As a long-time student of history and someone who followed the debates of the 1980s I have found the domestic discussions after Nelson Mandela’s passing both fascinating and worrying.
Much discussion has arisen as it inevitably would about Nelson Mandela’s connections to communists. As I wrote on Thursday, local government in Miami and Dade County (now Miami-Dade) failed to acknowledge and receive Mandela in 1990 because of his connections to communism and to Palestinian terrorists. Coverage since his death has been mixed among conservatives once again demonstrating that despite a globalized world, many Americans especially on the right continue to be tribal and narrow minded in their thinking.
A little perspective here if I may. This may be difficult for Americans who haven’t traveled or studied world affairs to truly grasp, but when you are a person of color (or look physically different/distinct as many Irish do) that has been exploited by western colonial powers, being a “communist” or “socialist” is almost a natural, perhaps somewhat knee-jerk reaction but still a natural reaction to what has transpired before you. Moreover, when former colonial powers have backed an oppressive white-minority government as the Americans and the British did in South Africa during the 1980s it becomes even easier to associate with socialists and communists.
Under the Labour Premiership of Harold Wilson in 1964 the United Kingdom took a strong stand against apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia. (It is important to note that in the 1960s unlike today, Labour was an openly socialist party) The anti-apartheid movement in Britain grew and South Africa was thrown out of the Commonwealth of nations. Britain, the former colonial master of South Africa who had stood by when Apartheid was initially erected was principled in its dissent to the system which had grown immeasurably since South Africa became an independent Republic.
However, in the 1980s with the United Kingdom run by Conservative Margaret Thatcher and having forfeited any semblance of an independent foreign policy to the United States run by the equally conservative Ronald Reagan, South Africa’s white minority government was seen as a linchpin against international communism. Thatcher was a violent anti-communist/socialist and her policies at home of trying to destroy unions and any other Labour backing coincided with the backing along with the USA of several right-wing juntas and religious theocracies abroad. Reagan has opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and just about every piece of Civil Rights legislation since. While some Republicans like Newt Gingrich felt the support for South Africa’s Apartheid regime was hurting the GOPs image, most Republicans in the 1980s saw fighting communism as a sole foreign policy ideology and attacked Jimmy Carter’s more humanist approach to American policy.
Regarding the Palestinians and Madela’s ties there, in the early 1980s Israel reversed its long-standing support for black South Africans under what must be assumed was intense US pressure. The Reagan Administrations short-sighted and frankly immoral stand towards much of the developing world created a whole generation of people in emerging nations that saw the United States, somewhat rightly as a successor to the oppressive European colonial regimes. Reagan’s advocacy of unfettered and unchecked capitalism that often exploited the poorest in the developing world and allowed some of these nation’s to become virtual economic colonies of the United States may have been what was best for the United States in terms of hard power, but reduced American prestige and soft power.
In the 1980s the Irish Republican Army (IRA) which boasted much support in the United States cultivated and nurtured some of the same forces Mandela did. The IRA aligned with communists, the KGB, Libya and the PLO. Yet in the United States, individual donations to the IRA continued and sympathy for the IRA among the Irish diaspora in the USA intensified even as the organization was conducting a campaign of terror against the ruling class in the UK. My view on the IRA is complicated and I don’t wish to get into it today but feel it is analogous to Mandela’s situation in South Africa.
Ultimately the question must be asked if humanism or Americanism is more important? For some defending human values comes first, while for others defending your countries policies regardless of consequence is more important. I can see things both ways, partly as an American but also partly because of my Indian Heritage. I believe the United States decisions in Foreign Policy such as the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Japan were justified (more on that later) while many American Cold War policies were simply immoral and neo-colonial.
During the Cold War the United States often acted with malice and small mindedness towards the developing world. Given the almost missionary zeal American policy makers and businesses have towards promoting their products in foreign countries, India’s decision to not align with the United States after Independence and seek global “non-alignment” (which was neutrality but in American eyes pro-Soviet) was the best decision the country has made since independence. The father of modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru was right to spurn development funds etc from the US and UK, because what happened is in multiple developing countries under American economic influence, coups were eventually organized to topple Democratically elected governments and install right-wing anti-Soviet dictatorships.
The colonial experience left scars in India to never be dependent on anyone outside of Indians. This in many ways is a conservative philosophy. Do not accept handouts and raise yourself up by your own work. However, American policy makers on the right felt this meant India was a Soviet satellite state for merely echoing the same rhetoric conservatives employed in the US. In time India moved towards the Soviet position internationally thanks in large measure to Richard Nixon’s dismissing of Indian ambitions and his alignment with the Chinese who the Indians share a long, militarized border with. When Reagan decided to befriend Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the relationship with India became almost irreparable.
India’s enduring legacy as the world’s largest democracy and a country that has developed its own industry, thinkers, engineers, and institutions would have likely been undermined if the nation had directly aligned with the United States. One look at India’s disastrous neighbor, Pakistan (which until Independence was governed as part of India) who aligned with the United States from the 1940s onward confirms that Nehru made the right decision. As an American it was difficult to be seen as the “enemy” in India even by family, but with some global perspective and liberated from the pro-American blinders of my childhood and teenage years I see India’s perspective and feel they were right.
The American Civil Rights Movement was largely a conservative movement as well in the spirit of Nehru. Many of the leading Civil Rights activists spent time in India during the 1950s learning Gandhian techniques and developing a conservative framework for the movement.
Many today in the USA and abroad feel Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan was immoral. However, as an American AND a humanist I feel it would have been more immoral to invade Japan and lose perhaps over a million lives of both Americans and Japanese. The cost of the Atomic Bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small compared to the what would have happened otherwise. However, this view is frowned upon today by many on the left who cannot put themselves in a 1945 frame of mind. Japan had attacked the United States and had ravaged much of Asia. They would have fought to the last man if we had invaded the island, and the cost to American lives, the American economy and the Japanese nation would have been greater than it turned out to be. For the world, peace being achieved in 1945 instead of 1947 or 1948 was a positive thing. But today this discussion cannot be had intelligently or objectively, I fear.
South Africa is not much different. Mandela had a choice. Align with communists who were anti-western and pro-Soviet to liberate his people or to die a political prisoner on Robben Island. Had Mandela and the ANC simply gone it alone and not accepted the help of pro-Soviet agents, international communists and other dissident groups, Apartheid may never have gone away.
Yet much of this perspective is lost among Americans. Nelson Mandela did what he had to do to bring freedom to his people and then did what he had to do to reconcile with those who kept him in prison and wanted him dead. He was among the greatest human being of the last half of the twentieth century and to deny otherwise is to show bliss and wilful ignorance.
The Florida Squeeze 
Sorry. No excuse for ever backing the Arabs. Jews Suffered more than any other people on the planet. We were almost wiped out in the Holocaust. As much as blacks may have suffered they never suffered the way we did. I am disappointed to hear of Mandela support for the Palestinians an invented people used politically by Arabs. Apartheid may have been bad but at least he was alive unlike the more than 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.
LikeLike
My point is he may not have been alive if he hadn’t aligned with the communists while on Robben Island. No one is doubting the Holocaust was the worst genocide of human history. But I am not sure how it relates here.
LikeLike
I am glad to see he supported Palestine! The terrorist attacks by the Israeli government against innocent civilians never gets talked about. The whole 1967 War….what was that about….because you THOUGHT the Arab countries were going to attack you (without actually attacking you)? If it was a so-called “defensive attack”, why didn’t Israel immediately return the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights?!?! Because it WASN’T a “defensive attack”….you just wanted more land at the expense of those you currently oppress! The lands occupied by Israel as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War is, and always will be, illegal. Who supports the post-1967 borders? Yep, only one country, and that is Israel. Even the United States thinks that your occupation is illegal and has never supported that war.
And, as far as a percentage of population, the Rwandan genocide was much worse than The Holocaust. Don’t get me wrong, The Holocaust is an unbelievable atrocity against humanity and one of the worst episodes in human history, but you do not corner the market on the “we have suffered more” debate.
LikeLike
Big difference. Rwanda was a genocide caused by other Africans. It was merely a Civil War.
LikeLike
Democrat, you’re a fucking idiot. Sorry, but you are. Might want to know about the subject a little more before you comment on it. My recommendation….start with Hotel Rwanda.
LikeLike
Also, Democrat, with your convoluted thinking, I guess that the Jews against the Germans was a “civil war” since they were “other Europeans”, right? *sigh*
LikeLike
It is hardly fair to link freedom fighters to Terrorists. The ANC IRA and PLO were always terrorists. Mandela himself may have leader renounced terrorism but he was always a terrorist Taking on an armed struggle against it democratically elected government. I know this is a left wing blog but now this blog is also endorsed Communism. You are hardly an American when it comes down to it based on your recent writing. I wonder if nan rich and the other left-wing candidacies you endorse are not embarrassed to be associated with a modern apologist for the Soviet Union. Oh and you are clearly an anti-semi also. You know this piece might actually violate hate laws in this country. I would encourage the authorities to prosecute you if in fact you have violated hate crimes laws.
This is further evidence of how out-of-control the left wing of the Democratic Party in this country has become and explains why the Republicans have controlled the state of Florida, a moderate state for so long.
LikeLike
Your rhetoric sounds like that of George Wallace in the 1960s and even to a certain extent Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Yet you claim I am violating hate crimes laws? How so?
LikeLike
Alright, well explain Brian Mulroney’s support for the ANC and Mandela?
http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/The%20House/ID/2422781125/?cmp=rss
LikeLike
The change in Israeli policy towards the ANC was due in large measure to the willingness of black Africans to be used by communist propaganda and to align with terrorist our groups. For years the Jews had been the greatest friends to the blacks across the globe yet they turn their backs on us. We were the ones who marched south and lost our lives in the Civil Right movement. We were the ones who advocated independence for black Africans from colonialism and then they aligned with the Palestinians and the Communists.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree here. Idi Amin in particular went from being a friend of Israel to calling Palestinians “his brothers.” In Israel’s early days they did really well to cultivate the friendships of Muslim, Non-Arab regimes. Iran (who under the Shah was particularly close to Israel), Turkey, Indonesia, some African countries including Uganda. But as fear of American neo-colonialism and friendship from the Soviet Union grew, Israel’s clear alliance with the US hard liners like Reagan made it difficult for Israel to continue with some of these relationships. But Reagan wasn’t great for Israel either. Selling AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia and arming Iraq the gulf states certainly didn’t make Israel safer, did it?
LikeLike
This is an article Karl Marx himself would be proud of.
LikeLike
The courage, humanity, and leadership skills of Mandela are undeniable….he is among a selected
few that provided the best examples to emulate. It would be hard for the rest of us to understand
forgiveness as he did…..Not a perfect man, but hatred, grudges and ignorance begets more of the same.
During World War 11, 20 million Russians loss their lives, and 6 millions Germans under the Stalin and Hitler regime.
It appears that the above comments reflect those of the G. W. Bush play book “Are you with us or against us” rhetoric…..unfortunately it continues under current leadership. Until Facts trumps Fear and Greed, not much will change..
LikeLike
Fantastic article. I think the majority if Americans even liberal democrats aren’t really aware of world affairs. This is different than just about any other leading world nation. Assumptions are made based on know-nothing TV talking heads and their prejudice.
LikeLike
While Mandela may have help to free black South Africans his post apartheid decision to continue friendships with anti-Israeli Arabs, Iran and Cuba is why many are concerned about praising him too much.
What has happened on the left with sites like this is that American liberals automatically assume any minorities that were oppressed by the man should be embraced. I’m an economic liberal but unabashedly pro American. Posts like this make me want to puke and join the GOP.
If you want to praise the IRA, ANC and Indian Communists please leave the Democratic Party or leave foreign policy off this blog.
LikeLike
My views on much of the world don’t reconcile with your comment that “What has happened on the left with sites like this is that American liberals automatically assume any minorities that were oppressed by the man should be embraced.”
I agree some liberals are this way. They seem to think every non-American, non-white group is disadvantaged and exploited. I don’t see it this way. I am a liberal and see religious fanaticism as the ultimate problem. In the Arab world and South Asia fundamentalist Muslims trying to build a theocracy and a right-wing legacy are our enemies. In Africa, many war-lords using “christianity” as justification for killing are a threat to freedom. In Sri Lanka the ethnic cleansing by the Buddhist majority government towards Christians, Hindus and Muslims is a threat to freedom.
I agree with your assessment of many American liberals who want to always sympathize with people they consider victimes, but DO NOT classify me with them on this matter. I am well studied on much of this and have my own independent thoughts.
LikeLike
6 tons of high explosiveswas he going to open his own diamond mine? Winnie & her necklaces nothing more than terrorists.Almost makes Robert Mugabe look like a saint!
LikeLike
Below is an e-mail I received from Nan Rich…..on Mandela
Throughout history there are many stories of oppressed people who fought for freedom. In each of those stories there are one or more great leaders whose determination and often heroic efforts defined their cause.
Nelson Mandela was such a leader.
He never wavered in the fight to end apartheid – a fight that put him in prison for 27 years by the white-minority government that controlled South Africa. But more than his enormous strength of will, it was his will to forgive that truly defined him and is his enduring legacy.
As the first elected president in post-apartheid South Africa, Mandela could have sought retribution against his former enemies. But instead he fostered reconciliation – a reconciliation that would build unity and strength in a multi-racial, multi-cultural nation.
Nelson Mandela was a man of great humility, courage, and conviction. These are more than traits to remember him by, they are qualities of character that should be emulated by us all.
Nan Rich
LikeLike
I recently read a book titled “The Unspoken Alliance” which detailed the close relationship between Israel & South Africa during the 1970’s & 80’s (including shared & joint nuclear work). This book gave two main reasons behind the alliance. (1) Black African nations had turned against Israel after the Six Day War, and (2) the rise of Likud into government in Israel. Golda Meir as Foreign Minister & later as PM courted states like Uganda, but Begin coming from the opposition was not tied to her endeavors. The ANC was viewed in the same light as the PLO. International marginalization also brought the two nations (or at least their govenments) closer together.
In fairness to Lady Thatcher (lord knows I disagreed with quite a few of her policies), but the earlier comment that she backed “right-wing juntas” does not give the whole story. In fact, she went to war against one such regime. The British victory in the Falklands, in fact, brought down the Argentine junta & an end to a long period of instability and dictatorship.
Someday, we’ll have to have a long chat about the British Empire, although I believe we will have very different views on it.
LikeLike
I just think it’s funny that those who identify themselves as “democrats” oppose the democratic process in 1980s South Africa. These people actually think that apartheid and denying 85% of a population electoral access is justification to combat communism?! If those of you who claim you are “democrats” truly believe in democracy, then you should respect the wishes of the voters of South Africa. If they wish to be a “communist” country, and decide to be through the franchise, then let them do so. Almost every constitution in the world declares their right to sovereignty and self-determination.
Therefore, those of you who opposed Mandela and call him a “communist” in reality oppose democracy, sovereignty, the self-determination of the people of a nation, and outright racism. That is a dictatorship. Pre-ANC South Africa was a dictatorship as it did not extend the franchise to everyone!
Speaking of big-D “Democrats”, I think it is funny that some on here are embracing the views of Ronald Reagan. I guess that explains why you openly accept Charlie Crist as well! I give Kartik credit for being one of the only true Democrats in Florida that isn’t trying to “Republicanize” the Democratic Party!
Oh, and as far as “communism”, the ANC has won an overwhelming majority of the seats in South Africa since 1994. How is that “they will become communist” debate working for you now?!?!
LikeLike