The American Architects Of The South-African Catastrophe

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Ilana Mercer via The Mises Institute,

Yes, it has happened. A mere 23 years after the 1994 transition, in South Africa, to raw ripe democracy, six years following the publication of a wide-ranging analysis of that catastrophe, Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, a Beltway libertarian think tank has convened to address the problem that is South Africa.

The reference is to an upcoming CATO “Policy Forum,” euphemized as “South Africa at a Crossroad.” One of the individuals to headline the “Forum” is Princeton Lyman, described in a CATO email tease as having “served as the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa at the time of the transfer of power from white minority to black majority.” At the “Forum,” former ambassador Lyman will be discussing “America’s original hopes for a new South Africa and the extent to which America’s expectations have been left unfulfilled.” (Italics added.)

The chutzpah!

The CATO Institute’s disappointment in the South Africa the United States helped bring about is nothing compared to the depredations suffered by South Africans, due to America’s insistence that their country pass into the hands of a voracious majority. Unwise South African leaders acquiesced. Federalism was discounted. Minority rights for the Afrikaner, Anglo and Zulu were dismissed.

Aborted Attempts at South African Decentralization

This audacity of empire is covered in a self-explanatory chapter of Into the Cannibal’s Pot, titled “The Anglo-American Axis of Evil,” in which Lyman makes a cameo. (It’s not flattering.) From the comfort of the CATO headquarters, in 2017, the former ambassador will also be pondering whether “growing opposition will remove the African National Congress [ANC] from power.” The mindset of the DC establishment, CATO libertarians included, has it that changing the guard  —replacing one strongman with another — will fix South Africa, or any other of the sites of American foreign-policy interventions. 

So, what exactly did Princeton Nathan Lyman do on behalf of America in South Africa? Or, more precisely, who did he sideline? 

Ronald Reagan, who favored “constructive engagement” with South Africa, foresaw the chaos and carnage of an abrupt transition of power. So did the South Africans Fredrick van Zyl Slabbert, RIP (he died in May 2010), and Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The first was leader of the opposition Progressive Federal Party, who, alongside the late, intrepid Helen Suzman became the PFP’s chief critic of Nationalist policy (namely Apartheid). The second was Chief Minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). At the time, Buthelezi was the only black leader with any mass following who could act as a counter to the ANC. These men were not “lunch-pail liberals” from the West, but indigenous, classical liberal Africans — one white, one black — who understood and loved the county of their ancestors and wished to safeguard it for their posterity.

Both Buthelezi and Slabbert had applied their astringent minds to power-sharing constitutional dispensations. Both leaders were bright enough to recognize democracy for the disaster it would bring to a country as divided as theirs; they understood that “a mass-based black party that received enough votes could avoid having to enter into a coalition and could sweep aside the minority vote.” Thus, Buthelezi espoused a multi-racial, decentralized federation, in which “elites of the various groups” would “agree to share executive power and abide by a system of mutual vetoes and spheres of communal autonomy.” Paramount to Buthelezi was “the preservation of the rights of cultural groups and the protection of minorities.” Slabbert studied a “new system that entrenched individual rights, encouraged power-sharing through a grand coalition of black and white parties, and gave a veto right to minorities in crucial issues.”

Although he eventually threw his intellectual heft behind simple majority rule, in better days, Slabbert had spoken with circumspection about “unrestrained majoritarianism,” expressing the eminently educated opinion that, were majority rule to be made an inevitable corollary of South Africa’s political system, the outcomes would be severely undemocratic. It’s worth considering that even Zimbabwe for its first seven, fat years of independence, allowed “white members of parliament [to be] elected on a special roll to represent white interests.”

Washington Destroyed South African Federalism Before It Began

In his tome, Partner to History: The US Role in South Africa’s Transition to Democracy (2002), Princeton Lyman, the American Ambassador to South Africa from 1992 to 1995, records the active role Americans performed in the transition to democracy, especially in “dissuading spoilers” — the author’s pejorative, it would appear, for perfectly legitimate partners to the negotiations. One such partner, introduced above, was Buthelezi; another was military hero and former chief of the Defense Force, Constand Viljoen.

Avoid “wrecking the process”: This ultimatum was the message transmitted to the Afrikaner general and the African gentleman, loud and clear. The United States, with Lyman in the lead, failed to lean on the African National Congress (Nelson Mandela’s goons) to accommodate a federal structure. It promised merely to hold a future South African government to its “pre-election commitments, including shared power and the protection of minorities.” Until then, the skeptical Buthelezi was instructed to trust the ANC to relinquish the requisite power. Enraged, Buthelezi threatened to take his case to the American people and “spotlight” the knavish confederacy between their government and the ANC. (Then, Republicans were generally with Buthelezi, Democrats with the ANC. These days, both parties are with the ANC.) Being the man Prime Minister, F. W. de Klerk was not, Buthelezi rejected the pressure and overtures from the West. “I am utterly sick of being told how wrong I am by a world out there,” he wrote to Lyman. The dispensation being hatched was “an instrument for the annihilation of KwaZulu.”

Viljoen, who represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces, believed de Klerk had abdicated his responsibilities to this electorate. He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state. Likewise, Buthelezi, whose championship of self-determination had been denied, was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined. He and his Zulu impis were every bit as fractious as Viljoen; every bit as willing to fight for their rightful corner of the African Eden. For setting his sights on sovereignty, the Zulu royal and his following (close on twenty percent of the population) were condemned as reactionaries by the West (and by CATO’s point person).

Hardly a dog of an American commentator missed the opportunity to lift his leg in protest against Buthelezi, for making common cause with Afrikaner decentralists and against the ANC. “Wreckers” is how the gray eminence of American newspapers — The New York Times, also known as “Pravda on the Hudson” — dubbed the two leaders and the millions whom they represented. The two, alleged the Times in a 1994 editorial, were locked in an “unscrupulous alliance to disrupt the first elections in South Africa in which all races will have a vote.” Following the might-makes-right maxim — and committing a non sequitur in the process — Times editorialists demanded that the leaders of these African and Afrikaner ethnic minorities relinquish demands for sovereign status because their political power was at best “anemic.” Meanwhile the Times dismissed Buthelezi as a puppet in Pretoria’s blackface minstrelsy.

This was drivel. Buthelezi, a crafty leader who had rejected “the ignoble independence accorded to other homelands” within apartheid’s framework, was never a collaborator. Understand: For two centuries Africans and Afrikaners had been clashing and alternately collaborating on the continent. Shaka (1787–1828), Dingane (1795–1840), Mpande (1798–1872), Cetshwayo (1826–1884) — Buthelezi was heir to these Zulu kings who had been wheeling, dealing, and warring with Boers well before the inception of The New York Times.

Masters of mass mobilization, the ANC used the political tinderbox ignited in the ramp-up to the first democratic elections to great effect in discrediting the security forces, and claiming that the apartheid government was fomenting the intra-ethnic violence between Inkatha (Zulu) and the ANC (Xhosa). But while the ANC accused the security forces of arming Inkatha, the latter faction blamed the security forces for allying themselves with the ANC, especially when Zulu hostels and squatter camps were raided in response to ANC pressure. For the National Party government, the ongoing ethnic conflict was a lose-lose proposition.

But not for the savvy ANC.

Nelson Mandela harnessed the situation by accusing Prime Minister de Klerk of “either complicity or of not caring enough about black deaths” to stop black-on-black violence. The foreign press helped fuse fact with fancy by transmitting this claim, later to be dismissed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. (That body eventually determined that there was “little evidence of a centrally directed, coherent and formally instituted third force.”) Nevertheless, a constellation of unfavorable circumstances was aligned against Buthelezi, who capitulated in the end.

Buthelezi was the intellectual bête noire of the communist ANC — and one of the few leaders in South Africa to mine the Western canon widely and wisely for what it teaches about liberty and the dangers of centralizing political power. He cited with characteristic passion and poignancy, in July 2009, a poem (“The Second Coming”) that W. B. Yeats wrote in January 1919:

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned …

In contrast to what South Africa became, the United States is a country where the constitution was supposed to thwart the tyranny of the majority. This averting was meant to occur by means of a federal structure, in which powers are divided and dispersed between — and within — a central government and the constituent states. Yet the Americans sided with the ANC — the consequence of which has been the raw, ripe rule of the mob and its dominant, anointed party. 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bh2's picture

Worthwhile remembering the public comments of Ian Smith when he stepped down as the last president of Rhodesia -- and what he predicted would happen after. Which it has done, in spades.

Lost in translation's picture

What the globalists did to South Africa (and to Yugoslavia) they shall do to the US, eventually.

The US and its military are just expedient tools. When the globalists conclude that neither are useful any longer, they will be cut down into small and more easily controlled pieces, and neutralized.

Hongcha's picture

I have gold mine stocks (DRD, HMY) over there; just hold it together for their sake, if you don't mind. 

BlussMann's picture

The Boers should have fought  They had A bombs (that the vile Israelis acquired) and a great army that could have stacked the Simians as high as needed to convince them to behave – and the A bombs would have kept the vile Americans and their NATO puppets at bay too. Now, Boers are a dwindling minority, live in poverty and probably will be exterminated. That’s OK with the Jewish West, of course. South Africa was a nation that was totally and completely sold out by all levels of leadership, it was breathtaking. The same is happening in all the Western nations now. Incredible.

Shahna's picture

Oh yeah ---- the Boere shoulda fought!

What were the Boers - about half the white population?
So 2 million Boere shoulda wiped out 40+ million people JUS'SO they didn't have share a country with other people who had an equal claim to it BY BIRTH ? .... Or would you have kept a few to do the heavy lifting?

What on Earth is the matter with you people - refering to other people as apes and Siminians just because they've got more melanin in their skin than you have? ...... It's hardly an achievement being born with 5 and not 6 fingers!

Is-Be's picture

I think that you confuse melanin with race, Ape.

Neanderthal blood runs in my veins.

https://youtu.be/mZbmywzGAVs

Shahna's picture

You're a Neanderthal ?
Uh huh ---- and WHY am I not surprised?
LOL

Is-Be's picture

Either your ignorance betrays you or your genes will.

Is-Be's picture

I never stoop to down voting.

It is what passes for a petulant non- argument.

quasi_verbatim's picture

There's a lot of it about. Poor Neanders, fled North to escape the Negroes and got stiffed by whitey.

NordikAvenger's picture

This is ZH, where to be a blunt racist is just a-ok.

Arnold's picture

There are many other places where frank discussion may be held.
Not.
Ruin this venue, and I know where YOU are.

Is-Be's picture

 

This is ZH, where to be a blunt racist is just a-ok.

It always was a-ok.

The term was invented by Trotsky in his frustration at not being able to convince the Germans of the virtues of international communism. He called them "racist" not as a slur, but in recognition of the fact that they banded together as Germans.

Ipso facto. All Nationalists are "racists".

Of cause the word was appropriated by the virtue signallers to mean anyone who disagreed with their facile analysis.

Megaton Jim's picture

Go to your safe space, snowflake faggot!

quasi_verbatim's picture

This is ZH, where we know the Nordics are fucked.

UmbilicalMosqueSweeper's picture

You mean, of course, where to be a blunt REALIST is OK...unlike communist PC sites where freedom of thought and speech would be a death sentence, if permitted!

UselessEater's picture

The Boers did fight. Repeatedly.

The Boer War is the only war in history where 6 women were slaughtered to 1 fighting man. The concentration camps and Scorched Earth Policy was terrible. The ratio would be even worse if the Boer soldiers were not SHOT on surrender.

You should be really pissed white chirstens have been used as (((Tools))) to slaughter over 100 million white Christians in the late 19th and through the 20 century.

It is time to wake up!

http://historyreviewed.com/index.php/2017/05/30/video-dr-peter-hammond-t...

 

 

Is-Be's picture

The Boer War is the only war in history where 6 women were slaughtered to 1 fighting man. The concentration camps and Scorched Earth Policy was terrible. 

It is rare that I will embrace the "sins of the fathers" guilt trip.

But I unreservedly beg for forgiveness on this issue.

My people were naïve and ignorant. They did these deeds under military instruction of the Empire.

On a brighter note Hitler and the Reich learned a lot about the dangers of Typhus and Dysentery in concentration camps from the rxperiences of the camps in the Cape Province


UselessEater's picture

Never forgive and never forget

It is what (((they))) say. Whatever side our white christian ancestors were on, we will never forget we were decieved and we will never forgive the blood we were led to spill.

We have no need to fall into deep guilt, but shame is something we learn to live with, we must never ever forget or forgive WHY we did what we did!!!!

And NEVER repeat it! We must defend and protect what we have today for ourselves and our neighbour, that is honor.

quasi_verbatim's picture

Exactly. When in concentration camp you can't crap in the bush and you gotta dig latrines.

Quatermain's picture

Kitchner invented the concentration camp, Hitler perfected it.  Which is worse?

UmbilicalMosqueSweeper's picture

Hitler and the Reich learned a lot about International Judaism and Zionist Bolshevik scum.

Megaton Jim's picture

You should spend a couple of months in Baltimore or Detroit or any other fuxated city, we'll see if you sing praises of the poor, poor niggers then!

quasi_verbatim's picture

Boers forbore to slaughter and now experience the delights of ethno-demographic displacement, coming to a street where you live.

Hillarys Server's picture

The Boers had the claim to the land by birth. The black there today didn't even live there, they lived up north. Scattered bushmen were originally there when the whites joined them four hundred years ago.

The whites gave housing and medicine to a few immigrant blacks from up north and the population of those black newcomers exploded and turned on their benefactors.

That's what the Suidlander representative said if I'm remembering correctly.

the lion of flanders's picture

The Boers should not "have fought". However; the Boers negotiated in good faith to bring about a country in which all could proper!

AS ALWAYS the communist did not live up to their side of the bargain. What has happened and is still happenig every day is MURDER and THEFT, ignored by the MSM.

Saying that the Blacks can claim a Birthright is ignorant. Blacks have equal rights, just like anybody else living in South Africa.. period, has nothing to do with who got where first. Dumb argument!

South Africans can and want to live together in peace. Build a new SA together!

The MSM holding out the argument that if you scream loud enough one can get something in exchange for nothing is destroying the chances to proper for all South Africans.

As to the question of who would have  won that fight if it would have ever gone that far????

I witnessed many times a handfull of Boere Seune Politie "Manne" (with mega balls) facing down Thousands of rioting blacks. They all had that " make my day look " . no need for nukes. The hordes knew what they were up against and kept a respectfull distance. No sane person would have bet against The Boers if it had come to a fight, BUT, they negotiated for Peace and got cheated, America supporting the ANC was guilty of colluding with known communist; 

the lion of flanders's picture

The Boers should not "have fought". However; the Boers negotiated in good faith to bring about a country in which all could proper!

AS ALWAYS the communist did not live up to their side of the bargain. What has happened and is still happenig every day is MURDER and THEFT, ignored by the MSM.

Saying that the Blacks can claim a Birthright is ignorant. Blacks have equal rights, just like anybody else living in South Africa.. period, has nothing to do with who got where first. Dumb argument!

South Africans can and want to live together in peace. Build a new SA together!

The MSM holding out the argument that if you scream loud enough one can get something in exchange for nothing is destroying the chances to proper for all South Africans.

As to the question of who would have  won that fight if it would have ever gone that far????

I witnessed many times a handfull of Boere Seune Politie "Manne" (with mega balls) facing down Thousands of rioting blacks. They all had that " make my day look " . no need for nukes. The hordes knew what they were up against and kept a respectfull distance. No sane person would have bet against The Boers if it had come to a fight, BUT, they negotiated for Peace and got cheated, America supporting the ANC was guilty of colluding with known communist; 

quasi_verbatim's picture

A-bombs are irrelevant if you need to drop them on your country.

RSA had rockets too, but no Kim Jong-de Klerk

Exalt's picture

Would you nuke your own country, kill millions of your own people and poison your land? Don't be a moron. White minority rule had to end, but it didn't have to end up installing black majority rule with an iron fist. The major problem is that South Africa failed to maintain a cohesive "inclusive" culture and identity, so it has descended into a free for all. It's a country founded on non-racialism, but has more racial laws on the book than any other. Tells you all you need to know about what's wrong here.

BlussMann's picture

First, dumb ass, the Negros  were not "their people".  Even so, ever hear of "Civil Wars". It happens when different groups have opposite interest.  White Rule did not  "have" to cease - it's all a matter of will and the desire to survive.  SA Whites who built their own culture and infrastructure had no obligation to turn their country over to Negro, Jews and Communism. Yes,  if I were a Boer I would have willingly killed as many Communist and radical Negros as needed to put them down. You don’t “include” lower racial types into a society built by a higher race. SA is totally “inclusive” now isn’t it ?  Stupid Negros running the whole system into the ground, with genocide of the White’s to boot.

SPQR 70AD's picture

he did not mean nuke their own country you stupid bastard. he meant the west would not attack SA cause they had nukes

Is-Be's picture

"Its all going according to plan. Somebody else's plan."

Curly Bekker, Filabusi, Rhodesia.

Prognosis: after the entire (substantial) edifice of Western Civilization in South Africa collapses, the world bank will Loan South Africa funds on conditions that ensure that they are never paid back.

Welcome to Debt Slavery,  aBantu.   (euphemistically called ESAP, economic structural adjustment plan.)

The gold, diamonds and platinum of South Africa would have long since disappeared.

So you see, dear boys and girls, this story has a happy ending.

For somebody else.

Shahna's picture

'sTrue - but this story also has a very rocky ending for some of those happy people... the happy ones with humungous debt - when they can't pay that debt any more.
The US creates its "I'll just print more" dollars from dollars created by int. trading and lending in USD but now, nearly 40% of the world is now dealing also in not-only in-USD (own currencies, gold, remimbi) and that's cutting deep into those earnings (BRICS, SCO, CIS, NDB, AIIB etc - a whole soup bowl full of alphabetics already) - and that 'trend' is growing kinda daily.

"All wars are bankers wars" .... We might be looking a little glum but we ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to what Russia, China and some hopeful hangers-on are busy doing to the US. ...And the US is feeling it already - 'cos there are signs of some very serious penny-pinching and money-grubbing going on by the US.

We live in interesting times....
And we, SA's, are luckier than some .... the Big Boys aren't interested in us anymore (unless some phucker blows up Suez then we see our arlie unless the Arctic is open by then) and we're far away from any mutual ordinance tossing this will likely lead to.

So yeah - they enslave us, but their enslavement of us is small fry compared to what they're done to themselves.

Yars Revenge's picture

Two words: Joe Slovo

quasi_verbatim's picture

Lithuanian Jew.

Another two words.

Shahna's picture

OMG - everyone is so depressing here!
Just loads of old Rhodesian When-we's and South Africans mourning the passage of time since 1980!  Seriously - I thought you'd all died out from old age by now.

Anyway. Cheers - I'm off to find some folk who live and love in today.
We're living in such "interesting times" and all you-lot can do is whine that it's not yesterday.
Anti-Semitism was fashionable in the 1930's --- Ding-Ding!
And silly racism is so .... just worn-out --- Ding Ding Ding!

You poor things~!

Is-Be's picture

Yeah, that's right. Run away

Ding ding ding.

silverer's picture

Where have you been? Yesterday sucked.

quesnay's picture

Racism is 'worn-out'. Hmmm. I think you're a liar. You sit in the safety and comfort of your home typing on a keyboard about the utopia out your doorway while pretending that there are some places you would simply not want to walk alone while being white. Pretending that black affirmative action measures are really all about equality. Pretending that violence and intimidation driving white farmers off their land is merely a 'rebalancing'. Certainly nothing to do with racism though... You are a liar. Everyone here knows you are a liar. You don't believe a word of your own arguments. You are like the Hollywood celibrities espousing the virtues of open-borders, 'community', getting along with your neighbors, who then head back to their gated mansion and armed guards, making it clear that everything that came out of their mouths was total bullshit.

Bondo's picture

Zuldland says they will only be able to get 20% of the white population out when Zuma begins his  plan to confiscate all white-owned land and businesses, and many of the ruling party saying they will eliminate the minority party by slaughtering them and taking their lands.

Mandela has left the building  

quasi_verbatim's picture

But his soul goes marching on in the debbil's own country.

quasi_verbatim's picture

You have worked hard to become a prat, no doubt.

delmar Jackson's picture

So right you are. The 3000 white SA farmers and their families butchered on their farms since the ANC came to power are so yesterday. And anyway, how many white farmers and their families can be left to be butchered? they are probably racists anyway. It will all be over soon, why worry about it. Nothing is going to be happening to me. I am a good white. I enjoy it when white people and their culture and people are erased. Whites are only 11% of the world population and dropping. let's all go have a party. Yeah!! Cheers !!

quesnay's picture

If I had been around and aware of South Africa apartheid during the change, I know I would have thought this was a good thing. Democracy. Equality. Fairness. That is everything my young mind held as right and true. Yet now when I see the results, it's clear I was wrong.

I have no idea what should have been done. However, if someone proposed a solution I would have previously thought outrageous, or ridiculous, I would no longer feel firm in my conviction this was so. I wouldn't know if their solution was right, but I could no longer declare with confidence that it was wrong. The ideas of democracy, liberty, and egalitarianism that I believed in have failed.

This is the same situation I think many "progressives" are in today with regards to multi-culturalism, but rather than see the results and admit they were wrong, they instead choose to "double-down". To blame the victim. To blame 'mean people'. To blame anything and everything except their own flawed ideals. For the converted, the reason their ideology failed is because it wasn't being done 'hard' enough or fast enough. It is never the fault of the ideology itself.

PiratePiggy's picture

> To blame 'mean people'.

 

They actually blame white people. Their color makes them bad.

 

Fact is, the white people of Europe and later elsewhere had setup a sustem that worked better than other systems... similar to what the Chinese had done hundreds of years earler when they dominated the world.  If has little to do with skin color and a lot to do with incentives, risk management, and ability for the averge member of society to expect justice and the rule of law.

quesnay's picture

I think that's correct. Whether by luck or environment or a few thinkers that got things started, Europeans developed a religion of self-responsibilty, which then lead to the philosophies of individuality and freedom.

This is in direct contrast to places that went the opposite direction and developed a religion/philosophy of fatalism. Fatalism is societal poison. Yet, without realizing it, this is exactly what the 'progressives', the marxists, the feminists and the social justice warriors now want to embrace. Identity politics is fatalism. Marxism is fatalism. Feminism is fatalism. Fatalism leads to dystopian hell.

Faeriedust's picture

I think you miss the fact that while the social results of fatalism can leave much to be desired, on the individual level, fatalism as a philosophy is extremely rewarding.  It offers serenity and security in the face of a cruel  and often meaningless world.  It offers peace from self-castigation for one's imperfections.  It offers freedom from blame for every single damned thing you do or may have done.  Because no one can be perfect.  And that is ultimately what a philosophy of pure self-responsibility demands.  Perfection.  Past, present, and most especially with perfect ability to foresee the future in all its ramifications.

Fatalism works, as self-determination does not, for the 99.9% of the human race that isn't very, very lucky as well as smart and hard-working.  It's always pleasant to believe oneself elevated above that common run of humanity for whom Fortune determines much of Fate, but if you seem perfect now, wait a decade or two.  Someday,  you'll make a mistake.

quesnay's picture

Interesting insight that makes sense. Fatalism has to have some advantage, otherwise it wouldn't have come to exist in the first place.

The 'trick' is to convince societies to value self-determinism, even for their given circumstance most things are beyond their control. This is what the Europeans managed to successfully do.