Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

United States Relations with South Africa: A Critical Overview from the Colonial Period to the Present

826

Published on

Relations between the United States and South Africa—or the parts of the world these nations now occupy—go nearly as far back as the very beginning of their inception as permanent European colonial …

Relations between the United States and South Africa—or the parts of the world these nations now occupy—go nearly as far back as the very beginning of their inception as permanent European colonial intrusions; and this book is a critical overview of them from the late seventeenth century to the present. Unprecedented in its scope (supported by detailed extensive endnotes together with copious bibliographic citations and a lengthy chronology, glossary, and appendices), the book distinguishes itself from extant works in a number of other ways. Set against the backdrop of a wider interdisciplinary exploration of both ideational and structural issues of historical context, it not only gives attention to the importance of contributions from nonofficial actors in shaping official relations, but also considers the impact of the geo-political location of South Africa within southern Africa, where the presence of other nations—particularly Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, and Zimbabwe—looms large. Methodologically, it is written from the perspectives of both traditional narrative history and Khaldunian interpretive historical analysis; consequently, it also sits at the interdisciplinary interstice of political economy and sociology where the aim is to advance our understanding of the Braudelian interconnectedness of world history as an important diachronic determinant of the diplomacy of foreign relations. Written for both scholars and policy analysts, this book’s examination of the agency of the marginalized should also be of interest to activists and the reading public.

Published in: News & Politics, Travel, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
826
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. United States Relationswith South Africa
  • 2. PETER LANGNew York  Washington, D.C./Baltimore  BernFrankfurt am Main  Berlin  Brussels  Vienna  Oxford
  • 3. Y. G-M. LulatUnited States Relationswith South AfricaA Critical Overview from theColonial Period to the PresentPETER LANGNew York  Washington, D.C./Baltimore  BernFrankfurt am Main  Berlin  Brussels  Vienna  Oxford
  • 4. LLiibbrraarryy ooff CCoonnggrreessss CCaattaallooggiinngg--iinn--PPuubblliiccaattiioonn DDaattaaLulat, Y. G-M.United States relations with South Africa: a critical overviewfrom the colonial period to the present / Y. G-M. Lulat.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.1. United States—Foreign relations—South Africa. 2. South Africa—Foreign relations—United States. 3. United States—Foreign economic relations—South Africa.4. South Africa—Foreign economic relations—United States. I. Title.E183.8.S6L85 327.73068—dc22 2007002867ISBN 978-0-8204-7907-1 (hardcover)ISBN 978-0-8204-7906-4 (paperback)Bibliographic information published by DDiiee DDeeuuttsscchhee BBiibblliiootthheekk.DDiiee DDeeuuttsscchhee BBiibblliiootthheekk lists this publication in the “DeutscheNationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is availableon the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de/.The author and publisher gratefully acknowledge permission to reprint:Figure 1 (Map 1), from Leonard Thompson, A History of South Africa. 3rd ed.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.Figure 2.2 (Map 2), from Richard Elphick and Hermann Giliomee, eds. The Shaping ofSouth African Society, 1652–1840. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1989; © 1988by Maskew Miller Longman Ltc. Reprinted by permission of Wesleyan University Press.Map 4 (Map 3) and Map 10 (Map 4), from Rodney Davenport and Christopher Saunders,South Africa: A Modern History. 5th ed. London: Macmillan, 2000.Reprinted by permission of Palgrave Macmillan.Table 1.2 from Janice Love, The U.S. Anti-Apartheid Movement:Local Activism in Global Politics. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1985.Reprinted by permission of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., Westport, CT.The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durabilityof the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevityof the Council of Library Resources.© 2008 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006www.peterlang.comAll rights reserved.Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm,xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.Printed in the United States of America
  • 5. ContentsMaps ixPreface xixChronology xxxiPART ONE: Economic Relations, 1680s 19911 The Beginnings, 1680s 1866 32 Economic Relations, 1867 1960 293 Economic Relations, 1961 1991 64PART TWO: Political and Other Relations, 1799 Present4 The Beginnings, 1799 1944 995 Truman/Eisenhower Years, 1945 1960 1426 Kennedy/Johnson Years, 1961 1968 1627 Nixon/Ford Years, 1969 1976 1768 Carter Years, 1977 1980 2179 Reagan Years, 1981 1988 24510 The U.S. Anti-Apartheid Movement versus Reagan 29111 Bush (Sr.) Years, 1989 1992 34512 Clinton Years, 1993 2000 37313 Bush-Cheney Years, 2001 2008 39614 The Realm of Ideas: Cognitive Relations 404PART THREE: U.S. African Americans andSouth Africa, 1800s Present15 U.S. African Americans and South Africa, 1800s 1948 43716 U.S. African Americans and South Africa, 1949 2008 468
  • 6. viii ContentsPART FOUR: Looking Toward the Future17 U.S. Relations with South Africa in the Years Ahead 499Appendix I: The Historical Antecedents from the Perspective of the Other 515Appendix II: Analytical Subthemes 535Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Glossary 553Bibliography 571Index 603
  • 7. Page 1 of 11CONTENTS LISTING BY TOPICSMaps/… ixMap 1. Southern Africa in the sixteenth centuryMap 2. The southwestern Cape, circa 1710Map 3. The expansion of the Cape Colony, 1652–1895Map 4. African “homelands” in 1984Map 5. Postapartheid South Africa in 2008 (based on a U.N. map)Map 6. Africa in 2008 (based on a U.N. map)Preface/… xixAcknowledgments/… xxviiiNOTES/… xxviiiChronology/… xxxiPART ONE/… xxxiThe Beginnings1400s1500s1600s1700s1800s1900s2000–2008PART TWO/… liiiPre-Apartheid Era (Proto-Apartheid Legislation)/… liiiMasters and Servants ActsThe Glen Grey ActThe Asiatic Law Amendment Act (Act No. 2)The Native Land Act (Act No. 27 of 1913)Native Urban Areas Act (Act No. 21 of 1923)Industrial Conciliation Act (Act No. 11 of 1924)Immorality Act (Act No. 5 of 1926)Sexual Offenses (Immorality) Act (Act No. 23 of 1957)Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Act (Act No. 19 of 1930)Native Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 46 of 1937)Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act (Act No. 25 of 1945)Asiatic Land Tenure (and Indian Representation) Act (Act No. 28 of 1946)Asiatic Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 47 of 1948)Apartheid Era/… livProhibition of Mixed Marriages Act (Act No. 55 of 1949)Population Registration Act (Act No. 30 of 1950)Group Areas Act (Act No. 41 of 1950)Internal Security (Suppression of Communism) Act (Act No. 44 of 1950)Suppression of Communism Amendment Act (Act No. 50 of 1951)Riotous Assemblies and Suppression of Communism Amendment Act (Act No 15 of 1954)Unlawful Organizations Act (Act No. 34 of 1960)Internal Security Act (Act No. 32 of 1979)Internal Security Act (Act No. 74 of 1982).
  • 8. Page 2 of 11Black Building Workers Act (Act No. 27 of 1951)Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (Act No. 52 of 1951)Bantu Authorities Act (Act No. 68 of 1951)Native Education Act (Act No. 47 of 1953)Native Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 54 of 1952)Aliens and Immigration Laws Amendment Act (Act No. 49 of 1984)Public Safety Act (Act No. 3 of 1953)Native Labor Regulations (Native Labor and Settlement of Disputes) Act (Act No. 48 of 1953)Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (Act No. 49 of 1953)Natives Resettlement Act (Act No 19 of 1954)South Africa Amendment Act (Act No. 9 of 1956)Riotous Assemblies Act (Act No. 17 of 1956)Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act (Act No. 64 of 1956)Extension of University Education Act (Act No. 45 of 1959)Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act (Act No. 46 of 1959)Indemnity Act (Act No. 61 of 1961)General Law Amendment (Sabotage) Act (Act No. 76 of 1962)Terrorism Act (Act No. 83 of 1967)Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act (Act No. 50 of 1968)Public Service Amendment Act (Act No. 86 of 1969)Bantu Homelands Citizens (National States Citizenship) Act (Act No. 26 of 1970)Aliens Control Act (Act No 40 of 1973)Publications Act (Act No. 15 of 1983)Prisons Amendment Act (Act No. 35 of 1983)Republic of South Africa Constitution Act (Act No. 110 of 1983)Elite Unit Act (Act No. 18 of 1986)Discriminatory Legislation Regarding Public Amenities Repeal Act (Act No. 100 of 1990)Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act (Act No. 108 of 1991)NOTES/…lviPART ONEECONOMIC RELATIONS,1680S–1991Chapter 1/… 3The Beginnings,1680s–1866THE BEGINNINGS/… 3COMMERCE IN OTHER GUISES/… 10WhalingPiracy and PrivateeringSlave TradingWINE, WOOL AND OTHER COMMODITIES/… 14DIRECT BUSINESS INVESTMENT—A NEW PHASE/… 16EPILOGUE: ON THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE EARLY ECONOMIC RELATIONS/… 17The Ideology of “Whiteness”NOTES/… 21
  • 9. Page 3 of 11Chapter 2/… 29Economic Relations,1867–1960U.S. ECONOMIC INTERESTS, 1867–1913/… 29Diamonds, Gold, and U.S. Mining EngineersU.S. ECONOMIC INTERESTS, 1914–1960/… 39Direct Investments: The BeginningDirect Investments: 1948–1959Charles Engelhard, and OppenheimerEPILOGUE: THE ANNEXATION OF AFRICAN LABOR/ 44Race and U.S. Mining EngineersThe Compound System and the Color barHistorical AntecedentsThe Capture of Khoena Labor.The Transmutation of “Legal” Slavery into Indentured ServitudeThe Enslavement of Women and Children on the Frontier.The Destruction of a Nascent Peasantry.Extracting Labor from the BMP.Race and Labor: ImplicationsRacist Practices Across Time and Space.Role of the British.PeasantizationThe White Labor “Aristocracy.”NOTES/… 57Chapter 3/… 64Economic Relations,1961–1991ECONOMIC RELATIONS, 1960–1980/… 70Direct Investments: The FloodCaltex, Mobil, and Exxon.General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.Union Carbide, Newmont Mining, Phelps Dodge, Kennecott, American Metal Climax.John Deere, General Electric, Caterpillar Tractor, Dresser Industries, Goodyear,Firestone, Motorola, ITT, Kodak, Fluor, Allis Chalmers, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M).Control Data, Burroughs, Sperry Rand, International Business Machines (IBM), Hewlett-Packard, NationalCash Register (NCR), Mohawk Data Sciences, Computer Sciences.Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Morgan Guaranty, Bank of America.ECONOMIC RELATIONS, 1980–1991/… 74The Era of Reagan’s “Constructive Engagement”The Downward SpiralThe Economic Contradictions of Apartheid: The Beginning of the End
  • 10. Page 4 of 11Economies of scaleRapid labor turnoverSYNOPSIS/… 80EPILOGUE: FOREIGN INVESTMENTS AND THE APARTHEID SYSTEM/… 81Foreign Capital and the Capital Goods SectorSupport for the Apartheid SystemApartheid-related BureaucracyForces of CoercionHigher Standard of LivingApartheid and CapitalismNOTES/… 88PART TWOPOLITICAL AND OTHER RELATIONS,1799–PRESENTChapter 4/… 99The Beginnings,1799–1944U.S. CAPITAL AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM/… 100The Jameson RaidThe Anglo-Boer WarWhite U.S. MissionariesThe American Zulu Mission: An EvaluationPoliticsRacismCultural hubrisEthiopianismTemporary Downturn in U.S. Economic RelationsUnification of South AfricaThe Philanthropic ConnectionThe Second World WarTHE INTERWAR PERIOD: 1918–1939/… 124The Namibia QuestionEPILOGUE: THE UNITED STATES AND AFRICAN COLONIZATION/… 126NOTES/… 129
  • 11. Page 5 of 11Chapter 5/… 142Truman/Eisenhower Years,1945–1960THE TRUMAN YEARS 1945–1952/… 142NamibiaMonopoly Capitalism and U.S. Foreign PolicyTHE EISENHOWER YEARS 1953–1960/… 150EPILOGUE: ON THE COLD WAR/… 154NOTES/ 158Chapter 6/… 162Kennedy/Johnson Years,1961–1968VOLUNTARY ARMS EMBARGO/… 165ANGOLA/… 167JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION 1963–1969/… 168RhodesiaNamibiaShore Leave for U.S. SailorsEPILOGUE: JOHNSON AND CIVIL RIGHTS/… 172NOTES/… 173Chapter 7/… 176Nixon/Ford Years,1969–1976NATIONAL SECURITY STUDY MEMORANDUM 39/… 177Option No. 2FriendshipProtecting the Interests of CapitalDiplomatic RespectabilityDomestic ConstituencyFORD ADMINISTRATION 1974–76/… 182U.S. GOVERNMENTS AND PORTUGUESE COLONIALISM/… 183Angola in 1975: The Key Internal PlayersMPLAFNLAUNITA
  • 12. Page 6 of 11KISSINGER, ANGOLA, AND SOUTH AFRICA/… 187RHODESIA, KISSINGER, AND SOUTH AFRICA/… 192EPILOGUE: RACE AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY/… 195NOTES/… 197Chapter 8/… 217Carter Years,1977–1980ANDREW YOUNG AND FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS/… 219ANGOLA/… 220RHODESIA (ZIMBABWE)/… 222NAMIBIA/… 225NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION/… 230“MULDERGATE” AND THE PROPAGANDA WAR/… 235NOTES/… 238Chapter 9/… 245Reagan Years,1981–1988CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT/… 247Military ContactsNuclear CooperationDual-Use Military and Nuclear ExportsInternational Financial AssistanceTOTAL STRATEGY/… 250Internal ReformsRegional StrategyBOTHA AND APARTHEID REFORMS/… 253LaborSecurity LawsPolitical Participation (Blacks)Political Participation (Whites)NAMIBIA, ANGOLA, AND MOZAMBIQUE/… 257The Ignominy of “Linkage”Repressive Terrorism in NamibiaThe Angola-Namibia Accord of 1988The Cold War
  • 13. Page 7 of 11Political ConsciousnessThe Agony of MozambiqueTerrorism: SAAG and RenamoNkomati AccordSoviet ParsimonyWashington’s ParsimonyNOTES/… 280Chapter 10/… 291The U.S. Antiapartheid“Movement” versus ReaganTHE SECOND “DECADE OF ANTIAPARTHEID REBELLION”/… 292The State of Emergency: 1985–1990THE U.S. ANTIAPARTHEID “MOVEMENT”/… 297Civil Rights and Community-Based National GroupsWhite Church-Based GroupsBlack Church-based GroupsUniversity and College StudentsThe Divestment CampaignAchievementsThe Role of the University in SocietyBusiness and EthicsExpanding the Domain of Foreign-policy-makingWeaknessesPhilanthropic OrganizationsCultural Sector GroupsTHE “FREE SOUTH AFRICA MOVEMENT”/… 314THE COMPREHENSIVE ANTI APARTHEID ACT OF 1986/… 315RacismIgnoranceThe Weak Foreign policy Role of U.S. African AmericansThe Media Strength of the Conservative and Ultra-Conservative ForcesOrganizational Atomization of Progressive ForcesOpposition to SanctionsVictimizing the victimsAn Ineffective InstrumentUndermining Economic GrowthEPILOGUE: SANCTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS/… 325NOTES/… 328
  • 14. Page 8 of 11Chapter 11/… 345Bush (Sr.) Years,1989–1992ANGOLA/… 346MOZAMBIQUE/… 349NAMIBIA/… 352THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF APARTHEID/… 354The ANC and the SACPThe Black RebellionEconomic Sanctions and Its ConsequencesThe Significance of the Bush Presidential Victory“Divide and Rule” StrategyThe Collapse of Bureaucratic Communism in Eastern EuropeNOTES/… 368Chapter 12/… 373Clinton Years,1993–2000THE PRINCIPAL POLITICAL ACTORS/… 374African National Congress of South AfricaNational PartySouth African Communist Party (SACP)Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC)Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP)South African Indian CongressDemocratic PartyAzanian People’s OrganizationAfrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement—AWB)Mass Democratic Movement (MDM)THE U.S. ROLE/… 385Lines of TrustPrinciplesMaterial SupportPost-apartheid AssistanceCOMMENCEMENT OF THE POST-APARTHEID ERA/… 390NOTES/… 390
  • 15. Page 9 of 11Chapter 13/… 396Bush-Cheney Years,2001–2008NOTES/… 399Chapter 14/… 404The Realm of Ideas:Cognitive RelationsIDEATIONAL RELATIONS/… 404“Tuskegeeism” and the Education of Black South AfricansThe Phelps-Stokes African Education Commission (PSAEC)Charles T. LoramBlack Power and Black ConsciousnessBlack Liberation TheologyNonviolent Civil DisobedienceMusical Influences: borrowing, blending, and transmutationMinstrelsy and Jubilee SongsJazzTelevisionCOMPARATIVE ANALYTICAL “RELATIONS”/… 418Apartheid versus Jim CrowColonization: Little Big Horn and IsandlwanaAffirmative ActionWhite Racialized ViolenceEnvironmental HistoryNOTES/… 423PART THREEU.S. AFRICAN AMERICANS ANDSOUTH AFRICA, 1800S–PRESENTChapter 15/… 437U.S. African Americans andSouth Africa, 1800s–1948THE AME CHURCH IN SOUTH AFRICA/… 439
  • 16. Page 10 of 11The AME and EducationThe Political Impact of the AMEPre War Influence: An AssessmentGARVEY AND GARVEYISM/… 448Garveyism in South Africa, 1920s–1930sGarveyism in Cape TownGarveyism in the TranskeiGarveyism in KimberlyNOTES/… 458Chapter 16/… 468U.S. African Americans andSouth Africa, 1949–2008RESURGENT INTEREST/… 471The American Negro Leadership Conference on Africa (ANLCA)The Polaroid “Experiment”Sullivan PrinciplesU.S. AFRICAN AMERICANS, U.S. JEWISH AMERICANS AND SOUTH AFRICA/… 479THE ANTIAPARTHEID STRUGGLE IN THE 1980S/… 484EPILOGUE: THE POLITICS OF THE AFRICAN DIASPORA/… 486NOTES/… 488PART FOURLOOKING TOWARD THE FUTUREChapter 17/… 499U.S. Relations with South Africain the Years AheadNOTES/… 508
  • 17. Page 11 of 11Appendix I/… 515The Historical Antecedents fromthe Perspective of the “Other”The Hundred-Year WarWars of DispossessionThe Great TrekXhosa Cattle-KillingThe Parallel Scenario in North AmericaThe African Economy Prior to the European IntrusionNOTES/… 528Appendix II/… 535Analytical SubthemesThe State and the “National Interest”Foreign Policy and MoralityIntellectuals and Foreign PolicyOn Race and RacismRacism and the White Working ClassRacism and CapitalismThe Myth of “Reverse Racism.”Racism and ClassRacism and AppropriationNOTES/… 549Abbreviations, Acronyms,and Glossary/… 553Bibliography/… 571Index/… 603
  • 18. PrefaceAll books have a biography, and so does this one. Very briefly, its genesis rests on two simultaneoussources: at a broader level with a life-long fascination with what, to my mind, has always been theubiquitous place of Africa in world history (albeit, like the proverbial elephant in the room, not al-ways acknowledged, let alone understood, even in the halls of academe); and, at the more immediatelevel, in the palpable dissonance between the views of U.S. civil society (in general), and those of theReagan Administration on what U.S. foreign policy ought to have been toward apartheid South Af-rica on the eve of the passage of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 by the U.S. Congressover the strenuous objections of the Reagan Administration including the exercise of the presi-dential veto by Reagan, albeit to no avail. This legislative initiative, symbolically at least, sounded thedeath-knell of that administrations policy of appeasement and accommodation toward apartheidSouth Africa, which it had fancifully termed constructive engagement (doublespeak being one ofits particular fortes, if one may recall) and most certainly was among the external factors that helpedto hasten the demise of the apartheid state.1This legislative action forcefully reminded one of how,from time to time, progressive sections of the U.S. citizenry have been, refreshingly, closer to the his-torically self-perceived U.S. mission in the world of doing good than those who have occupied thecitadels of power in Washington who, more often than not, have tended to see that mission in farmore narrower, anti-altruistic terms of protecting the corporate interests of U.S. capital (at least interms of actual policy, if not in so many words).Of all the countries in Africa today, South Africa is the only country that has had continuous re-lations with the United States that go back centuries, and with which it also shares a number of na-tionally determinative and intriguing historical parallels, ranging from permanent European settle-ment, to wars of independence fought against the same ruling power (Britain), to the struggle forfreedom and civil rights by the racially marginalized.2Furthermore, as we look out into the futurethere are all indications that these relations will strengthen as each continues to struggle with itsmonumental, historically bequeathed, fortuitous journey of building an authentic multicultural (ornonracial) democracy. In fact, it would not be too farfetched to suggest that historically each, in asense, has been a mirror for the other.3However, as those familiar with the literature on the subjectwell know, scholarly works on the history of U.S. relations with South Africa that provide a broadoverview meaning going well beyond a survey of only a thematic slice of these relations (repre-sented, for instance, by the foreign policy role of the U.S. antiapartheid movement, or economic re-lations, or policies of a specific administration) that begin from the colonial period and coming allthe way to the present do not, surprisingly, exist.4
  • 19. xx PrefaceIn this age of super-specialization where historians (and this applies to other fields as well) en-sconced in their own research world hardly notice the work of fellow historians only a little removedfrom them in terms of their research concerns will be quick to ask, but what purpose would suchworks serve anyway? Merely because a birds eye view of an entire history which, after all, by defi-nition would be only a general outline of broad contours is lacking surely does not in itself justifyits enterprise. Harking to the perennial specialist versus generalist argument there is failure to under-stand that not only is there a place for both, the generalist and the specialist approach, but that in thefinal analysis the specialists obsession with only a piece of the puzzle obfuscates the fact that thepiece is not supposed to be an end in itself. The ultimate purpose of the piece is that when put inplace with other pieces it allows us to see the whole puzzle when complete; that is, the whole picture(the domain of the generalist) otherwise, all we have is fragments of an incomplete, and thereforedistorted, history with all its attendant pitfalls (most especially the failure to see the wood for thetrees). What is more, one can even push the point further to observe that the research agenda of thespecialist is greatly enhanced from the generalizations that one can elicit from the whole picture. As acorollary of this point, a word of caution however: Because this work is an overview, it is important tostress that its usefulness rests on looking at the work as a whole (despite its encyclopedic orienta-tion); any other approach will simply vitiate its purpose. In other words, dear reader, you are firmlyenjoined to resist the temptation to consider it based on an approach that fragments it in conso-nance with your specific scholarly interests.Consequently, and at the considerable risk of sounding self-serving, it goes without saying thatthis work constitutes a well-needed addition to the subject. At the very least, as a result of the au-thors fortuitous temporal location (at well past the mid-point of the first decade of the twenty-firstcentury) this work is able to employ a much larger temporal canvas, spanning more than three hun-dred years; thereby providing an unbroken perspective on U.S. relations with South Africa that inaddition to a summary of the historical record, permits the discernment of a continuity / disconti-nuity of themes that may otherwise not be readily perceivable most important among them being,as indicated earlier, the uneasy tension between the demands of capital and that of the ordinary citi-zenry from the perspective of what truly constitutes the national interest. After all, it is within thistension that the margin of hope resides for those unwilling to succumb to the seduction of cynicismregarding these relations which so often emerges as the easy answer to what may appear as the un-challengeable might of capital (especially today when hubristic and democracy-corrupting visions ofempire yet, once more, appear to be mesmerizing those that occupy the citadels of power andtheir acolytes) in thwarting the common good: a genuinely democratic planet where democracy is un-derstood to imply not only its formalistic manifestations but its substantive ones as well.5However, evenas one makes this point it would be highly disingenuous to not also mention that at many points inthe course of going through the determinative events that constitute the totality of this work, onesfaith in the redemptive impulse of humanity will be severely tested. At the same time, it should benoted on a related matter that while a recurring theme in this work, for obvious reasons, is thatof resistance the reader should desist from assuming thereby that there has been a failure to es-cape the trap of the inverted mirage characteristic of UFO sightings that is, conjuring up an il-lusionary reality. On the contrary, it must be emphasized at the outset that this work is not an exer-cise in discovering nonexistent resistance under every rock of history. Humans are extremely com-plex beings; as in everything else, therefore, their response to prolonged periods of pain and suffer-ing (sometimes spanning centuries) cannot be anything but variate, depending upon both time andcircumstance. In other words, their capacity for tolerance of such pain and suffering, as BarringtonMoores work, for example, demonstrated a long ago, is as infinite as its obverse but without necessar-ily sacrificing their humanity or their dignity.Although many mainline U.S. historians continue to labor under the long shadow cast by a narra-tivist historical methodology, fortunately there has been movement over the past five to six decadesaway from this approach. It is not that this approach does not have its place (and in fact can nevertruly be abandoned in its entirety if history is to remain history), but rather that it has sufficientshortcomings nonetheless to permit an effective comprehension of the complexity and totality ofthe relations that developed between the United States and South Africa and which the present workhas sought to capture albeit within the very real constraints imposed by the economics of a paper-based book publishing. Narrativism, therefore has had to be tempered by a structural historical ap-
  • 20. Preface xxiproach. In other words, methodologically, too, this work differs from the others in that it is writtenfrom the perspectives of both traditional narrative history and Khaldunian interpretive historicalanalysis; consequently, it also sits at the interdisciplinary interstice of political economy and sociologyin which the motor of history is viewed as an outcome of, in the last instance, materialist forcesbut whose operationalization is to be found in the dialectic of the structural/ideational binary.6Simultaneously, it must be strongly stressed that this work should not be viewed from the per-spective of the narrow confines of bilateral international relations; given its wide temporal and spa-tial horizon, it must be seen as part of that field of history that over the past several decades hassteadily been coming into its own, namely, world history. However, it must be emphasized that this ap-proach is not a matter of personal preference but of the recognition that any history of a nation-state that refuses to go beyond its geographic boundaries can be nothing more than a jingoistic ren-dition of it; that is, a highly distorted history. From the perspective of the U.S. academe, it is a testi-mony to the power of hubris-inspired ignorance that many mainline U.S. historians even in thisday and age have never managed to grasp the simple fact that the United States is a creature ofworld history even as it has also helped to shape that world history. The notion of U.S. exceptional-ism is one of the most bogus concepts with which this profession has burdened the citizenry ofthe United States (to the great detriment of their well-being). The fundamental historical truth is thatno modern nation-state as Bender (2006), for example, reminds us is an island unto itself. It fol-lows then that the imprint of the historiographical approach characteristic of pioneers such as Fer-nand Braudel and Barrington Moore should be palpably discernable in this work to the chagrin ofthose who prefer a simplistic and circumscribed (and therefore, ironically, ahistorical) reading of his-tory.7In light of the above, a warning, dear reader: there might be occasions as you go through thisbook when the temptation to throw ones hands up in the air while groaning in exasperation: Yes,this is all very interesting but what does it have to do with U.S. relations with South Africa? willprove almost irresistible. The answer is that, in actuality, a great deal. Consider, for instance, a state-ment such as the following: International capital including that from the United States wasdrawn to South Africa, more than anywhere else on the African continent, in considerable part be-cause apartheid guaranteed large investment returns that rested on a plentiful, relatively docile, andcheap supply of black labor. Now, to leave this statement as is, is to simply engage in cliches (there isan unstated assumption behind the statement, which it is felt requires no further analysis: apartheidequaled aberrant white racism directed at blacks, and therefore it was logical that black labor wouldbe exploited for purposes of maximizing profit). For, the essential question here is, precisely how didthe apartheid system imbue black labor with such characteristics? What does one mean by cheaplabor in the context of capitalist production? Did cheap labor mean the same thing for all sectorsof the apartheid economy? Or consider this perennial question that has bedeviled South African his-toriography for ages: Was white supremacy (regardless of the forms it took) inherently inimical to theinterests of capital? The answer is both yes and no. It depended upon time and circumstance. Inother words, in the United States (for instance) the supporters of greater economic engagement withSouth Africa and those who championed disengagement were, in a sense, both right: the policy ofeach would have helped to undermine white supremacy, but depending upon the time period underconsideration though to undermine something does not necessarily guarantee its demise oneshould also add.In other words, dear reader, this work, to reiterate the foregoing, is also an interpretive work ofhistory (which is the only kind of history upon which a work of this kind can build its credibility).And still on this point: one must be cognizant, furthermore, of the fact that the relations of anycountry with another country are always a product of the sum-total of permutations of a variety offactors which include the internal dynamics of the countries involved independent of relations witheach other as well as the configuration of relations toward each other as a dialectical reflection ofthese dynamics (in addition to such more obvious ones as direct responses of each to the clear initia-tives of the other) but many of which, at first glance, may appear to deserve no attention on theassumption that they are beyond the confines of the subject at hand (in this case U.S. relations withSouth Africa). For example, U.S. relations with South Africa were a permutational outcome of, at thevery least, these variables:
  • 21. xxii Preface1. The historically determined internal dynamics of the United States.2. The historically determined internal dynamics of South Africa.3. As a response to South Africa s independent responses to item 1.4. As a response to South Africa s independent initiatives toward the United States as a reflection ofitem 2.5. As a response to South Africa s response to U.S. relations with South Africa.6. U.S. relations with other African countries besides South Africa.7. U.S. relations with other countries outside Africa (especially Europe).8. South Africa s relations with other countries besides the United States (especially Britain).9. As a response to South Africa s independent initiatives toward other countries (especially in Africa)besides the United States.Therefore, an effort has been made to capture in this work (to the extent space has permitted) thetotality of these permutations at the risk of being accused of veering off from the subject. Conse-quently, the author begs your indulgence.The specific theoretical guidelines that ensue from the method that undergirds this work need tobe spelled out at this point.8Any work that comprises a historical study of any part of the world thatunderwent European colonization carries with it an inherent mandate to bring balance, from theperspective of historical agency especially when the objectives of the study require a temporal gazethat traverses centuries, commencing from the colonial period coming all the way to the postinde-pendence present. Consequently, it must include in the study at least a peek at the historical antece-dents that shaped that colonization and its aftermath within the colonies but from the viewpoint ofthe colonized (that is those categorized in much of European history until recently as the facelessOther Mark Twains the person sitting in darkness, or as Eric R. Wolf 1997 [1982] has calledthem, similarly tongue in cheek, the people without history ).9Anything less would be to open one-self up to the legitimate charge of producing a distorted and incomplete history; that is, one that isin thrall to Eurocentrism (of which works such as the Age of Jackson by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[1945], for example, are emblematic). Now, dear reader, just in case you are tempted to hurl chargesof capitulating to identity politics, a disclaimer: The point is that in a hierarchized world, asKrishna (1993: 407) pointed out some two decades ago, some discourses dominate others who arecondemned to remain a people without history. So, yes, whiffs of identity politics may at placesseep out of this work subtextually, but it will not be the banal or destructive kind. To turn to Krishnaagain: Ironically, the purpose or telos of this identity politics is precisely to go beyond it, to renderones place and position unremarkable as it were, into a world where differences are not the occasioneither for chauvinistic celebration or for annihilatory violence, but just simply are (p. 407).At the same time, one must also register a caveat on a related but separate matter: No generationhas the ability, regardless of the depth of its capacity for agency, to completely remake the history itinherits (though, of course, neither is it wholly a prisoner of that history). In other words: one mustalso, simultaneously, be very careful in not tilting the balance too far to the other side; something thatsocial historians of late, particularly those seduced by post-structuralism much of it cant and thefact that the most prominent homes of it appear to be English departments in itself speaks vol-umes are particularly guilty of (this is not by any means to cast aspersions on their good intentions:to move away from a Eurocentrist reading of history). The problem can be illustrated by way of ahomespun analogy: yes, of course, it is most laudable that one managed to sneak in a couple ofbone-breaking whacks with the baseball bat but the fact that the thieves still managed to make awaywith most of the family jewels and even worse, in the process, fatally wounded a couple of familymembers casts a sobering light on ones agency in the whole event. The truth, then, is that no workof history that fails to acknowledge that there is a necessary relationship between structure andagency can be anything more than an exercise in obfuscation. This is perhaps nowhere more evidentthan in the case of major social transformations, that is those that change societies permanently.They are always an outcome of a relationship between agency and historical structures, which isbest expressed by the concept of the conjuncture of fortuitously propitious historical factors (see Sanderson[1995] for more on this point.) In fact, to really complicate matters consider, for instance, this point:that the present-day U.S. Euro-American working class can trace its subordinate position all the wayback to the era of the Roman Civilization when much of its ancestry constituted slaves and peas-ants despite the huge social transformations along the way represented by feudalism and industrial
  • 22. Preface xxiiicapitalism (not to mention the geographic disjuncture). In other words, the permanence of thebroad contours of the U.S. social structure that consideration of this historical trajectory of theprovenance of the U.S. Euro-American working class throws up, renders the significance of histori-cal agency in a wider scheme of things highly problematic.This work does not attempt to consciously take sides on the validity or invalidity of a radical, orliberal, or conservative theoretical approach to the writing and interpretation of history. Purists willof course wince at this (woe to the person who should dare to stake out a claim in the intellectualmiddle ground of theory). To suggest, however, that a single theoretical approach can capture thecomplex totality of all human experience across a wide swath of time, and across widely dispersedsocieties, is to take hubris beyond the bounds of unmitigated absurdity. Simply no single theoreticalapproach has a monopoly on all historical truth. 10Consequently, this study is guided by theoreticaleclecticism but with this qualification: insofar as the radical approach signifies a materialist emphasisto historical interpretation the overall theoretical balance must perforce tilt in that direction. Here isthe problem: a human being is first and foremost a biological entity and not a spiritual entity; the oneprecedes the other. (This is a truism that perplexingly often appears to escape even the mostlearned perhaps because of the tunnel vision that is the occupational hazard of disciplinaryover-specialization that the political economy of modern-day Western academe demands.) A deadbody cannot contemplate spirituality; therefore, primacy must be accorded to the material over thecultural and ideological. Of course, in stating that human beings are first and foremost biological en-tities is by no means to imply that there is no place for the ideational, the ideological, the cultural orthe spiritual in explaining what motivates human behavior. The point rather is that there is a dialecti-cal relationship between the two but one that is set in motion initially by the biological. For the vastmajority of the European settlers (if not all) in the United States or in South Africa, or anywhere elsefor that matter, the goal was always betterment of their standard of living; and for capital that ac-companied them, the iron-law of accumulation, needless to say, were its permanent shackles. Conse-quently, if these twin imperatives of European colonization required the creation of a racial forma-tion (to borrow a term originally coined by Omi and Winant [1994]) then no amount of ideologicalrationalization could apologize for it. In other words, the rise of the racial formation was always atheart a materially-driven enterprise, ideology was simply the cover a palliative for social conscience.On the basis of the foregoing then, it makes sense not to be wedded exclusively to a particularhistorical approach; both the radicals and the liberals have something to offer. In other words, thereis place in this work for a positivist perspective (albeit attenuated), as well as the normative; and fromthe perspective of the latter, for the dialectic in the base-superstructure dyad, and, as the term criti-cal in the title also implies, for the dialectic between the Gramscian approach to critical theory, andthat of the Frankfurt School.11The reader should also note that an effort has been made to write this work from the perspectiveof ordinary people too, not simply those who occupy the citadels of power and influence; for whenit comes to truth in history the obligation of the historian is to present the perspective of themasses as well, without which it becomes little more than mere apologia for the powerful. The mon-arch and the commoner must each be allowed her/his place in the story. The problem was best pre-sented by Barrington Moore, Jr. in his magnum opus some thirty years ago:[A]ny simple straightforward truth about political institutions or events is bound to have polemical conse-quences. It will damage some group interests. In any society the dominant groups are the ones with the most tohide about the way society works. Very often therefore truthful analyses are bound to have a critical ring, toseem like exposures rather than objective statements, as the term is conventionally used. For all students ofhuman society, sympathy with the victims of historical processes and skepticism about the victors claims pro-vide essential safeguards against being taken in by the dominant mythology (1966:523).As may be surmised, undergirding this entire work is the view that the ultimate purpose of allwriting of history (of human societies) is to chart the progress and the obstacles toward civiliza-tion and democracy the former to be understood not only in terms of the development ofmaterial artifacts but also in terms of life-nurturing human relationships; and the latter to be under-stood not in the procedural sense to which it is often debased by the ignorantsia but in its broader cor-poreal sense, as defined, for example, by the preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Toquote the key paragraph: WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all [Persons] are createdequal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
  • 23. xxiv PrefaceLife, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Of course, even as one turns to that document, onecannot help but imagine how great that document could have really been if only its architects had atthe same time agreed to consider other peoples, such as the enslaved U.S. African Americans and theAboriginal Americans, as worthy of these same rights too; instead they not only went on to label thelatter as merciless Indian Savages, but made them the source of one more grievance among themany listed by the document against the British Crown.) As a corollary of this view, one must alsodraw attention to this fact: There is the bizarre and most ahistorical notion espoused by manymainline historians in the Euro-American ecumene that the capitalist order is necessarily predisposedtoward a just racial order specifically, and democracy generally. Yet, history is replete with a long andunbroken chain of examples to the contrary. Barrington Moore (1966) provided us with an exem-plary study more than thirty years ago that showed quite clearly that capitalism can go hand in handwith any kind of political order, including a totalitarian one vide Nazi Germany, and modern-dayChina (to take two examples from different parts of the world, and from different eras).Now, in light of the above, it also follows that this work carries with it a special burden to makeexplicit, from a definitional point of view, key concepts, theories, and terminology.12Consider, forexample, the fact that it is impossible to discuss U.S. relations with South Africa without at the sametime also taking into account that elephant in the room: race not only because these relationswere to some degree colored by it but also because it was and remains a critical determinant of thekinds of societies that the two countries have evolved into today. Yet, terminology designating ethniccategories, not surprisingly, has been a source of considerable commotion (not altogether illegiti-mate). Consider: in South Africa, the aboriginal Africans have been labeled by the European inter-lopers at various times in history as Kaffirs, Natives, Africans, Bantu, and Blacks. The preferred des-ignation today, of those so characterized, is either Africans or Blacks. Similarly, in the United Statespeople of African ancestry have been variously labeled by the European interlopers as Africans,Niggers, Negroes, Coloreds, Blacks, and African Americans (the last being their own preferred des-ignation today). Therefore, as one would expect, ethnic categories can acquire bewildering designa-tions in societies that are highly dependent on juridically-based ethnic classifications as among thefoundational organizing principles of their social structures. This being most especially true of SouthAfrica (and to a somewhat lesser extent the United States as well), the reader is enjoined to consultthe glossary for semantic relief. (Note: should the designations indicated in the glossary, and by im-plication the text, cause some particular ethnic group today grief, it is absolutely not intentional.)13Similarly, it is unfeasible to write a history of U.S. relations with any country outside the Euro-pean West that dates as far back as the eighteenth century, and earlier, without running into suchconcepts as capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, racism, and the like; that is words that raisethe hackles of some, and are the stock-in-trade of others. The glossary and the appendix provide anindication of how these concepts are defined from the perspective of this work. While goingthrough these definitions, the reader is enjoined to keep the following in mind: if the price of drag-ging the peoples who were the target of European colonization projects into modernity was the dis-possession of their lands and/or labor and even their lives on a most gigantic scale a belief es-poused by many in the West today (vide the resurgence of the obsession with empire among evenliberal academics) then what exactly has that modernity meant for the descendants of the dispos-sessed, when contrasted with what the descendants of the dispossessors enjoy? In other words,terms like those just mentioned are relevant to the discourse on U.S. relations with South Africa be-cause they not only help to correctly identify the processes involved in the post-1492 saga of Euro-pean dispossessions but also assist us with comprehending the ongoing reverberations of their leg-acy today. Consider, for example, a question that one often encounters in classrooms: How is it pos-sible that a small population of settlers came to dominate an entire region populated by millions ofaboriginal Africans? There is no easy answer to this question that does not turn on essentialist dis-course; the best answer that one can come up with is that it was an outcome of a combination of,both, the ability to effect armed duress (in itself an outcome of a conjuncture of fortuitously propi-tious historical factors, dating back scores of centuries, in the Afro-Eurasian ecumene), as well as thespecifics of the precapitalist modes of production and their interaction with the capitalist modebut to be considered always in the context of the general march of Europe toward global economichegemony that the Columbian project so inadvertently set in motion.14
  • 24. Preface xxvBy the same token, given the deeply profound ideological differences across social differentia-tions whatever their manifestation: gender, races, classes, and so on and, of course, across geo-political boundaries of the nation-state, in the conception of not only the means and the end (a civi-lized society) but the very definition of the humanity of a human being (a problem, for instance,that all slave-owning and racist societies have had to grapple with), a work of this kind cannot escapefrom the use of such ideological descriptors as conservative, liberal, neoradical, neofascist,reactionary, and the like.15Consider, for example, this problem: Regardless of how flawed themeans ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) to an end ( from each according to her/his ability to eachaccording to her/his needs ) may be as proposed by the radical left, we must not lose sight of thefundamental difference between the left and the right, considered generically that is, regardless ofthe factional variations within each in what constitutes the very essence of humanity, and civiliza-tion. Hence, whereas the latter believes that the pursuit of self-aggrandizement through untram-meled systemic greed (capitalist accumulation) is not only the epitome of civilizational achievementbut constitutes a response to a genetic trait fundamental to the human species even though com-pletely unsupported by scientific evidence, or even religion for that matter to which the rank and fileof the right is often in thrall. The former, on the other hand, with science (e.g. mirror neurons re-search) and, ironically, even religious scriptures providing support, argues that because humanbeings are social beings from birth to death, altruism is not only an essential part of the geneticmakeup of the human species that guarantees its survival but it constitutes the very essence of civili-zation itself and the means to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Here again, then, theglossary, together with Appendix II, will come in handy in determining how these ideological de-scriptors are used in this work (and thereby serve as an effective antidote to any perception that mayarise that the use of such descriptors is nothing more than an ad hominem exercise in name-calling).A word or two about the constituent elements of the book that have shaped its organizationalstructure are in order at this point. While it is not necessary to discuss all of them since even a cur-sory perusal of the descriptively listed contents page should quickly unearth what they are, it will beof some help to the reader to highlight those that give this work its elan, so to speak. Given themandate of this book to commence its historical survey from the earliest beginnings of U.S. rela-tions with South Africa (that is, even long before they acquired their present national forms), a sec-tion of it has been devoted to consideration of the processes that led to the emergence of these twonational entities in the first place but in which the fate of the aboriginal peoples looms large. (For, tobe sure, colonialism does imply marginality for the dispossessed but it can never be a marginalitywhere the center can avoid a permanent albeit involuntary dialogue with the margin unless thedispossession also implied extinction because, at the very least, there is no center without a mar-gin.) That particular section constitutes Appendix I.16Before entering the body of the work, however, it will be evident to the reader that it is precededby an extensive chronology. It has been deliberately made as comprehensive and as detailed as possi-ble in order to allow the reader a quick purchase on the basic themes that undergird this work. Oneis encouraged to go through it with some diligence because it also, though crudely, serves as a roughsummary of this book. (Moreover, some items in the chronology, though relevant to this work, arenot mentioned again in the text.)No work of this magnitude can avoid acronyms and abbreviations; these have been collapsedinto a larger entity, the glossary, which structurally serves as the bookend counterpart to the chro-nology. Again, it may be fruitful for the reader to look through the glossary first before plowing intothe body of this work. As already hinted, all histories, by definition are contentious, especially onesthat not only traverse large spaces in time and geography but also seek to be critical in histo-riographic orientation; a detailed glossary, therefore, helps to serve as a necessary instrument ofnavigation. The theoretical subtexts (as expressed by concepts, ideas, theories, and so on) that a workof this kind must of necessity be accompanied by, are made explicit in some of the chapter epi-logues, as well as in Appendix II. While these parts of the book may be viewed, in a sense, as an ex-tension of the glossary, their role is best understood in terms of permitting one to see what is reallygoing on under the hood, so to speak.Although the book is organized, for the most part, on the basis of a temporal structure, it is im-portant to stress that this is merely a device of convenience dictated by the need to impose a sem-blance of coherence to facilitate readability on a confusing terrain of facts, processes, events and
  • 25. xxvi Prefacethe like that always constitute historical reality. The fundamental truth is that historical reality has acontinuity that crosses any and all boundaries of periodization that a historian may wish to imposeupon it. For example, the reader is enjoined to always keep in mind that there is no evidence in his-tory of temporal disjunctures of the sort historical narratives imply (wantonly or otherwise) be-tween, say, colonial South Africa and the independent Union of South Africa, or between the prea-partheid era and the apartheid era, or between the apartheid era and the postapartheid era. To putthe matter differently, the excision of the past from the present or the present from the future is onlypossible within the historians imagination; it does not conform in the least bit to historical reality.17All historians worth their salt know that an exasperating structural limitation on their craft im-posed by the exigencies of publishing is the fact that they cannot say everything there is to be saidabout whatever they are writing. One workaround to this problem, though by no means an entirelysatisfactory one, is the lowly but functionally useful footnote or in the case of this work the equiva-lent chapter endnote. Of course the problem with this workaround, in this day and age, is that as anexpression of the anti-intellectual and anti-scholarly tradition that runs through the entire three-hundred and fifty year history of the plebeian-dominated intellectual culture of United States (itselfan expression of the station in life that most of our immigrant forebears sprang from) we are oftenburdened by an annoying impatience with notes.18(As a possible antidote, Graftons [1997] marvel-ous work on the provenance and function of the footnote would, perhaps, be of some help here.)The fact, however, is that the nuances of the complexity of a subject such as the history of foreignrelations of a country that has for good or ill left a large footprint on global affairs especially onewith a subtopic that attempts to cover, at the considerable risk of pretentiousness, a huge swath oftime simply cannot be captured entirely in the text without, at the very least, seriously damaging itsorganizational coherence, and hence readability. With this justification, then, dear reader you areurged to put aside your prejudices and diligently read the chapter endnotes too. (In fact, quite possi-bly, some may even find that for them that is where all the action is!19)A special note about the bibliographic section: The general tendency for scholarly works of his-tory is to bury their sources in endnotes instead of disaggregating them into a separate biblio-graphic section thereby denying the reader an opportunity to quickly get a feel for the orienta-tion and depth of a given work. The reader will be pleased to note that this frustratingly annoy-ing practice has been avoided in this work. Consequently, a quick scan of the bibliography, almost allof which comprises works cited in the text (together with the unusually detailed index), should proveworthwhile in assessing the usefulness of this book to the reader.If, by this point, dear reader, you should insist on a summary of a work that covers a periodspanning more than three hundred years of relations between two nation-states that today dominatetheir respective continents, then the one coming up momentarily will have to do. First, however, anecessary preamble by means of quotes, presented chronologically, from three men who each intheir struggles against oppression have left their mark, for good or ill, on world history (albeit tovarying degrees) but who at the same time, for obvious reasons, are not necessarily held in high es-teem in the Euro-North American ecumene; they are: Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, Mahatma MohandasGandhi, and former Cuban president Fidel Castro.In an article for Foreign Affairs, published in 1943,20Du Bois would write among other things:[W]e must repudiate the more or less conscious feeling, widespread among the white peoples of the world, thatother folk exist not for themselves, but for their uses to Europe; that white Europe and America have the rightto invade the territory of colored peoples, to force them to work and to interfere at will with their cultural pat-terns, while demanding for whites themselves a preferred status. The most dangerous excuse for this situa-tion is the relation between European capital and colored labor involving high profit, low wages, and cheapraw material. It places the strong motive of private profit in the foreground of our inter-racial relations, whilethe greater objects of cultural understanding and moral uplift are pushed into the background.When a U.S. representative asked Mahatma Gandhi in the spring of 1947 if he had any advice onhow relations between the United States and India could be deepened, Gandhi replied:By the employment of unselfishness, hitherto unknown in international relations.21In his memoirs published in 2007, Castro (2007: 565 [English translation]) observes:I don t think a Fascist-type regime could ever emerge in the United States. Within their political system, graveerrors and injustices have been committed and many of them still survive but the American people havecertain institutions, traditions, educational, cultural and political values that would make that virtually impossi-
  • 26. Preface xxviible. The risk is in the international sphere. The powers and prerogatives of an American president are so great,and that country s network of military, economic, and technological strength is so immense, that in virtue ofcircumstances that have absolutely nothing to do with the will of the American people, the world is threatened.We can now proceed with the summary. If there is a single though by necessity dyadic themethat we may condense from this survey of U.S. relations with South Africa, then it is this: behind allthe policies, trends, and objectives, captured by terms such as open door policy, cold war, con-structive engagement, human rights, democracy, sanctions, globalization, and so on, hasbeen a single unifying determinative force that runs through the entire history of U.S. relations withthe rest of the world (against the backdrop of the chronologically almost linear transmutation of apredominantly Western-domiciled capital, at the planetary level, from mercantilism through industri-alism to techno-financialism, as it marches, on the pain of extinction, to the beat of the iron lawof accumulation) almost from the moment the country emerged as a self-conscious national entitywith the ratification of the Articles of Capitulation at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. It is one that isconstituted from a loosely woven tapestry of two basic disconsonant strands colored, usually subtly,by an aura of a Manichean struggle: on one hand, the drive to make the world safe for U.S. capital asa principal item on the foreign policy agenda of the U.S. American state in collusion with capital; andon the other, to humanize capital, as the principal objective of progressive sections of the U.S.citizenry, in consonance with the democratic intent of the U.S. constitution as amended (either leg-islatively or interpretatively) through their agency by means of, among other things, such traumaticnational upheavals as the abolitionist movement, the U.S. Civil War, Reconstruction, the suffragettemovement, the civil rights movement, the womens movement, and so on, which they helped engi-neer in their drive to expand, often in the teeth of massive opposition by capital and its allies, thedefinition of the concept of democracy beyond the domain of the procedural to that of the corporeal(hence constituting a marriage of the means to the end that capital and its allies, in this instance, so dis-dain).At the same time: beginning from almost the very moment that the first European interloperstepped ashore, black South Africans (like their aboriginal counterparts in the Americas) becameembroiled in a racialized struggle, though not of their choosing, with the interlopers from overseasto retain their independence, freedom, and dignity in the land of their birth even as their societieswere steadily, through the centuries, permanently transformed by the juggernaut of internationalcapital in its various manifestations under the aegis of an evolving and transmuting ethnically-rivenwhiteness-inspired racialized colonialism of the European interlopers that in time, like its counter-part in the United States, ceased to be an externally-sourced intrusion as it became nativized (his-torically expressed by the eventual nullification, by means of armed duress, of the Natural Law ofPrior Claim with the Law of Historical Irreversibility).22In this struggle emblazoned by such historicalmarkers of both conflict and nation-building as the Hundred-Year War, the Great Trek, the XhosaCattle-killing, the Anglo-Boer War, unification, independence, apartheid, the Defiance Campaign, theFreedom Charter, the Sharpeville Massacre, the Rivonia Trial, homelands, the Soweto Uprising, to-tal strategy , the Groote Shuur Minute, Codesa, and national democratic elections (and bracketed bytwo historically iconic figures, Jan van Riebeeck on one side of the centuries-long struggle and Nel-son Mandela on the other) the protagonists not only drew upon their own internally-derived ideo-logical and material resources but they also turned, through both circumstance and design, to theworld outside, including, and most especially, the United States, for support. Moreover, today, on theeve of the second decade of the twenty-first century, even as the social structural salience of raceslowly recedes into the background as class comes to the fore (with all that it portents for the blackmasses of South Africa) as the development of a PQD watered-down version of capitalist democ-racy moves apace, under the guidance of a brash and unashamedly self-aggrandizing compradorialelite that only yesterday had mouthed revolutionary slogans, the hand of United States in this proc-ess against the backdrop of such disquietingly burgeoning manifestations as global-warming-induced climate-change, commodity famine, and a relentlessly ever-widening global income andwealth inequality of the ever-tightening choke hold of Western-dominated globalized corporatecapital on a seemingly hapless planet remains ubiquitous.Now, we can proceed to one of the more pleasant aspects of scholarly endeavor, the acknowl-edgments.
  • 27. xxviii PrefaceAcknowledgmentsAs will be deduced, from the perspective of time spent researching and writing, this book has beenmany years in the making. Consequently, while it goes without saying that like all books, this workcould not have seen the light of day without the moral support of family and friends, and the mate-rial assistance of many others during the stages of research, writing, revisions, proofreading, etc., inthis particular instance this point has to be doubly emphasized. It is with deep gratitude, therefore, Iregister vociferously profound thanks to all of them, but deserving of immortalization by beinglisted here by name are those among the latter. Other than the anonymous reviewers, they are thefolks at Peter Lang USA, most especially my editor Phyllis Korper who saw merit in this project longbefore it was complete (though I am still smarting from being bludgeoned into drastically paringdown the manuscript smile), and production supervisor Sophie Appel for her admirable patienceand for regular and necessary but gentle reminders that helped me stay on the straight and narrow;followed by the library folks, most especially G. Johnson-Cooper, J. Ortner, K. L. Reid, and E. Ur-banek, together with their extremely helpful and diligent support staff, who time and again went be-yond the call of professional duty many, many thanks guys. Special thanks are also due to the peo-ple in the Deans office, above all Deans Bruce D. McCombe and Charles Stinger. The rest I will listalphabetically: S. (Beza) Alemayehu, J. Callender, R. Clarke, T. J. Davis, K. Henry, D. Hewett, D. Lal,A. M. McGoldrick, J. G. Pappas, and M. Todeschini. I also feel compelled to thank my physicians,most especially J. L. Dusse, Y. M. Gonzalez, N. H. Rabadi, and S. Siddiqui. (Hey Glendora, Fino andMarilyn, this book is also for you!) Needless to say, none of the people listed here necessarily sharethe conclusions reached in this work. Finally, no work of this kind can be produced without standingon the shoulders of others; my debt to them is indicated by their listing in the bibliography. Ofcourse, I take full responsibility for any errors of fact, interpretation, or otherwise that may haveslipped through in this work.NOTES1. It may be noted that Reagan s constructive engagement policy was, in one sense (though not one envisaged byits architects), quite ironically, a policy for the very social change sought by antiapartheid activists: by championing vig-orous global-oriented capitalist economic development in South Africa it inadvertently helped to accelerate the longgestating structural changes within the economy with its concomitant contradictions which in turn would be amongthe key factors that would help to produce and nurture the second decade of antiapartheid rebellion, further deepen-ing the contradictions in a dialectical fashion, leading to the eventual demise of apartheid itself.2. Massie (1997: xi) draws our attention to a wonderful opener in a speech delivered by Robert F. Kennedy whileon a visit to South Africa, on June 6, 1966 at the University of Cape Town, that really drives home this point: I comehere today because of my deep interest in and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the seventeenth century, aland taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued andrelations with whom are a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which was oncean importer of slaves and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that form of bondage. Now, up to this pointthe audience must have surely thought that he was talking about South Africa until he delivered this punch line: I re-fer, of course, to the United States of America. On a different but related note: U.S. relations with South Africathroughout the centuries have also been a function of language: in any situation, relations between two national entitieswill always be that much easier when they share a common dominant language (in this case, English thanks to Britishcolonialism).3. Or, perhaps more correctly a mottled mirror, as Massie (1997: xi) puts it, where, in his words: Political leaders,social commentators, and average citizens have all, from time to time, glanced over at the other country in search ofsome revealing image. They have searched for different things: for excuses and examples, warnings and prophecies, he-roes and villains, reassurance and reproach. Each country, he observes, has served as a refuge for the imagination ofthe other, a mottled mirror in which anxious souls have found the portraits they have most admired and feared.4. There are two or three that come to mind that come quite close, but they still, however, temporally (as well as interms of breadth of overview) fall considerably short though this is not in any way whatsoever to cast aspersions ontheir work, which after all have greatly informed the present work they are Booth (1976), Hull (1990), and the twobooks by Noer (1978, and 1985) when considered together. Perhaps one may also include here Duignan and Gann(1984), even though their purview goes beyond Southern Africa to include the rest of the continent and not to mentiontheir heavy tilt toward a cold war-infused conservative perspective. (After all, these were the same gentlemen who hadsought to predict in a work chock full of drivel [Gann and Duignan 1981] that, in not so many words, the apartheidstate was not only virtually unassailable with the exception of limited reformist tinkering at the edges but that it was
  • 28. Preface xxixbetter for all concerned to come to terms with that fact. What is more, they had arrived at this conclusion despite thefact that they had the lessons of both Zimbabwe and the collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire [had they chosento be aware of them] to disabuse them of this notion of the permanence of white supremacy in Southern Africa.) Andif pressed, we may also include among these few works the more journalistic survey by Rosenthal (1968). A survey ofpublished work that looks at only facets of U.S. relations with South Africa that has been produced in recent years, go-ing back no more than a decade and half or so, would almost certainly bring up (excluding, without prejudice, doctoraldissertations): Baldwin (1995), Culverson (1999), Hostetter (2006), and Nesbitt (2004), which all examine the U.S. anti-apartheid movement but through a U.S. African American lens; De Villiers (1995) which is also about the U.S. anti-apartheid movement, but from a more general perspective; and Borstelmann (1993), Crocker (1992), Hesse (2001),Lyman (2002), Massie (1997), Mokoena (1993), Thomas (1997), and Thomson (1996), which all consider foreign poli-cies of specific U.S. administrations. To these recent books, one would also add Campbell (1995), a marvelously insight-ful study of the U.S. African American presence in South Africa, and Nixon (1994) which brings a unique cultural ap-proach to the study of U.S.-South-African relations. For older work, see the annotated bibliography by Lulat (1991).5. The distinction here is between the two halves of all authentic democracies: the corporeal in contrast to the proce-dural, where the former is the end while the latter is the means (see also the glossary).6. As a reminder: Writing nearly 700 years ago, the celebrated Afro-Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun, had observed inhis Muqaddimah: History is a discipline widely cultivated among nations and races . Both the learned and the ignorantare able to understand it. For on the surface history is no more than information about political events, dynasties, andoccurrences of the remote past . The inner meaning of history, on the other hand, involves speculation and an at-tempt to get at the truth, subtle explanation of the causes and origins of existing things, and deep knowledge of the howand why of events (Khaldun 1967, Vol. 1: 6). It is this latter trait, in addition to the obvious matter of a careful exami-nation of sources, that encompass, at one level, the concept of critical history in this work. In other words, the criticalpart in the book title is not a marketing ploy. Rather, it speaks to two basic elements of method in this work: an icono-clastic approach to cherished shibboleths, and a critique of power relations (understood in their broadest sense), interms of both the sociology of the production of knowledge (here one means, for example, examining the ideologicalunderpinnings of questions asked, conclusions reached, etc., and the historical data itself for instance the actual formof U.S. relations with South Africa at a given moment). In other words, what this also implies is that the critical alsospeaks to the effort to place positivism in its proper place in historical analysis by also turning to the theoretical perspec-tive that has come to be known as critical theory a la Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.7. For canonical examples of their work, see Braudel (1982 1984), and Moore (1966).8. A disclaimer: it is important to emphasize that contrary to what the lay public thinks, and possibly many in aca-deme as well, the production of all history is a fundamentally contingent process in which such factors as the role ofestablished historians, the production and editorship of journals, the production of Ph.D. dissertations and the hiringof their authors as faculty, the organizing of conferences, and above all the tenor of the times, all collude to renderingit as such.9. Incidentally, Twain s satirically scathing critique (Twain 1996 [1901]) of Western imperialism and the U.S. projectfor bringing democracy to the Philippines titled To the Person Sitting in Darkness is a sobering déjà vu read at thisparticular moment in history; you are strongly enjoined, dear reader, to seek it out.10. Fortunately, there are others who also share this view. For example, at least one work on South Africa that isguided by this principle is the anthology put together by Beinart and Dubow (1995). Here the brief but excellent histo-riographical surveys by Maylam (2001) and Saunders (1988) are also relevant, for they both remind us that contrary, forinstance, to the positivist view of history, it is also always political.11. See the excellent seminal overview edited by Jones (2001) on what a critical theoretical approach to the analysisof international relations implies. See also Dunn and Shaw (2001) which provides us with an exemplar of the practical,though not necessarily self-conscious, application of the critical theoretical approach to an analysis of Africa s interna-tional relations.12. There is a Eurocentric tendency for some academics to assume that all books published in the West are goingto be read only by Westerners. Consequently, they may find information in this work that will appear redundant (orperhaps even perplexing). To minimize frustration, they are enjoined to broaden their perspective to include the rest ofthe planet who, at the very least not only form a majority, but some of whom have been integral to Western historyeither directly or indirectly from almost the beginning of the emergence of the so-called West.13. Of course, it is not simply the matter of terminology that the subject of race brings up: Given the divergent his-torical trajectories that the two countries eventually followed on this matter, it was bound to be a source of severe con-tention in U.S. relations with South Africa at the level foreign policy. In other words, this work does not shy away fromdealing with such questions that this issue generated as: Did the U.S. have any business becoming involved in whatSAAG always argued was an internal policy matter? To what extent were the various U.S. administrations affected bytheir own views on race in how they approached the matter of apartheid? Could the various U.S. administrations havedone more to assist with a speedier ending of apartheid? How did race relations within the United States itself colorforeign policy toward South Africa? And so on.14. The last point is discussed at some length in the first two appendices to Lulat (2005).15. Interestingly, the term liberal has pejorative connotations in both the United States and South Africa butfrom opposite ideological perspectives: in the United States, to the right-wing a liberal is synonymous with someone onthe left, whereas in South Africa, to the left-wing a liberal is synonymous with someone who is a conservative (but mas-querading as someone from the left). Therefore, in both instances a liberal is viewed as someone who is not to betrusted. In this work, depending upon context, either definition informs usage of the term. It is important to point out
  • 29. xxx Prefacetoo that from the perspective of race relations the integrity of white liberals (regardless of their geographic location)must always be suspect given their concealed adherence to the ideology of whiteness. (See also the discussion in the sec-tion titled The Penury of Liberalism in Chapter 3 of Rob Nixon s [1994] work.)16. Lest there is the hasty judgment that the placement of this topic in an appendix suggests its peripherality to thecentral concerns of this work, it must be emphasized here that any such notion is absolutely erroneous. Its placement inan appendix is merely an outcome of the desire to ease the burden on the reader, in a lengthy work of this kind, of hav-ing to grapple with a complex variety of issues all at once.17. Similarly, one would be guilty of a grave error in assuming that South African history exists entirely separatelyfrom African history in general, or Southern African history in specific.18. In fairness one ought to also point out that printers too did their part in discouraging the use of notes, most es-pecially footnotes, considering them a nuisance because of the difficulties they created during typesetting. One solutionthey found was to bury the notes in the back, a generally nefarious practice that continues to live on to this day, but thatsimply did not help matters. However, we live now in the age of computerized typesetting; this should no longer be anissue other than the weight of tradition.19. Over half a million words make up the text of this work, of which one third comprises endnotes (numberingover a thousand altogether).20. The article is reproduced in a Du Bois reader edited by Sundquist (1996: 663).21. The U.S. representative was Raymond Hare, a career diplomat who was sent by the State Department on agoodwill mission to India as the latter was preparing for independence. (The quote appears in Kux [1992: 54].)22. See glossary.
  • 30. For a preview of this book please visit:http://bit.ly/sabookFor an annotated bibliography related to thisbook (Volume 1) please visit:http://bit.ly/9fOPrrFor Volume 2 please visit:http://bit.ly/bSBENy

×