History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
This strikes me as an interesting and important development. I have thought all along that it was not only possible but acceptable for other nation states and their leaders to choose to oppose American foreign policy, including, maybe even especially, the war in Iraq. Other countries are allowed to have their own interests, their own standards for judging foreign policy, their own beliefs about America. I do not even have an aversion to using strong terms to condemn American action. What I cannot deal with, however, is when leaders of France or Germany go so far beyond the pale as to compare our president (someone for whom I hardly qualify as a supporter) to Nazis or to Hitler, especially when, come to find out, these countries have serious blood on their hands from the Saddam years.
I've made it clear in the past how much respect and admiration I have for Nelson Mandela, and while I disagreed with how ardently he made the case against the Iraq war, I also believed that it is important for Africa to be able, for once, to steer its own course. And as Africa does so, South Africa will almost certainly be first among equals. Further, Mandela has earned the right to speak and to be taken seriously. But more importantly, it is vital to understand that Mandela realizes that there is a longer view in foreign relations, that whatever comes of the Iraq issue, it is vital for America and South Africa to understand that we are allies. We are not equal allies, of course, and Mandela pretty clearly recognizes that power imbalance when he says"The United States is the most powerful state in the world and it is not good to remain in tension with the most powerful state." But we are allies, and it is an alliance worth protecting, especially if the future in Iraq will involve the involvement of more countries than the Coalition of the Willing. If anyone understands the importance and power of reconciliation, it is Nelson Mandela.
One wonders if the French, Germans, and Russians are listening.
To justify or deny the crimes of others by reference to the crimes of their accuser, even if the latter is actually guilty, is always dismissed as a valid argument, at the least, among educated folks.
Therefore, your bad-Mandela - good-Bush argument is nothing but a sick joke.
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/26/2004
Bill --
Yes, I am emotionally fettered to this topic. What that has to do with anything is beyond me, and how you, of all people, can set yourself up as a paradigm of rational discussion is beyond me. Further, you, who told someone in a discussion the other day that he should not have the right to type the word "marine" probably do not have the right to start whining on and on about tone and argumentation.
I am utterly amazed that you would make one statement of Nelson Mandela's that he made out of office in the twilight of his life the most important reflection of his status in global history. More important than his principled years in prison, his role in the negotiations, his role as president in one of the most important political transformations in modern history, the job he did as president, his role in reconciliation, his role as a peacekeeper in numerous crises across Africa, and the list goes on. Instead, for you, one ill-founded, wrong statement in a specific context erases a whole lifetime of struggles for justice.
I also find it bizarre that for all of your vitriol towards those communist countries you do not acknowledge one simple fact -- when it came to South Africa, when it came to Mandela's freedom, when it came to the freedom of his people, those countries were right. Should "we" have given all of those countries a pass? No. Nor has South Africa. Nor has Mandela. But the difference is, mandela has been loyal to Castro and Khaddafi, you don't like it; we've been loyal to Pinochet and it ruffles nary a feather. Apparently you do not understand that sometimes you deal with bad guys in global politics. Hint: even we allied with Stalin during WWII.
I have not "said" I am a teacher. I am a teacher. But if my students came forth with Stalinist claptrap, for example, we're not going to spend a lot of time apologizing for the Great Terror. Similarly, I'm going to call anyone out whose words come straight from the Ian Smith/Broederbond handbook, because the arguments you have made do sound just like things I've heard too often before.
None of my opinions are sacrosanct. But unreasonable, and factually incorrect ones are. You were wrong on mandela and Mugabe; You are wrong on AIDS; you overstate the US contribution to South Africa's recent past and understate the deleterious effect of policies in the 1980s. You are the one with the misconceptions and poorly understood realities. I know South Africa better than you, and yet whenever I marshal facts, such as quotations, you change the argument and then pretend that you are the offended one.
Sounds like I just got an "I'm taking my ball and going home" sort of statement with the "good luck with the blog" comment. Too bad you're so delicate, Bill. We have three smart guys here, including a military historian you could learn from. Fact is, you step in here, think you know more about Africa than Africanists, change your argument as it suits your mood, go off on your own hypocritical tirades (bonus points for trying to emphasize mandela's perceived hypocrisy, which, by the way I do not see.) about standards of discussion even after some of the truly awful things you've said to people, and then cry like a schoolgirl when you realize that not all arguments are equally valid. Pity. It would have been nice to have you along. We'll thrive without you. Either way is fine with me. The whole point of the blog is that this would sometimes get down and dirty. Now that we have, you are slinking off cravenly into the darkness. Pitiful, really. Especially since you apparently did not even get the gist of my argument in the original post.
dc
Bill Heuisler -
5/26/2004
Derek,
Enough. You're too emotionally fettered to this subject.
For instance, you wrote, "Why is Mandela held to higher standards than Reagan?" Thereby missing the point again.
Why, Derek? Well, because Reagan never accused an ally of atrocities and holocausts. Because Reagan never held his hand out for money, got more than expected, complained it wasn't enough and then insulted the giver.
Then you make the ridiculous comment, "Castro supported the antiapartheid campaign. Khaddafi supported the anti-apartheid campaign." As though that simple litmus test indicated anything except opposition to US ally, Botha's South Africa. Recall how the USSR, Sudan, Uganda, Haiti, Red China and other paragons of Human Rights also opposed apartheid. Should we have given all these countries run by butchers and tyrants a pass also because they opposed forced racial separation? Amin opposed Apartheid. Should we excuse his cannibalism. China killed girl-children. Did their anti-apartheid position make infanticide okay?
You also wrote, "...your arguments strike me as the same tired crap I hear from the "good old days" Afrikaners and the "when we" Zimbabwean/Rhodesians...".
Thanks. You've said you're a teacher. Your students have my sympathies if their inquiries and disagreements are met with similar suspicion, anger and accusation. I ask you for explanation of perceived hypocrisy and you accuse me of racism and stupidity. Discussion is based on common courtesy and commonly understood realities, but poorly defended realities crumble, and you decend to insult. If certain of your opinions are sacrosanct and off limits to questions then don't bring them up on your damned blog.
Last question: if this is the way you address friends, how do you address strangers?
Good luck on the blog.
Bill Heuisler
Tom Bruscino -
5/26/2004
As Derek says, Mandela's Don King-inspired turnaround (I love America)is an interesting and important development. There can be no doubt that Mandela made some ridiculous comments in the lead-up to the Iraq war, but in the greater scheme of things those words mean very little if Mandela's latest actions lead South Africa and the United States to a closer relationship. At the end of the day, I would much rather have Mandela, or Villepan or Schroeder for that matter, using inflamed rhetoric against the United States than supporting terrorists in killing Americans. The Saudi Arabian government says lots of nice things, then funds terrorists. Letting the Saudis get away with that (which, by the way, makes me sick to my stomach) and then taking Mandela and South Africa to task just for a dumb statement or two, seems to me to be missing the point just a tiny little bit. Mandela is extremely important and his words do matter, but we've got much bigger battles to fight--especially now that Mandela is offering friendship.
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/26/2004
Bill --
I don't know what to do when dealing with someone as wrong on the facts as you are, but then who claims the facts are on his side. Bill -- you are perhaps the last to call others out for name calling, but since an even rudimentary reading of my post would indicate that I did not name call either, I'm not sure what we are arguing about.
My use of year 2001 quotations was not in response to what he said about the US in 2003, it was in response to your comment that he had said nothing about Mugabe. You were wrong on that point, and yet now you pretend that you were asking for quotations about some other matter. Disingenuousness or inability to follow the conversation Bill? Are you a liar, or just not that bright, in other words?
Further, the whole gist of my post was that he has in the last few days said conciliatory things toward the US. So which do you want to admit being wrong on -- that he has not spoken out against Mugabe, or that he has not backed away from his 2003 stance? I'd say "both" should be the answer, since you are wrong on each point.
Again, when it comes to AIDS, what on earth does Mandela have to do with Cunban AIDS policies? This makes absolutely no sense. "Mandela-buddy" is a cheap shot and it is wrong. or at least it is no more wrong or right than calling Saddam "Reagan-buddy." I am not sidestepping anything. I am saying that AIDS in southern Africa is the most salient public health issue in the world, and since the end of his term in office Mandela has been very strong on this issue. You took my "revered 85 year old man" comment wholly out of context -- my point, which you know, is that Mandela is in semi-retirement. He does not have a responsibility to address every issue on earth. So what that the SA AIDS campaign ("the" South Africa AIDS campaign?) gets US funding? Not as much as promised, and certainly the US isn't paying the lion's share of it, if that is what you mean. Bill, as far as "getting it" (and where you get off telling me about "getting it" in Africa I still am nopt certain) -- I still do not understand why Chad has become a litmus test, or what benefactors have to do with anything. mandela has worked in lots or ways to pursuade Khaddafi to change. But if he failed in Chad, so what? So did most every other country in the world. Why does this burden fall on Mandela's back any more than on America's? Is Mandela somehow responsible for what goes on in all of Africa? is it really his burden to focus on what is going on in Chad and not in the most important trouble spots in the world? Is Mandela not allowed to be wrong, and yet other leaders, American leaders, are?
Leaders of sovereign nation states have the right to express their opinions. But what Mandela said was not as president of South Africa. So what is your point -- not only do leaders of nations not have rights to express their opposition to US policy (and let's not pretend that the history of US policy with regard to South Africa is exactly a good one) but private citizens do not either?
Bill, I don't exactly think you are winning on the facts -- what you are doing is changing the terms of the debate. As for why the US should care about what Mandela says, I would posit this: who do you think holds sway with African nations more, Nelson Mandela or George Bush? It would behoove Bush to listen to Mandela unless you really do not think that Africa is a potential source of terrorist instability in the future and that our good relations with them do not matter and if you do not think that Mandela can pave the way. But as important, you have yet to show why Mandela is a hypocrite, certainly why he is one any more than any American president, all of whom have turned their backs on atrocities that are worse than what happened in your incresingly bizarre example of Chad. Simply because he has publicly supported leaders who were right on South Africa when your leaders were wrong? Castro supported the antiapartheid campaign. Khaddafi supported the anti-apartheid campaign. It is nonsense to think that some emperical standard exists for which uncomfortable bedfellows a country is allowed to have given the US's record on these things. Sometimes it is necessary for the US to deal with unsavory figures; why is it that South Africa does not get the same option? Why is Mandela held to higher standards than Reagan?
So Bill, you defend Ian Smith, you condemn Mandela for sins that would not add up to a line on the dossier of any American president or indeed any world leader who does not have to deal with the world in all its complexities, you claim that Tutu has been active in "pushing out" Mugabe because he has spoken out but that Mandela has not tried to help push him out by similar speeches as well as by bringing what pressure he can to bear on Mbeki, and yet you recoil from having someone point out to you that you do not know what you are talking about and that your arguments strike me as the same tired crap I hear from the "good old days" Afrikaners and the "when we" Zimbabwean/Rhodesians. It is more and more clear that you do not know Southern Africa, your half assed smears of Mandela notwithstanding.
dc
Bill Heuisler -
5/26/2004
Derek,
"...revealed for what you are." What are you saying? Have you again fallen back on the hoary refuge of the frantic? When bested in discussion some folks often yell racist when a black man or issue is involved. And, Derek, you've implied racism often over the last two years. Take note: Name-calling exhibits emptiness, not erudition.
Recent silence is not the argument, recent insult is. Mandela accused the US of "atrocities" and promoting a "holocaust" in early 2003. But you defend him by citing quotes chiding his tyrant cronies in 2000 - in very mild terms, you admit. So, your time-line's moot isn't it?
You side-step the AIDS atrocities of Mandela-buddy Fidel Castro by bringing up AIDS in SA, never mentioning that the SA AIDS campaign is largely funded by the US. But the US gets small thanks from your revered "85 year old man" (as if age had anything to do with anything unless you're trying to make excuses for his hypocrisy). You don't get arguments about Chad because you're not trying. Mandela hasn't criticized Quadafi about the atrocities in Chad he's committed (according to AI). He doesn't criticize buddies about real atrocities, but he often publicly criticizes his largest benefactor. Get it now?
No? Okay. You wrote, (Mandela) "...consistently poushed against Mugabe." Wrong. He's never poushed; Tutu has, but not Mandela. Your quotes don't even support your claims.
Would you please answer why the US should care one little bit what a South African hypocrite ex-president now says about an ally whom he's grossly insulted in the past two years? Two years, Derek. And please try to answer in a few brief sentences; it's often amusing how Liberals try to drown opponents in words when facts won't wash.
Your strident, unsophisticated, daft, racist pal, Bill
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/26/2004
Now who's missing the point. Yes, you said "ex-President Mandela." And then you condemned him for not taking actions on current issues. learn tenbses Bill, it'll help make you a more effective, and I daresay less strident communicator.
I still do not get the argument about Chad. I am assuming that you then think that mandela has/had a responsibility as President of South Africa to immerse himself in every atrocity on the continent? You might be aware that during his four years as President of South Africa, he had a few things to deal with, right? That the end of apartheid was only the beginning of a huge process that will take decades to overcome. That he had to deal with providing housing, electricity, water, and other service delivery to millions of homes and that he had to help the country on the process of reconciliation the likes of which most countries have never faced. You hold Mandela to a standard imnpossibly high and then condemn him for not meeting it, a standard he nor any South Africans set for themselves. See Tom's recent post above mine for a solid argument on judging leaders on impossibly high standards.
Um, Mandela does practice precisely that advice, about praising friends publicly and condemining or prodding priuvately. If you think Khaddafi's coming around in the last decade has nothing to do with Mandela's prodding, you may not be paying attention.
The quotes are four years old. Oh, Bill, you are a piece of work. You said that Mandela had and has been silent. Now that you have been shown to be demonstrably wrong, you change the bar -- now you want to claim that mandela has not said enough recently. Again, Mandela is not the President of South Africa now. I came up with two statements in direct contradiction to your factually wrong statement. Now somehow the burden is on me to show more? Sorry. You have been shown to be wrong. mandela has consistently poushed against Mugabe. That you do not know that weakens your argument. Don't now try to change the terms of the debate just because you were wrong.
Wait, now you are criticizing mandela for not acting on AIDS in Cuba? Are you nuts? AIDS is the biggest problem facing southern Africa, and it is one that in his presidency he did not address as well as he should (see: the other things on the plate argument) but since his presidency he has been an ardent spokesman for it, including chiding Mbeki often for his lackl of leadership and taking ahdns on involvement in a lot of forums. To say that mandela fails on AIDS because he is dealing with the infection rates in Africa but not in CVuba, why, that might be the dumbest thing you've ever said. And that is a pretty estimable list.
Bill, while I admire your criticizing me for lack of complexity here, it is you who are failing the sophistication test. There may be lots of areas where you can patronize me. Southern Africa is not one of them. Your critique did not have "levels." mandela is no more a hypocrite than any other world leader who has to juggle issues is. once again, you overlook who Mandela's allies were when the US was not acting. You expect him to turn his back on tjhose who supported the liberation struggle while you ignore the ugly bedfellows Americans have had over the years. Further, Bill, are you so daft as to not get the gist of my post? Mandela is making conciliatory gestures. This is a good thing. You've consistently shown your self to be opposed to black control of southern Africa. You've managed in two posts to show an utter ignorance of southern African policy and certainly of chronology. You claim silence by Mandela and then when shown to be clearly wrong say that you mean "recent silence" from an 85 year old man recedoing from public life. Not eneough people here care about Africa to post in response to your absurd assertions here, but i think you've been revealed for what you are.
dc
Bill Heuisler -
5/25/2004
Derek,
You miss the point with even more panache than usual.
First, your snide comments. In my fourth sentence I said "ex-President Mandela. Also, everyone knows Chad is south of Libya and is being victimized by its northern neighbor. Most also know Mandela has been friendly to Quadafi (who's the leader of Libya). So thanks for the sneers, but they're gratuitous and pointless.
Second, the point: Mandela indicts the US for atrocities while ignoring the atrocities of his friends. Your Mugabe-Mandela quotes are four years old. Your article addresses the present. You said it, "Seems smart to praise ones friends publicly and to deal with their evils privately". Exactly so. Why doesn't Mandela practise your advice? That's the point, Derek.
Third, the AIDS death camps are in Castro's Cuba - Castro is another long-term friend of Mandela. Same point.
Sorry my critique of Mandela addressed multiple issues on more than one level. I shouldn't have assumed you'd grasp a complex point on the first reading. So, read the post again, hang up your stuffed shirt and tell me why Nelson Mandela is not a hypocrite where the US is concerned.
Bill
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/25/2004
Bill --
Once again you reveal an utter ignortance of what Mandela actually stands for. Mandela was always (post 94) the counterbalance to Mugabe in southern Africa. This is why Mugabe has gone off the deep end since 1999. Because it is Mbeki who has allowed himself to be played by this concept of African unity, of panAfricanism, not Mandela. He has been vocal about wishing Mbeki would do more, but here is a newsflash for you, Mandela is no longer president of South Africa.
As for Mandela's ties with Libya and Cuba, here is another newsflash: Mandela has remained loyal to those who supported the anti-apartheid movement. While it might be a nice fantasy world to see people in simple terms of evil and good, from the South African majority's vantage point, Khaddafi and Castro were on the right side -- indeed, forget from that vantage point -- from any vantage point, on the issue of Southern Africa they were right. Just as Americans have often coddled dictators (Saddam Hussein says "hi" to Mr. Reagan! So, for that matter, does PW Botha.) because it served our self interest, so too has Mandela. Does this mean we have to make any sort of stand for Khaddafii? No. As Americans we might well have different interests. And we have a right to pursue those interests. But that does not mean that Mandela has to walk in lockstep.
What, precisely, is an AIDS death camp? Mandela was slow to react on AIDS. Who has not been? Including the west, and including the US, which thus far has promised a great deal in anti-AIDS support and has funded almost none of it. No one's hands are clean on AIDS, or need I remind you of the fact that Mandela was arguing for knockoff drugs to help his people while the Americans were too busy protecting the bottom line. And what do Chadhian refugees have to do with Mandela? Are you aware of where Chad is in relation to South Africa? And are you aware that Mandela has in fact pushed Khaddafi to moderate his regime, to change, to soften? But he does not always play his politics in the public eye. Seems smart to praise ones friends publicly and to deal with their evils privately. Better that than to call someone out as evil and then either work with them anyway or else to ignore them.
Again, on Mugabe, Mandela was not silent. He never has been. That you do not know does not mean he did now speak out. To wit, "I would have wished that somebody would talk to him (Mugabe) to say: 'Look, you have been in office for 20 years. It's time to step down.'" This came in an interview with a South African newspaper and was reported by the Movement for Democratic Change in October 2000. Or how about this: On 12 May 2000 Mandela said that while he fully supported President Thabo Mbeki's diplomatic approach to the crisis (in Zimbabwe), "the masses don't have to follow that route".
Without mentioning Mugabe by name, Mandela decried former liberation leaders who "despise the people who put them in power and want to stay in power forever".
"They want to die in power because they have committed crimes. The tyrant of the day can be destroyed by you and I am confident that it can be done," said Mandela. He said that while Mbeki had to be diplomatic, "we have to be ruthless in denouncing such leaders".
Asked whether or not he was referring to Mugabe, he said: "Everybody knows very well who I am talking about. If you don't know who I am talking about, there is no point in telling you." Immediately after Mr. Mandela's remarks, Parks Mankhahlana, Mr. Mbeki's spokesman, said: "That is Mr. Mandela's view. Mr. Mbeki has explained his position." That's just two examples in a two week span. I could go on. But you said "silence." two examples is enough to blow that out of the water. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is not especially becoming.
So if by "Mandela is silent" you mean "Mandela is not silent" then you are right. You are the first one to bitch if a former president steps in and says things you deem inappropriate about a sitting president (or at least about Bush), and yet you do not allow African leaders the same expectations. Mandela has consistently believed that Mugabe should step down and has since his own presidency. Once again you show that you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to sub-Saharan Africa, Bill. Stick to Iraq and US military stuff. You don't embarrass yourself there. Usually.
dc
Bill Heuisler -
5/25/2004
Derek,
Mandela's words haven't reflected reality for years; why should we take him seriously? Nelson Mandela deserves respect for his principled resistance and for his 26 years on Robben Island. True, he's universally venerated, but lately seems to enjoy safely slapping a friend while ignoring tyrants closer to home.
Speaking at the International Woman's Forum last year, the ex-South African President said, "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America". He gave no examples, but was supposedly referring to Iraq.
Atrocities? What about the nearby people of Zimbabwe under his friend Robert Mugabe? The breadbasket of Africa starves, whites are killed or driven out, elections are stolen and opponents are murdered. Atrocities? What about South Africa's close ties with Quadafi's Libya and with Castro's Cuba. Do starving refugees from Chad's war with Libya qualify? Are AIDS death camps atrocities? How can he (anyone) defend his words and his lack of judgement?
Thabo Mbeki, Olusegun Obasanjo and Bakili Muluzi went to Harare last year and stood by Mugabe as he announced his legitimacy in a press conference. Mandela was silent.
Bishop Tutu condemns Mugabe regularly. Mandela is silent.
Why should the US care a whit what Nelson Mandela says to Don King - or anyone else - until he shows consistancy?
Bill Heuisler
