Lessons from South Africa’s history

Press, 2 June 1981, Page 20

Lessons from South Africa’s history

Alastair McArthur, reader in agricultural economics at Lincoln College, recently spent two years in Swaziland and travelled frequently across the border to South Africa. Here Dr McArthur discusses the proposed Springbok tour.

Unlike many New Zealanders who have lived in southern Africa, I am against the Springbok tour. Recently I spent a couple of years on a New Zealand aid programme in Swaziland which is an independent African state on the border of the Republic of South Africa. It is only five hours by car away from Johannesburg ■so I spent some time visiting, the republic. Many New Zealanders who either visit or live in South Africa rapidly acquire the racial attitudes of the whites with whom they identify. They see the problem from the point of view of the four million affluent whites’ abiding in the same country as 20 million extremely poor blacks who are being encouraged by the rest of the world to rebel against their masters. After all, New Zealanders have common cultural ties with their fellow whites and it is not difficult to argue from experience elsewhere in Africa that the majority of blacks would be worse off after the revolution.

Rather than adopt a high moral tone about white South Africa, a much more productive line of thought is to inquire how they managed to get themselves into such a dangerous mess. It is more useful to see if there are some lessons we can learn from

their recent political history which can be applied to the survival of New Zealand.

The Afrikaners, or Dutchspeaking whites, were the heroes of liberally minded people only 80 years ago. In a very short space of time they have become international outcasts. No-one cares a damn about the survival of this lost white tribe. If we make the same political mistakes that they made, noone will give a damn for our white tribe lost in the South Pacific.

Eighty years ago the might of the British Empire attempted to stamp out the Boer guerrilla forces by rounding up their wives and children into concentration camps. An aristocratic English stirrer called Emile Hbbhouse organised a protest about the dreadful conditions in these camps. The civilised world (excluding the British) supported the Boers and delighted to read of the heroic exploits of their commandos as they avoided the search and destroy missions of the British. The British provoked the Boers into war to get control of the vast mineral resources and wealth of the Rand, the area round Johannesburg. The Boers (the Afrikaners) were left destitute by the war. their farms burnt and their cattle slaughtered. In the last

80 years they have taken back what they considered rightly theirs. 111-educated Afrikaners off the veldt had to compete ’or work in the mines against Indians, Coloureds (half-whites) and blacks.

Under a free bargaining system against non-whites they would have had no hope of gaining an income equal to the English-speaking whites who owned the commercial sector of the economy. Job discrimination in favour of whites was their only path to recovery. The Afrikaner National Party came to power in 1948 and introduced apartheid by legally discriminating against the Coloureds, the Indians, and the blacks. Later, blacks were reduced to the status of migrant workers by making them citizens of tribal areas called Bantustans. The white Afrikaners have had a phenomenal increase in wealth over the last 80 years.

The oppressed often make the worst oppressors. The Afrikaners identify themselves with the chosen race in the Old Testament, which provides them with moral self righteousness for their behaviour. They have a limited knowledge of the world around them, and if and when they are thrown out of South Africa, without a hand being lifted by the West in their’defence, it

will come as a great surprise to them.

It is possible that the white South Africans instituted apartheid unnecessarily. They could probably have had most of the cake without legalised apartheid. The post-war economic boom, coupled with the educational and capital advantages of the whites might have given them most of what they now have. Maybe political dominance could have been maintained by taking the Coloureds and the’lndians into the fold, together with some substantial gerrymandering. But being simple, honest souls, the Afrikaners decided to discriminate by law against other races, despite warnings from friendly Western countries that they were making themselves a target for black Africa. They decided to ignore world opinion. It was a great mistake. Now the Russians are encouraging the blacks to rebel, seeing possibilities of bringing South African mineral resources into their orbit. Apartheid has provided a marvellous situation for the Russians to exploit.

Now it is probably too late for the whites in South Africa to liberalise their policies. At the moment they have their foot on the neck of a tiger. They still have a chance for survival as world events ebb and flow. But if they liberalise their policies by taking their foot off the neck of the tiger, they will almost certainly be eaten. So much for the argument that sporting contacts

will change White South African attitudes.

There is an uncomfortable similarity between South Africa, and Australia and NewZealand. Like South Africa, we are sitting on rich natural resources. Like the Afrikaners, we are wealthy white settlers >n the poor southern hemisphere. Like South Africa, our jart of the globe is starting to eel the extension of Russian nfluence.

The whites in South Africa exist within the same boundaries as the poor blacks. Fortunately, there is water between us and our poor neighbours. But in the long run. we may see demands for us to go back to Europe. We could be next on the list.

The worst defence against this threat is to adopt the arrogant attitudes of the white South Africans, or to associate with them in any way. It would be a mistake to behave as though we still belonged to a mighty empire. That bluff was called 40 years ago when the British, French and Dutch empires fell. The Australians are closer to the action than we are. Canberra seems aware of the dangers of associating with White South Africa and becoming a target. The Commonwealth is an important friendly link with the Third World through which they can demonstrate a good neighbour policy as a diplomatic strategy for defence.

I suspect this is why the Australians are so worried

about the behaviour of their country-bumpkin cousins across’the Tasman, who are so unconcerned about the dangers of the world they live in. Some of our politicians have been using the potential votes from football supporters to the detriment of our foreign policy. Australians have said they are worried about the consequences for us from inviting the Springboks here. They may also be worried about the consequences for Australia, because many African politicians think of us as being one country.

In taking this position against the tour, I realise that I am in the same camp as some who have a minimal interest in the future welfare of New Zealand. I can understand those who are so upset about the rights of blacks in South Africa that they have not thought about the damage they have done to New Zealand's reputation by amplifying our arrogant position on the tour for the world to hear.

Also in my camp there may be a few who have an affinity for Russia and hope tha't violence over the tour will produce a few martyrs for generating further violence. If they can polarise society into extreme Left-wing and Rightwing political groups, they have a chance of leading a proRussian political force. Those who love their country as well as their football must not give these people the opportunity they are waiting for.