South Africa polishes its foreign reputation
One day, our government’s tolerance for autocratic and downright tyrannical leaders is going to come back and bite us, hard. One day, our foreign policy, too often motivated by simplistic antipathy towards America in particular and the liberal Western democracies in general, is going to hurt our national interests badly. It could be simple racism, but more likely, there’s a deeper psychological trauma in evidence here. Understandable though this resentment might be, it isn’t pretty, and it isn’t good for our country.
This essay by James Kirchick, first published in Azure, a Jewish publication, was picked up by the influential Wall Street Journal editorial pages. Excerpt:
That Mr. Mandela has comported himself so comfortably with dictators is more than hypocritical–it is a betrayal of the principles for which he languished twenty-seven years in prison. Yet while Mr. Mandela’s grandstanding with tyrants is regrettable, it has been far less serious than his ANC successors’ strategic and systematic support for a broadly anti-Western agenda.
Even if one takes it whence it comes and assumes only half of it is true, it sure appears we’re on the wrong side of many major issues. I’m not sure this image of our new democracy is one we ought to cultivate.
The wrong side of what major issues, exactly? The war on Iraq, for instance?
I agree that our government is unprincipled in its foreign policy, much like the governments of the US and the UK, who are also cosy with dictators - just not necessarily the same ones.
Where it matters, on the economy, our government has towed the line slavishly, to the detriment of our citizens, who’ve seen a massive rise in unemployment since the end of apartheid, despite decent growth rates in the economy.
If you’d actually read the article, you’d know: the wrong side of the Burma issue, the wrong side of the Zimbabwe issue, the wrong side of the Iran issue and yes, the wrong side of the Iraq issue. We didn’t only oppose the war (which is our prerogative), but we actively stated our support for and solidarity with Saddam Hussein. That’s perverse, for a country that prides itself on liberty, democracy and human rights.
Now where’s the data that shows your “massive rise” in unemployment? It’s not true just because you believe it, or just because you say so. Last time I checked unemployment has declined from 30% to 25% during the Mbeki presidency.
And where’s the data that shows our relatively liberal, market-friendly economic policy (which is what I assume you mean by “toed the line slavishly”) has been “to the detriment of our citizens”? You can’t just make such a claim without backing it up. Do you have statistics that show people are worse off now than they were in 1994? Last time I checked, the trend has been one of lower numbers of poor people, a growing middle class, and higher income levels all-round.
That said, I’ve long held that our growth rates are not “decent” at all. Our government has been at best reluctant in embracing free market, and has been very limited in relinquishing its stifling control over the economy. That’s why we have crisis after crisis at state-owned, -run or -protected monopolies such as Telkom, Eskom, PetroSA, Transnet, SAA, and so on.
Our unemployment is structural, not cyclical. It is caused by labour inflexibility, costly regulatory burdens, and other factors that discourage job creation in the economy. It is also caused by a growth rate that is nowhere near “decent”. 10% or 12% would be “decent”. A mere 3% to 5%, probably overstated, in a booming global economy, from a low base, in an emerging economy with underutilised human resources, is pathetic. If our unemployment isn’t as low as it should be, it’s because markets aren’t sufficiently free. Not because our government “slavishly toes (sic) the line” on economic policy.