News

Pro-Palestine Encampment Represents First Major Test for Harvard President Alan Garber

News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Condemns Antisemitism at U.S. Colleges Amid Encampment at Harvard

News

‘A Joke’: Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Harvard Should Spend More on Legacy of Slavery Initiative

News

Massachusetts ACLU Demands Harvard Reinstate PSC in Letter

News

LIVE UPDATES: Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

Reagan's Hypocrisy in S. Africa

By Sharmian L. White

LAST week, the South African government instituted a ban on the activities of 17 political protest groups, a move that the media has called one of the strictest measures ever imposed. The ban will hit the United Democratic Front--an umbrella organization which represents over 600 community groups and labor unions--the hardest.

Later that day, at a White House press conference, reporter Sam Donaldson asked President Reagan if he would consider sending support to the South African opposition, as he has done for the Nicaraguan contras. The President replied that he saw no reason to send aid to a country where such a wide variety of political positions exist.

Perhaps the President is completely ignorant of the situation in Nicaragua, believing that all Nicaraguans who do not support the Sandinistas are contras or contra sympathizers. More likely, the problem is that Reagan sees everything in terms of the bipolar struggle arena.

As the situation in South Africa becomes more and more desperate, one wonders if the only way to prompt American action would be for the South African government to accept Soviet aid. There certainly seems to be an odd correlation between Soviet interest in a government and the administration's discovery that the citizens are oppressed, dissatisfied and want U.S. intervention.

To date, under the successive declarations of a State of Emergency issued by the South African government since June of 1985, tens of thousands of Blacks have been arrested and detained--with many being tortured and killed in the process. The white regime has imprisoned more than 10,000 children, often without informing their parents, according to Amnesty International, which reports that hundreds of the young detainees have been tortured.

The implications of this are both staggering and sickening because of the importance of Black children for the future of a free South Africa. Apartheid must fall when Black children achieve a dignity and pride in their heritage and grow up to rightfully demand the privdleges of South African whites. The government's measures against children show a systematic campaign to prevent Black South Africans from ever challenging its rule. Only an evil, cowardly regime preys on children. Soweto proved this. But the U.S. administration still feels no obligation to intervene.

Even today, scholars and students sit and ponder how the Holocaust could have happened in a supposedly civilized world.

The comparison of South Africa with the Nazi regime is much closer than one might think--every South African prime minister since 1948, except one, was imprisoned during World War II for pro-Nazi sympathies. Not surprisingly, these South African leaders have continued their abuse of human rights.

Not only does the Reagan administration ignore the immorality of the South African government, it also ignores the political realities of the region. On August 12, 1986, Reagan stated, in South Africa you're talking about a country, yes, we disagree, and find repugnant some of the practices of their government, but they're not seeking to impose their government on other countries." Perhaps the President is ignorant of the eight-year-old occupation of Namibia by 100,000 South African troops. The occupation has been condemned by both the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

There are only so many conculsions that can be drawn to explain the administration's lack of action toward South Africa--especially in the face of its whole-hearted support for the Nicaraguan contras. One, the administration is ignorant of the facts. Two, the administration regards illegal foreign acts important only if they are committed by a communist government. Three, the administration approves of the system of apartheid. Any one of these conclusions is readily believeable, but not one of them is excusable. It is inconceivable that an administration that claims such a fervent commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy on the one hand could issue a mere slap on the wrist to a government that tortures schoolchildren.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags