The American Architects Of The South-African Catastrophe

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. 



UselessEater Arnold Sat, 06/10/2017 - 20:36 Permalink

She is a jew. She wanted black rule, then did not like it, so she ran away leaving others in a fucked up situation. Then she used her corrupting experience to defend Israels apartheid.I have her book, yes I read it, poor baby knows suffering... give. me. a. break.Skip a movie tonight and listen to this - how her jew mates are continuing to undermine white confidence in South Africa through bull shit - the same games are played in the USA, once you figure it out, there is no need for fear.… a Rhodesian and part Boer, this freak gets attention because she is a jew. Good one Zero Hedge, get more ad revenue today?

In reply to by Arnold

UselessEater Shahna Sat, 06/10/2017 - 21:41 Permalink

Our primary war was Christian vs blood thirsty communism... if you understand the savagery you will know why blacks fought with whites. The commie blacks needed training, money, arms and toothpaste from UK, USSR, USA and Australia.Further, defined tribal lands were being funded and protected by white governments, another Skaka Zulu could never exterminate 1 million blacks again under nation hood status for self governing tribes. Jews wanted chaos to control, we banned war, slaughter and some very aggressive tribes were eating people - we said that must stop.So black is not what you people undestand today.... we worked with TRIBES and got pretty pissed when weak tribes were slaughtered hence they sought our protection.READ something NOT written by a Jew for once.

In reply to by Shahna

UselessEater Shahna Sat, 06/10/2017 - 22:16 Permalink

Shahan needs more confirmation: and whites were terrified of the slaughter wraught by Internationla Communism - it was not the race war that was sold to you, do you really believe the newspapers and school books your tax dollars fund have ever told you the truth? If so, there is this author and  a few rottenchilds in Israel laughing at you.

In reply to by Shahna

UselessEater Arnold Sun, 06/11/2017 - 00:31 Permalink

Well you have to remember they are in tribes... Shitanana wants to go by colour only, just for fun. OK lets do a black tour of genocide and slaughter (should we mention the light coloured hottentotts in this game?)Can Shitanana tell me how many tribes were genocided by which central african tribes colonizing southern africa at the time of white man (not slave traders from another race) arrived???Just a couple of names will do..?? Hello?? Are you still there?It was never about colour, it was the most peacefule time between tribes...ever. Enjoy the loss of civilisation to future black babies.

In reply to by Arnold

Exalt Shahna Sun, 06/11/2017 - 05:54 Permalink

Well technically it's whatever it says on your birth certificate. In the apartheid days, the government took this very seriously and used a "pencil test" to see if a pencil could stay stuck in your hair. If it could and you appeared to have "non-white" features, you were black. Then the process of figuring out exactly what type of "black" you were was largely up to you. Pretty ridiculous, but these days in South Africa you are only considered black if you CLEARLY descend from a Zulu, Xhosa etc. lineage. The constitution recognises indians, other asians and mixed race to be "black". In practice though, unless you have "apparent" African lineage, you're not part of the priveleged class and are probably considered to be "part of the white problem". Even if you are considered black, you get further categorised into tribe and whether you are a "clever black" (ie. part of the economy) or not. The factions never end in South Africa and it's why this country will never succeed. Only a united people, with a united culture (at least in the broad sense) can hope to be happy or well governed. Problem being many of the Zulu's in power think the answer to that problem is to get rid of everyone else and impose a new feudalism to revive "African greatness".

In reply to by Shahna

chubbar Exalt Sun, 06/11/2017 - 11:31 Permalink

What you describe is happening here in the US only with slight changes. The blacks are given special rights which are extended to other brown skinned minorities. When the whites become the minority (fairly soon) they will then allow majority rule to take away property from whites. It's coming, just taking awhile to get those numbers up through immigration. It may sound farfetched right now but I'm sure 20 years ago the white farmers in S. Africa didn't think the gov't would allow blacks to steal their farms and murder them. Just listen to the videos of the kids in the Evergreen college debacle if you don't think this is a realistic future possibility.

In reply to by Exalt

chubbar chubbar Sun, 06/11/2017 - 11:40 Permalink

PS, one thought not covered. This is being driven by the deep state all around the world. If anyone thinks that millions of poor african/middle eastern blacks/muslims are  simultaneously deciding to immigrate to every western civilized country in the world and without financial backing, you have your head up your ass. This is a cultural genocide of these European, North American and Australian countries by an entity with the political pull and financial backing to make it happen.This deep state is an existential threat to every country listed and probably all the other countries that the US has invaded (the deep state controls our military) with the purpose of permanently disrupting their societies and culture. Obvious divide and conquer strategy but it's working. It's hard to imagine us winning this war when I see snowflakes demonstrating for Sharia law, maybe something will happen to wake them up, along with many on the right who don't get it either.

In reply to by chubbar

Cman5000 Sat, 06/10/2017 - 19:59 Permalink

Which way will the South African Military go that's the million dollar question ? They have a professional military that's mixed racially.

Exalt Cman5000 Sun, 06/11/2017 - 06:01 Permalink

Mixed to some extent, but certainly not in a way that wouldn't reflect the dominant profile of the ANC. The military is largely toothless now with "struggle" generals being promoted over those with actual organised warfare experience. The SANDF are shadow of their former selves (the SADF), mostly only good for half assed attempts at supporting with humanitarian issues and failing at peace keeping in Africa. They are totally in control of the ANC and will never stage a coup unless it moves along tribal lines. There are certainly strong and skilled patriots in the SANDF, but they are the exception rather than the rule. They could very easily become jackboots for the regime if it felt threatened. You may see some breakaway militias if that happened, but they would be very small and ill-equipped.

In reply to by Cman5000

Exalt Capn Mike Sun, 06/11/2017 - 06:04 Permalink

Well communism is a form of collectivism and so is African cultural tribalism. So it comes natural to those with limited academic experience and provides all the right kind of talk that makes the speaker sound intellectual. Add in the that collectivism promotes redistribution and the fact that most of Africa is destitute and illiterate, well it's a match made in hell, to be honest.

In reply to by Capn Mike

HRH Feant2 Sat, 06/10/2017 - 20:07 Permalink

Niggers cannot run anything unless they have a kingman at the top exploiting everyone else. That is what happened to South Africa. It is one more African shithole run by niggers for the profit of a few special niggers.

South Africa is one more example of how the ideals of communism exploit the many so a few can profit at their expense.

PUNCHY HRH Feant2 Sun, 06/11/2017 - 01:09 Permalink

To the point and accurate assesment of the shit hole that South Africa has devolved into since 1994. Add to this cesspool of lying and corruption you have the state-condoned (nay ENCOURAGED) looting of the fiscus by the Gupta Brothers/ANC inner circle ala the rest of Africa and what we are looking at is the old re-run movie of Afro Liberation, this movie has been played over and over and always ends in the same way: A COMPLETE EFFING DISASTER!Moody's got it right, on Friday they just downgraded this nasty little ANC pile of garbage, sitting on the southern tip of Africa to JUNK status. Its correct place in the modern world actually.MONEY talks!

In reply to by HRH Feant2

omniversling Sat, 06/10/2017 - 20:15 Permalink

Reality check for remnant 'western democracies/republics': Simon Roche - Suidlanders: Preparing for Disaster in South Africa Suidlanders: Prepping for Revoluton South African Needs To Watch This - Scenario Expert Discusses South Africa's Future Smith - The Real Story of South Africa

UselessEater omniversling Sat, 06/10/2017 - 20:50 Permalink

Simon Roche is a double agent. We saw this type of animal before in Rhodesia. Be very careful quoting him or referencing him. He was so high up in the ANC he oversaw inaugurations of Mbeki and Zuma......then to switch to the suidlanders as a white defender??????? That is just perfect, if you want to make strong people despondent and weak and useless. His entire plan is stupid. Anyone advocating him is ignorant. Rhodesia did not lose the Bush War...white in southern africa are not stupid. Simon Roche has terrible plans and now pretends to follow a prophesy of a white Boer man he despised.He is ruining the reputation of South African whites by his duplicity, do not give him any money.…

In reply to by omniversling

BlussMann Shahna Sat, 06/10/2017 - 21:02 Permalink

Nations have won wars militarily and been sold out to defeat. WWI Germany is a prime example. Rhodesia was not defeated by the Bush Apes – the sell out South African government and the English, eg, Ian Smith, did their usual treachery and sold the White’s out in Rhodesia. Smith was made a deal by the Americunts that they would let him keep his farm and be unmolested if he would agree to the surrender. Typically English, he did.

In reply to by Shahna