Dear Editor,
Mondli Makanhya is trying to draw a parallel between the struggle against apartheid and the current struggle in Zimbabwe against the “freely elected” government in that country.
There is however no comparison if one views the two struggles at a higher global political platform.
In 1981 I came to South Africa and was informed by the locals that apartheid was on its way out. In 1986 I wrote to a friend in Holland that Apartheid would not end until the Berlin wall had fallen. There lies the significant difference between what is happening in the current Zimbabwe and the then “apartheid government”.
If one cares to look at the events in SA following the fall of the Berlin wall, one can see the direct connection between the two events.
After the collapse of the old Soviet Union, there was no need for the West to prop up the apartheid regime any longer. It had served its purpose as custodian of a strategic sea route in this part of the world. It had served its purpose to contain the Russian expansion in Africa. Apartheid had been a mere by-product of this strategy.
The time had now come for the West to show its humanitarian face and make sure that South Africa would not fall in the hands of some reactionary group who would show the West the finger. They could well do without another Lumumba, Idi Amin or Ghaddafi in Africa. Western economic policies, the African National Congress won the first general elections and Mr Mandela became the President of a benevolent government.
Uprisings with an unpredictable outcome had been prevented and all were happy. As in Europe in 1945, it was not the underground movements that liberated Europe from the Germans. How heroic they might have been, it was the allied forces and the Americans who did not want Europe to fall under Russia and communism for their own benefit.
Similarly, it was not the ANC in SA or the struggle heroes that liberated South Africa; it was the West that did not allow apartheid to continue and handed SA over to the ANC under conditions that they would stick to western dictated economic policies. Trevor Manuel did just that.
Zimbabwe is of little interest to the West. Zimbabwe is landlocked, has a relatively small population and does not play a major political role in Africa in support of the West. Its mineral resources are not unique; it does not have oil. At 80, Mr Mugabe is on his way out sooner or later measured in the global political time frames of decades. Quiet diplomacy works well for SA. It supports the one without upsetting the other.
Fruits of the West
The long-term goals of any African government should be to strive for independence from the West. Robert Mugabe is the guiding light for what lies ahead for African countries if they want to free themselves.
One day, African leaders might have the guts to do so but it will come at the kind of price that Zimbabweans are currently paying and worse. Freedom is expensice and demands sacrifices as the history of many European vountries can teach you. It will get a lot worse before it gets better.
The majority of African countries are - for all intents and purposes - still economically and culturally colonised. Despite our President’sd statement, name changes will never make South Africa an African country. For the time being, African leaders prefer to enjoy the fruits of the West at the price of paying lip service to theirt demands and a little unhappiness amongst the poor. Nothing a rubber bullet cannot control.
Benzo, Pretoria