, drawing them out with promises of food elsewhere. Yet no one demonstrates at Ethiopian embassies in the West!

The July 22 DAILY MAIL of Britain, in an article titled "A Plan To Starve Black Africans," written by Andrew Alexander, highlighted this appalling lack of common-sense thinking on the part of the "progressive" (U.S. term: "liberal") politicians in the Western world:

There is a supreme irony — to put it so lightly — in the spectacle of progressive [liberal] politicians exploiting the popular triumphs of Live Aid.... The progressives are now simultaneously backing two causes: rescuing Africans from hunger in Ethiopia and bringing hunger to them in South Africa.

For that, make no mistake, is what the sanctions against South Africa campaign means. It is not intended to be a series of mere pinpricks, it is intended to hurt, otherwise it would be pointless. And those who would be really hurt would not be the whites but the poorest blacks. It is humbug to pretend otherwise.

The campaign strategy, initially through disinvestment and later through trade sanctions, is to starve South Africa first of capital and then of export markets as well as imports. There would be massive lay-offs of labour as a result. And though the South African social security system is better than almost anywhere else in black Africa, hunger and real poverty would soon follow.

As the situation worsened, what would the sanctions enthusiasts do? Would Senator Kennedy...declare a victory because black South Africans were starving? Would Neil Kinnock [Britain's Labour Party leader], fresh from denouncing Mrs. Thatcher for causing unemployment and deprivation, preen himself on the rising tide of unemployment and poverty in South Africa?

Just how many South African blacks would be rendered jobless by such sanctions is hard to say. But just the American firms there, who would be required to withdraw under the sanctions programme, employ about 150,000. Including dependents that means that 750,000 would be affected by those firms' removal alone. We are clearly. talking about large numbers, certainly well into seven figures, if sanctions bite. It would be interesting too, to see how Mr. Kinnock would explain the loss of 250,000 jobs in Britain which it is reckoned would follow a cessation of trade with South Africa.

Sanctions campaigners usually excuse their plan by saying that South African blacks want sanctions. It is true that a number of the fat cats in South Africa's black political movement do favour sanctions — they would not suffer and, anyway, they have their eyes on the big houses, limousines and the backhanders [perquisites] they reckon they would get if they could overturn white rule.

The horrors of Ethiopia stem in part from the appalling President Mengistu using starvation as a weapon against the rebels. The West's liberals seem ready to echo that policy in southern Africa. It would be hard to sum it up better than the American journalist who asked Walter Mondale if it his policy to starve the blacks until the whites surrendered.

At the United Nations, meanwhile, the Security Council passed by a vote of 13-0 (U.S. and U.K. abstaining) a French-sponsored resolution calling for a series of voluntary economic sanctions against South Africa. (The American and British indicated they would have voted against mandatory sanctions.

In fact, it is probably due to the conservative Reagan administration and Thatcher government that the U.N. has not been able to go further. That will change if and when the Democrats and the Labour Party come into power.)

State President Botha reacted sharply to the world community's call for sanctions. In a speech delivered at the university town of Potchefstroom, Botha said South Africa would not hesitate to repatriate hundreds of thousands of the 1.5 million workers, a third of them gold and coal miners, from neighboring countries should the U.N. Security Council ever adopt mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa. The sudden return of these workers would cripple the economies of such countries as Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique and Zimbabwe and throw them into social and political turmoil.

Mr. Botha said South Africa would also end its economic and technical cooperation with neighboring countries and refuse to allow them to use its ports and rail lines for shipment of their imports and exports. Such moves would badly hurt three or four more black-ruled African countries, including Zambia and Zaire.

Most people in the West have little comprehension of the complex economic interdependency of all the countries of southern Africa. Nearly all of them may be compared to spokes of a wheel — with South Africa a giant hub. Sanctions would hurt everyone in this African-style common market. Mr. Botha replied to the hypocritical U.N. call in a most caustic manner:

Those countries that are attempting to institute punitive measures against South Africa will probably, in accordance with their expressed concern about the welfare of the blacks, soon make funds available to create employment opportunities for the hundreds of thousands of workers who will have to return to their countries should the Security Council continue its present illegal action against South Africa.

The Kremlin and Western Liberals — How Their Interests Coincide

There are two principal foes arrayed against South Africa: the Soviet bloc and the Western world's liberal politicians. On this issue (and others, such as the emerging crisis in the Philippines) liberal activists have become, wittingly or unwittingly, allies of the Kremlin.

The aim of the Soviets in the region of southern Africa is well known; that of the Western liberals is not as well understood. A few years ago, the late Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev boasted that the key to Soviet world domination is the isolation of the mineral resources of the Middle East and southern Africa from the West. Confirming this in his book, THE REAL WAR, former President Richard M. Nixon explains:

The Soviet leaders have their eyes on the economic underpinnings of modern society. Their aim is to pull the plug on the Western industrial machine. The Western industrial nations' dependence on foreign sources of vital raw materials is one of our chief vulnerabilities....

The Soviets have not made the naive mistake of assuming that African leaders automatically care most about economic development for their people. From their own experience the Soviets know that the first priority of many of these leaders is to maintain themselves in power, and they, not we, offer the most effective "foreign aid" for this purpose....

The Soviet Union seldom acts without a purpose, and its purposes are always strategic, never moral. Thus its persistent efforts to stir further the already troubled waters of southern Africa have to be viewed against the backdrop of the resources to the West.... The Soviets are not in Africa to "liberate." They there to dominate, control and exploit.

So the primary Soviet goal in southern Africa is to bring a very vital piece of geography and geology under its control. The example of Ethiopia shows that lives are expendable to achieve the communists' political goals. So were millions-of Ukranians in the 1930s, even more millions in the communization of China.

Moscow, however, realizes it can't bring about South Africa's collapse through its own efforts. The armed forces of South Africa are too strong: those whom the Soviets support, such as the African National Congress (ANC), are too weak by comparison, as noted in the August 5 NEWSWEEK:

Would-be guerrillas in South Africa face enormous difficulties. Where the Viet Cong could operate from jungle cover, for example, South African militants are exposed on open plains and mountains. Within the townships, the streets are straight and easily patrolled by armored car or helicopter. The townships themselves are isolated, and government troops can control the long roads leading to them, cutting off electricity, telephone service and even supplies of food and water.

Most importantly, Moscow had to somehow derail the U.S. policy toward South Africa called "constructive engagement." Under the Reagan administration's encouragement, the South African government was willing to take risks on internal reform. Equally, it was encouraged to establish stronger ties toward its neighbors. Moscow was stunned when Pretoria was able to engineer a non-aggression pact with Marxist Mozambique. The Communist-backed ANC guerrilla camps were shut down in Mozambique and other areas adjoining South Africa. Soviet supported forces were on the run. Something had to be done.

Because of these political facts of life, the Soviets recognized more than ever that they needed the help of the West to bring South Africa down — in order to bring down the West! This Western help — again wittingly and unwittingly — comes from two quarters, white liberals, and a new and increasingly significant force allied with it, the black civil rights leadership in the United States (and also, increasingly, in Britain).

It must be understood that to the white liberals, South Africa is anathema. The fact that South Africa is still a prosperous, viable society while almost all of independent black Africa has collapsed into economic despair, political dictatorship and corruption is acutely embarrassing to the liberals. It offends their egalitarian concepts. The post-colonial break­up of Africa wasn't supposed to turn out the way it has. Concepts of liberal democracy haven't taken root. (For proof, should more be needed, look at the latest coup in Uganda. For three days hell broke loose, with soldiers shooting indiscriminately, and looting, said witnesses, "everything in sight," even from the dwellings of the poorest people. Uganda is riven with tribal infighting.)

Allied with the white liberals are the leaders of the American black civil rights community. This group is angry that President Reagan has turned back the clock on some of their favorite programs at home. Partly in retaliation, they have turned their guns on constructive engagement. (One of the harshest advocates of disinvestment on the West Coast is Maxine Waters, a black California State Assemblywoman from Los Angeles. She recently stalked out of a meeting of the California Legislature when visiting Zulu Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, an opponent of disinvestment, bluntly said that American blacks and "left liberals" should stay out of the fray in his country, adding that American blacks do not have a right "to tell us what is good for us...no matter how good their motives are." Ms. Waters refers to the Zulu chief, the leader of one-fourth of South Africa's blacks, as "the traitor Buthelezi.")

The Soviets, capitalizing on the paralleling approaches of the Western liberals, were thus able to patch together, last summer — in Havana, Cuba??"a coalition to intensify pressure on South Africa. Shortly afterward, the protests began in front of the South African embassy in Washington, D.C. This was not happenstance; it was all planned, explained Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor of THE WASHINGTON TIMES, in the July 29 issue of his newspaper:

Over the years, most recently in conversations with President Pieter W. Botha, I learned of the constructive changes and steady progress taking place in South Africa.... Mr. Botha spoke to me of the tremendous political risks he was taking to bring about constitutional and other internal reforms. He said, "We can see all of black Africa slowly dying, and we have no intention of abandoning our country to the same fate."...

Ironically, the wave of violence washing over South Africa's urban black townships...was generated in large part by the Nkomati accord, signed on March 16 last year between Mozambique and South Africa. The crucial provision of Nkomati required Samora Machel, the Marxist leader of Mozambique, to close down the bases and facilities enjoyed by the African National Congress (ANC)....

ANC's regrouping after the Nkomati reverse was speedy. Last summer the ANC leadership held lengthy consultations with leading American anti-South Africa activists at the United Nations, then immediately went to Havana to work out details on creating external diplomatic pressure against South Africa in the United States and Western Europe, in which U.N. agencies would play a supporting role. By last October, the plans were ready for implementation. The opening round in "making South Africa ungovernable" commenced with illegal strikes by black trade unions. Some of the leaders were arrested, and those arrests were the focus of protests in Europe and America in the first two weeks of November.

On Thanksgiving, the campaign of American protests and sit-ins against South Africa moved into high gear. The U.S. protest coalition, known as the Free South Africa Movement (FSAM), is spearheaded by Randall Robinson's TransAfrica, a lobbying organization. They have made clear their commitment to the ANC and to other revolutionary movements and regimes sponsored by Moscow in Africa and the Caribbean. Since then, Mr. Robinson has given the national media a daily, carefully orchestrated "story."...

The polite dignitaries on the picket line, knowingly or unwittingly, are acting to transform South Africa into an Ethiopia, a Uganda, [or] an Angola.... That is the ultimate purpose of the economic warfare campaigns to end economic relations and isolate South Africa from the United States. TransAfrica's FSAM crusaders are not fazed by the fact that such economic measures would force America to depend on the Soviet Union as the sole alternative supplier of a variety of strategic minerals we now buy freely from South Africa....

Does it matter particularly whether South Africa is ruled in five years time by a government allied with the Soviet Union? The answer is yes, because ultimately our continued freedom depends on it. South Africa is essential to the strategic survival of the United States and Western Europe.... South Africa is the sole source in the non-Communist world of a multitude of rare minerals which are critical to the industrial and military strength of the West — among them chromium, platinum and vanadium. These and other rare metals form the exotic alloys that enable rockets and jet engines to withstand intense heat, and which strengthen submarine hulls against the enormous pressures of the deep oceans, and have many specialized functions in our high technology. There is one alternative source for those minerals — the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, geography has placed South Africa astride the shipping lanes traveled by the oil tankers carrying crude oil from the Persian Gulf across the Indian Ocean and around the Cape of Good Hope into the Atlantic. The government which rules South Africa can control the tanker traffic carrying the Gulf's petroleum to Western Europe, Latin America and the United States.

The leaders of the Soviet Union obviously are aware of this. In sum, the blunt fact remains that South Africa represents the jugular of the West, and that even if South Africa had no controversial and unpopular racial and ethnic regulations, that country would be a target of Soviet imperialism.... Without South Africa's minerals, America's high-technology defense industries would have to depend on the Soviets for those rare strategic minerals. If America did not buy minerals from South Africa, what price do you think the Soviets would set?

There is also a moral irony in this.... Soviet gold, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn told us, is the product of the Soviet forced labor camps which comprise the Gulag Archipelago. Forced labor accounts for nearly all of Soviet mining operations. How the Soviet cynics must jeer to see America and Europe urging abandonment of trade with South Africa when their only alternative must be to line up at the Soviet trade counter and, therefore, to encourage the Soviets to expand their use of forced labor. [Yet, one U.S. Congressman said the U.S. must not import Krugerrands because South African gold, he alleged, is mined by "slave labor." Furthermore, the Congress now urges the U.S. government to mint gold coins to replace the market vacated by Krugerrands. Where will this gold come from, considering sluggish domestic production? The Soviet Union? Or maybe, via third parties, South Africa?]...

The strategic needs of our own people should be the overriding concern of Congress, but the anti-South Africa forces, including the Marxists, are arguing that the apartheid problem is not a political one capable of rational political solutions involving formulae for opening the South African political power structure by degrees to all the people. Rather, they say it is a moral issue. So they preach that "apartheid" is a sin, and that those "sinners" should stop sinning at once without respect to any other consideration such as transferring power in an orderly manner and maintaining social order.

Among his own Afrikaner people President Botha could be skating on thin political ice. His more conservative critics charge that his reforms are dangerous, that the Soviets perceive them as a sign of weakness, and that he was foolish to have grasped the American hand of "constructive engagement," which Congress is now trying to jerk away, leaving him exposed and isolated.

The two right-wing parties, the Conservatives and the HNP, will certainly gain strength in backlash. What if — just what if — there would ever be a white coup? The Soviets wouldn't mind this initially, since it would result in South Africa's almost total isolation from an outraged liberal West (only coups elsewhere in Africa are permissible).

Meanwhile, the World Council of Churches has announced that it will call for worldwide prayers for the overthrow of the South African government. The vice-moderator of the WCC's "Program to Combat Racism," Paul Boateng, charged that "the South African government is a gangster regime which preys on its own people and on its neighbors." (The WCC, critics charge, has been considerably infiltrated by communists.)

Correction On page 9 paragraph 3 of last week's report I mentioned that four members of the ANC were murdered in one incident of township fighting, presumably by members of AZAPO. Those slain were members of the UDF, not ANC. AZAPO, arch-rival of both groups, may still have been responsible.

— Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau