Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, AUGUST 6, 1986
PAGE 17
either follow the lead of the ideologues, or are arm-twisted the other
way by President Reagan.
"By now," editorialized the July 23 WALL
STREET JOURNAL, "Congress couldn't care less about the merits of
sanctions. Congressmen just want to vote the measures and be done with
having to discuss the subject."
(Senator Biden was asked by Mr.
Shultz, incidentally, for his comments about Bishop Desmond Tutu's
reaction to President Reagan's address.
Bishop Tutu had said the
speech was "nauseating," "stupid" and "utterly racist." He said twice
that the West "can go to h__". Senator Biden replied, "I'm amazed
that Bishop Tutu was as restrained as he was."
Prime Minister Thatcher is, if anything, in even a worse predicament.
She is caught between vociferous demands for sanctions on the part of
the 49-member Commonwealth and apparent pressure from Buckingham Palace
that her opposition to them could cause the Commonwealth to break up.
Queen Elizabeth II is known to be on close terms with many heads-of
state of former British colonies, now independent Commonwealth members.
Backing up their demands, 31 of the 58 Commonwealth member states and
territories pulled out of the Commonwealth Games, the quadrennial track
and field mini-Olympics that took place this year in Edinburgh,
Scotland, beginning July 24.
Through it all, Mrs. Thatcher has held firm. Outlining her opposition
to punitive actions in newspaper interviews, the prime minister said
that she could not understand the morality of throwing hundreds of
thousands of people, mostly black, out of work.
She touched on the
irony of saving people from starvation in one part of Africa, Ethiopia,
while sending others to the brink of starvation in another part. (Some
of Africa's leaders, and those in South Africa, maintain that their
people are willing to sacrifice their jobs and lives for "liberation.")
G et emotions are running so high over the sanctions issue that the
ivelihood -- and lives -- of millions of people appear to be of
econdary importance. The idea of a power-sharing formula as advocated
by President Botha and many well-meaning whites in South Africa will
not be accepted by the world, and for one concrete but highly sensitive
reason, as analyzed by Bruce Anderson in the July 10 TIMES of London:
The whites' desire for power-sharing is an expression of their
distrust of the blacks. Which of course it is. The whites fear
that one man, one vote in a unitary state, without safeguards,
would lead to exactly the same outcome as in the rest of Africa--a
one-party state, the squandering of the country's capital stock,
the destruction of their way of life and their hopes for their
children's future. They also believe that such developments would
be profoundly contrary to the interests of most blacks.
It is
hardly surprising that blacks find these fears deeply insulting.
As they see it they have been deprived not only of political
rights in their own country, but of human dignity •••• There is no
doubting the sincerity of the wish of many black leaders for a
colour-blind future in which all races would indeed share power by
the simple act of voting together. However, given the history of
modern Africa, it is hardly surprising that the whites are
unimpressed, and see sincerity as naivety.
Beyond a certain