The Republic of South Africa is widely viewed as an exemplar of injustice. I, however, do not share that view, believing instead that efforts to characterize the country as one which is second only to Nazi Germany in the hierarchy of evil give an unfair accounting of the situation. Compared to some ideal state, South Africa is certainly a pale reflection of perfection. But those who make such comparisons and insist that public policy reflect the outcome are missing the point. When compared with the relevant political alternatives of (1) the form of government likely to emerge after a radical restructuring of the South African government, or (2) the state of the rest of the world's governments, South Africa is a rather decent place to live for both whites and blacks.
The fecklessness of imposing sanctions on South Africa is not my brief. The theme of this essay is more ambitious - a defense of that nation and its current form of government. Nonetheless, because sanctions have been the subject of so much debate, and because so much of that debate has displayed a gross misunderstanding of what is at issue, sanctions will be an appropriate jumping-off point. That discussion will, I hope, demonstrate why even those who have a far stronger antipathy to South Africa than I are warranted in being critical of sanctions as a means of achieving desirable ends.
PROBLEMS WITH ENFORCEMENT OF SANCTIONS
The sanctions most prominently proposed and widely discussed are restrictions on imports from, and exports to, South Africa. The pragmatic objections to such sanctions are of two sorts: (1) they will not work; and (2) to the extent that they do work, they will do more harm than good. Sanctions are unlikely to work in the most simple sense of imposing significant costs on the South Africa is a large and rich country, (approximately 430,000 square miles, larger than Texas California combined) with an economy that, if pressed, can be close to autarkic. Further, many of those nations most vocal in the call for sanctions, such as the United States, have been reluctant to restrict the importation of vital minerals from South Africa.
More importantly, restrictions on trading with South Africa have been and will continue to be easily evaded. South Africa is situated on a major trade route and has an 1,800-mile-long coastline with many ports that no one has suggested blockading. Nor would blockade be of any use against the outflow of gold, platinum, and diamonds that together constitute more than half of South Africa's exports. They are very valuable per unit of weight and size and also are easily transported by airplane. In addition, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Lesotho, Zaire, and Botswana are largely dependent on South Africa as a port of entry and exit for their foreign trade, making it impossible to blockade South Africa without also cutting off much of Southern Africa, as those nations are not eager to suspend their own trade with South Africa. While the nations of sub-Saharan Africa pay lip service to the concept of sanctions, their trade with the pariah has steadily increased, reaching over $3 million in 1987. The formal impositions of sanctions will, therefore, most likely prove to be an empty gesture, further reinforcing the view of the liberal West as overly inclined to facile moral posturing, but unwilling or incapable of acting firmly and decisively.
But even if they could work, in the simple sense of imposing
...
Read Full Article
|
