Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:22:27.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States containment policy, South Africa and the apartheid dilemma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Paul Rich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the early 1970s, South Africa has become an increasingly important issue within US foreign policy after a long period of benign neglect. For a considerable part of the post-war period, US decision-makers felt it possible to avoid a direct confrontation with the moral and ethical issues involved in the South African government's policy of apartheid; the relative geographical isolation of the country from many central theatres of East–West conflict in central Europe, the Middle East and South East Asia ensured that South Africa was not in the front line of strategically vital states. Furthermore, South Africa's membership of the Commonwealth until 1960 meant that, for many US policy makers, South Africa could be seen as an issue within Commonwealth relations and thus not one for direct US involvement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 179 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Noer, Thomas J., Cold War and Black Liberation (Columbia, 1985), pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

2. Biermann, Werner, ‘US Policy Towards Southern Africa in the Framework of Global Empire’, Review of African Political Economy, 17 (1980), pp. 28–42;Google ScholarFatton, Robert, ‘The Reagan Foreign Policy Toward South Africa: The Ideology of the New Cold War’, African Studies Review, 27 (1984), pp. 57–82.Google Scholar

3. Memorandum by the Director of the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs (Raynor) to Arneson, R. Gordon, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State (marked ‘confidential’) 18 07 1952 in Slanz, William Z. (ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, volume XI (Washington, DC, 1983), p. 924.Google Scholar

4. Memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Perkins) to the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs (Berry) (marked ‘restricted’) 10 04 1952 in Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, p. 907.Google Scholar

5. Report by the Ambassador in the Union of South Africa (Gallman) to the Department of State (marked ‘confidential’) 2 03 1953 in Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, p. 989.Google Scholar

6. Ovendale, Ritchie, ‘The South African Policy of the British Labour Government, 1947–51’, International Affairs, 1 (1982/1983) and Noer, op. cit., p. 32.Google Scholar

7. Report by the Ambassador in the Union of South Africa, 2 03 1953 in Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, p. 988.Google Scholar By contrast the State Department's roving ambassador George McGhee had earlier thought Malan inflexible on a visit to South Africa in March 1950. McGhee, George, Envoy to the Middle World (New York, 1983), p. 150.Google Scholar

8. Memorandum by Musedorah Thoreson at the Office of British Commonwealth and Northern European Affairs (marked ‘secret’) 16 09 1952, in Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, p. 934.Google Scholar

9. Vincent, R. J., ‘Race in International Relations’, International Affairs, 58, 4 (1982), pp. 658–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a view stressing the higher profile of race see Drake, St Clair, ‘The International Implications of Race and Race Relations’, Journal of Negro Education, XX (1951), pp. 260–278.Google Scholar

10. Roark, James L., ‘American Black Leaders: The Response to Colonialism and the Cold War, 1943–1953’, African Historical Studies, 4 (1971), pp. 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also White, Philip V., ‘The Black American Constituency for Southern Africa, 1948–1980’, Hero, Alfred O. Jr and Barratt, John (eds.), The American People and South Africa (Lexington, Mass., 1981), pp. 83–89.Google Scholar

11. Mahoney, Richard, J.F.K.: Ordeal in Africa (New York, 1984).Google Scholar

12. Noer, op. cit., pp. 89–93, 118–20. In the event it was the liberal Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles who was fired in November 1962. See also Mahoney, op. cit., p. 189.

13. Rivkin, Arnold, ‘Lost Goals in Africa’, Foreign Affairs, 44, 1 (1965), p. 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Mayall, James, Africa: The Cold WarandAfter (London, 1971)Google Scholar; Guelke, Adrian, ‘Southern Africa and the Superpowers’, International Affairs, 56, 4 (1980), pp. 650–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Holland, R. F., European Decolonisation, 1918–1981 (London, 1985), p. 56.Google Scholar

16. Noer, op. cit., pp. 193–200.

17. Watt, D. C., ‘America and the British Foreign Policy-Making Elite, from Joseph Chamberlain to Anthony Eden, 1895–1956’ Personalities and Policies (London, 1965), p. 50.Google Scholar

18. Though it is hard to accept that US policy was centrally motivated by access to South Africa's strategic minerals, they were clearly of some importance. See Cotman, John Walton, ‘South Africa's Strategic Minerals and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1961–1968’, The Review of Black Political Economy, 8 (Spring 1978), pp. 277–301.Google Scholar

19. See, for example, Grundy, Kenneth, ‘Intermediate Power and Global Dependency: The Case of South Africa’, International Studies Quarterly, 20, 4 (1976), pp. 553–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ehrensaft, Philip, ‘Polarised Accumulation and the Theory of Economic Dependence: The Implications of South African Semi-Industrial Capitalism’, Arthmid, Peter C. W. and Wallerstein, Immanuel (eds.), The Political Economy of Africa (Beverley Hills/London, 1976), pp. 58–89.Google Scholar

20. Robinson, Ronald, ‘The Excentric Idea of Imperialism, With or Without Empire’, Wolfgang J. Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhammel, Imperialism and After: Continuities and Discontinuities (London, 1986), pp. 268–289.Google Scholar

21. Rich, Paul B., ‘Britain, Decolonisation and South Africa, 1939–1953’, Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the British International Studies Association, University of Bristol, 18–2012 1985.Google Scholar

22. Hyam, Ronald, ‘The Geopolitical Origins of the Central African Federation: Britain, Rhodesia and South Africa, 1948–1953’, The Historical Journal, 30, 1 (1987), pp. 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. See Colin, and Legum, Margaret, South Africa: Crisis for the West (London, 1964)Google Scholar. In arguing for a strategy of international sanctions, the authors despaired of an internal political transformation, for the country's ‘deadlock cannot be resolved without the introduction of a catalyst from outside. There is no solution to be found in the internal political forces. In the absence of quick and effective international intervention, South Africa's bitterness can only spread its poison throughout the continent and involve the world in a twentieth century race war.’ (p. 27)

24. Lake, Anthony, The ‘Tar Baby’ Option: American Policy Toward Southern Rhodesia (New York, 1973), pp. 124–130.Google Scholar The National Security Council Memorandum is printed in Cohen, Barry and El-Kahawas, Mohamed A (eds.), The Kissinger Study of Southern Africa (London, 1975)Google Scholar. See also Lockwood, Edgar, ‘National Security Study Memorandum 39 and the Future of United States Policy Toward Southern Africa’, Issue, 4 (Fall 1974), pp. 63–70.Google Scholar

25. This suggestion of continuing Africanist influence in the State Department is made by Ovendale, Ritchie, ‘The United States and Southern Africa: An Evolving Foreign Policy’, Interstate (1976–1977), pp. 26–36.Google Scholar Curiously, though, those who argued for a strong line of isolation and increased pressure on South Africa are termed ‘hawks’ and those emphasizing the possibilities of economic and social pressure to bring change are termed ‘doves’ (p. 30). With the departure of Kissinger in 1973 from the White House to the State Department, argues Ovendale, the Department was able to seize on a vacuum in policy and undermine the NSC's strategy based on Option Two. He does not cite any evidence in support of this contention (p. 32).

26. For the weakness of the ANC in exile in the 1960s see Johns, Sheridan, ‘Obstacles to Guerrilla Warfare—a South African Case Study’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, II, 2 (06 1973), pp. 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Spence, J. E., Republic Under Pressure (London, 1965).Google Scholar

28. Stockwell, John, In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story (New York, 1978), p. 187Google Scholar; Bender, Gerald, ‘Kissinger in Angola: Anatomy of Failure’, Lemarchand, Rene (ed.), American Policy in Southern Africa (Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 63–143Google Scholar; Wolfers, Michael and Bergerol, Jane, Angola in the Front Line (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Davis, Nathaniel, ‘The Angola Decision of 1975: A Personal Memoir’, Foreign Affairs, Fall 1978, pp. 109–24.Google Scholar

29. Stockwell, op. cit., p. 219.

30. Ibid., p. 180.

31. Ibid., p. 153.

32. Coker, Christopher, ‘Retreat into the Future: The United States, South Africa and Human Rights, 1976–78’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 18, 3 (1980), pp. 509–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Price, Robert M., U.S. Foreign Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa: National Interest and Global Strategy (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 1–5Google Scholar for the vacillations in the Carter administration's policy.

33. Leonard, Richard, South Africa at War (Johannesburg, 1983).Google Scholar

34. Frankel, Philip H., Pretoria's Praetorians: Civil-Militrary Relations in South Africa (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 46–70.Google Scholar

35. Price, Robert M., ‘Pretoria's Southern African Strategy’, African Affairs, 83, 330 (1984), pp. 11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanlon, Joseph, Apartheid's Second Front (Harmondsworth, 1986).Google Scholar

36. Young, Andrew, ‘The United States and Africa: Victory for Diplomacy’, Foreign Affairs, 59, 3 (1980/1981), p. 662CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Bailey, Christopher, ‘President Reagan, the U.S. Senate and American Foreign Policy, 1981–86’, paper presented to the Annual Conference of the American Politics Group, Birkbeck College, London, 3–501 1987.Google Scholar For a general overview of the strategic arguments at this time see Bowman, Larry W., ‘The Strategic Importance of South Africa to the United States: An Appraisal and Policy Analysis’, African Affairs, 81, 323 (04 1982), pp. 159–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Samuels, Michael A., et aL, Implications of Soviet and Cuban Activities in Africa for U.S. Policy (Washington, DC, 1979), pp. 59–63Google Scholar; see also Gann, L. H. and Duignan, Peter, Africa South of the Sahara (Stanford, 1981), pp. 48–71, 85–104.Google Scholar

38. Crocker, Chester A., ‘South Africa: Strategy for Change’, Foreign Affairs, 59 (1980), p. 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Crocker, Chester A., ‘African Policy in the 1980s’, Washington Quarterly (Summer 1980), pp. 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Ibid., p. 332. Such an accommodation with Afrikaner power was born of the realization that ‘the age of modernising autocracy is upon us, and its next step could be moved toward an executive presidential system patterned on Gaullist France’ (p. 337). For a similar Hobbesian view of internal South African political reform based on a near dispensation rooted in ‘Consociational democracy’ and a multi-ethnic system see Huntington, Samuel P., ‘Reform and Stability in a Modernising Multi-Ethnic Society’, Politikon, 8, 2 (1981), pp. 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. Nyerere, Julius K., ‘America and Southern Africa’, Foreign Affairs, 55, 4 (1977), p. 683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See, though, Foltz, William J., ‘United States Policy Toward Southern African Economic and Strategic Constraints’, Political Science Quarterly, 42, 1 (Spring 1977)Google Scholar as.a case for a middle position in US policy.

41. See J. Hanlon, op. cit., pp. 61–7 for details.

42. Minter, William, ‘Destructive Engagement: The United States and South Africa in the Reagan Era’, Johnson, Phyllis and Martin, David (eds.), Destructive Engagement (Harare, 1986), p. 298.Google Scholar

43. Hanlon, op. cit., pp. 42–53.

44. Brewer, John, After Soweto (Oxford, 1986), p. 15.Google Scholar

45. For the PCR and the Response from American Churches see Sincere, Richard E. Jr, The Politics of Sentiment: Chureches and Foreign Investment in South Africa (Washington, DC, 1984), pp. 47–74;Google ScholarDeats, Paul, ‘U.S. Religious Institutions and South Africa’, The American People and South Africa, pp. 103–121.Google Scholar

46. Metz, Steven, ‘The Anti Apartheid Movement and the Populist Instinct in American Polities’, The Political Science Quarterly, 101, 3 (1986), pp. 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Stultz, Nevell, ‘Sanctions, Models of Change and South Africa’, South Africa International, 13, 2 (1982), p. 123.Google Scholar

48. The Guardian, 15 September 1985.

49. ‘Strain on ‘Constructive Engagement’’, The Citizen, 24 06 1985Google Scholar; ‘Time Running Out for Crocker’, The Sunday Star, 21 07 1985Google Scholar; Sithole, Masipula, ‘Black Americans and United States Policy Towards Africa’, African Affairs, 85, 340 (07 1986), p. 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Christian Science Monitor, 6–12 October 1986.

51. Christian Science Monitor, 27 October–2 November 1986.

52. Christian Science Monitor, 30 March–5 April 1987.

53. Cokorinos, Lee and Mittelman, James H., ‘Reagan and the Pax Afrikaana’, The Journal of Modern African Studies, 23, 4 (1985), p. 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar