The Reagan Administration, though surefooted domestically, is now absorbing the awkward truth about international relations which continues to surprise many youthful governments--that criticizing foreign policy is easier than making it, that making it is easier than carrying it out, and that political honeymoons are of short and not always blissful duration. Nowhere has this syndrome been more pronounced than in the Administration's attempt to construct a new relationship with South Africa.
John de St. Jorre is a correspondent of the London Observer based in New York. He recently covered the elections in South Africa and visited Namibia. He is the author of A House Divided: South Africa's Uncertain Future and other books.
The Reagan Administration, though surefooted domestically, is now absorbing the awkward truth about international relations which continues to surprise many youthful governments-that criticizing foreign policy is easier than making it, that making it is easier than carrying it out, and that political honeymoons are of short and not always blissful duration. Nowhere has this syndrome been more pronounced than in the Administration's attempt to construct a new relationship with South Africa.
The policy is still in its infancy. But a series of missteps has introduced confusion and alarm where the intention was precisely the opposite. There have been off-the-cuff presidential statements suggesting that a much warmer relationship with a "friendly" South Africa, unqualified by any quid pro quo, is in the offing; embarrassing visits by senior South African military intelligence officials; interminable delays over the appointment of the Assistant Secretary of State responsible for Africa; much official shuttling between Pretoria and Washington with little apparent reward and less explanation; alarm signals ringing in African capitals and not always adroit attempts to silence them; and some tantalizing leaks compounding the confusion.
It is understandable that a new government wants to make a new start. Reagan's advisers on Africa felt that the Carter Administration's policy in the troubled southern part of the continent was simply not working. So, equally understandably, they devised a plan which they thought would protect all the United States' interests in that region but would lay particular emphasis on the Administration's determination to counter Soviet influence, the symphonic theme of President Reagan's foreign policy. The tactical thrust of the new approach would be the creation of a closer and more harmonious relationship with South Africa, without jeopardizing the United States' important interests in the rest of Africa. The plan, like many good blueprints, was thoughtful, sophisticated and eminently rational.1 Unfortunately, the target areas-South Africa but also its African opponents-have so far shown little inclination to take their appointed places in this tidy construct.
The basic premise of the Reagan Administration's new "tilt" toward South Africa, characterized as "constructive engagement," is that P.W. Botha's government represents a unique opportunity for change in the Republic.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
For a quarter-century, the goals of American policy toward South Africa have remained remarkably consistent, but that consistency has served to mask sharply contrasting perceptions of the nature and direction of change in that country's racial policies. U.S. policymakers--including those of the Reagan Administration--have deplored official South African racism, affirmed the American belief in government by the consent of the governed, predicted fundamental change, and prayed that it would come peacefully. But beyond such broad outlines, American analysts have differed sharply in their specific judgments regarding the effectiveness of white-led change in South Africa, and the importance of black opposition to white rule.
Examines the nature and extent of Botha's reforms, and their failure culminating in the 1986 state of emergency. Despite his policies to defeat or co-opt all opposition groups both black and white, the confrontation between government and anti-government forces is deepening. Traces how and why South Africa reached the top of the US and Western political agenda, which led to the end of Reagan's policy of constructive engagement and the failure of the Commonwealth's EPG, and the beginning of disengagement. The effects of sanctions and South Africa's policies towards the front-line states are polarizing the country and worsening the crisis throughout Southern Africa.
President Reagan's sweep of 49 of the 50 states in the November 1984 elections set in motion mutations within both the Republican and Democratic Parties that have substantially affected U.S. relations with Africa. The mushrooming of groups and individuals in the coalition known as the Free South Africa Movement is ascribed by its founder, TransAfrica's Randall Robinson, to a post-election assessment that a very daring gamble was the only hope of keeping anti-apartheid activism alive in the face of another four years of "constructive engagement." On another front, the congressional leaders of the shattered Democratic Party seized upon apartheid as the most promising issue for drawing Jesse Jackson's constituency and other blacks sidelined during the campaign back into the party's mainstream. The 35 Republican congressmen who dispatched a sharply worded letter of protest against Pretoria's racial policies to South African Ambassador B. G. Fourie in December 1984 were at least partially motivated by a new belief that it was historically and practically shortsighted for the Republicans to concede the black vote and the civil rights constituency as a given to the Democratic Party.
