South Africa, the microcosm
I've thought for a while--and I don't think I've blogged about this before, though I may be wrong there--that you can look at South Africa as a microcosm of the whole world. Specifically, you can look at the behavior of the US of A with respect to the rest of the world like the behavior of the Whites in apartheid-era South Africa with regard to the rest of their (non-White) compatriots.
You can see how it goes: the hegemonic group, despite its definitely minority status, thinks not only (a) that it can 'speak for' and control the majority, but also that (b) there are good reasons why this should be so: reasons based in the realm of ethics, 'Manifest Destiny', superior values, 'Christian civilization', or whatever; and no, sheer naked force is just incidental to the whole equation.
Except that of course it's not. Force, and the ability to control and intimidate (another word for 'terrorize') the majority lie at the heart of any attempt by a minority to exercize control.
And so, in apartheid South Africa, we had the whole dreary litany of tortures: hoodings, sensory deprivation, 'wet sacks', stress positions, electric shocks, beatings, sleep deprivation, use of dogs... the whole Pandora's box.
And so, in apartheid South Africa, you had the creation of "legal black holes" into which detainees could be dropped; where their treatment went beyond the explicable; and from where, too often, only horribly mutilated bodies emerged.
And so, in apartheid South Africa, you had the launching of wars against suspected enemies both inside and outside the national boundaries. This was a "total onslaught" the Boers were facing, don't you see? It was a fundamental assault on their Christian values, launched by heinous and definitely "sub-human" outsiders.
And so, in apartheid South Africa, you had the deliberate stoking of the fires of fearfulness at home, with the militaristic mobilization focusing on the threat from "terrorism".
It took those Boers a long time-- Of course, it depends where you start your counting from, but let's say it took them a number of decades before they figured out that just maybe, they could assure their survival in their little bit of God's earth more effectively if they tried dialogue and negotiation...
Whoa! That was a heady and radical idea! When I was in Cape Town last year, I had a long talk with Fanie du Toit at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation. He recalled how he was at Stellenbosch University, the "Oxford" of Afrikaaner culture, back in the early 1980s... He'd been tapped for the Junior Broederbond--the very acme of Afrikaner in-group-ivity! And some people had started whispering there about the radical idea that just maybe they should start talking to the ANC...
Well, in 1985 the minister of justice, Kobie Coetsee, started having his first talks with Mandela. And you could say "the rest is history" except that of course the struggle for social and economic transformation inside South Africa, for the righting of old, old wrongs, and the creation of a truly egalitarian republic there still continues.
But at least you have the full political equality of all the country's people written into the Constitution and celebrated through, by now, three fully democratic elections since 1994...
Whereas if we then turn to the US's rerlations with the rest of the world-- what do we have? No political transformation whatsoever! No even rudimentary attempt to move toward a situation in which ever human being on the planet is given--at a formal level at least--an equal political voice. And worse than that: in recent years there's been a major retreat from the post-World War "norm" of at least some formal equality between the governments of the world.
In apartheid South Africa, the Whites were somewhere around 16% of the whole national population. It was outrageous that they tried to keep decisionmaking power, including the power to declare war or peace, and the power to torture, lie, and control the rest of their compatriots, solely for themselves for so long.
Outrageous. Tsk, tsk.
But the US citizenry makes up only 4 percent of the world's population. How much more outrageous is that? When will we even start the negotiations that might lead to real negotiations over global political power with the leaders of the other 96%? I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. So in the meantime, in the years or even decades until that happens, the wars and the torture and the fear-mongering and all the rest of those sad behaviors will continue. How many hundreds of thousands of people will die in the process?
You know, just maybe we could learn some useful lessons from those old Boer leaders in South Africa? Just maybe, we could make a sincere attempt to start addressing our duifferences with those who make claims upon us through dialogue and negotiation instead of violence, threats, and war?
Helena, glad you are back blogging.
But this: "they (the boers) figured out that just maybe, they could assure their survival" is the Nobel-prize-winning de Klerk story, and i can't agree.
"We saw the light and we did the right thing" is the story. What it leaves out is the liberation movement of the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party, and the Congress of South African Trade Unions. So it leads you to a wrong conclusion.
The agent of change was not the spontaneous change of heart of the boers, no matter how they choose to remember it now. The agent was the liberation movement.
Likewise now, in relation to the USA and the world. If you want to make SA your microcosm, then you must go back to the sixties and early seventies, when there were rather few, but very determined people, struggling to build the movement. Amnesty International, for example, would not help it, because the ANC would not abandon armed struggle. Remember that?
The US will not change unless it faces pressure. You are a Quaker, and strongly opposed to war. Fine. As a matter of fact the SA armed struggle was not the strongest aspect of the liberation movement. But you have to recognise the primacy of the liberation struggle in a general way. It is the reclamation of agency by the oppressed that is the effective force for change.
If you simply leave this out of account, you are preaching a gospel of supplication, which leaves agency in the hands of the powerful, which is ipso facto no change at all, and just exactly what they want.
The responsibility should be on the powerful party to do the just thing, not on the weaker party. The powerful side generally has to make a move to get peace going.