South Africa’s relationship with Britain is closer and more paradoxical than her relationship with any other country, the Afrikaners’ Dutch and Huguenot roots having long been severed. The modern republic was born out of conflict with Britain; a conflict that Britain won—and in which British (and American) liberals were as passionately pro-Boer as a later generation was pro-Vietcong. Nowadays, the English-language press in South Africa is so hostile to the Afrikaner government, and so left-wing, that the modern Boers find it almost treasonable. The gulf—social, political, and cultural—between English-speaking South Africans and Afrikaners remains huge, sharper in some ways than between black and white: but Britain is South Africa’s biggest outside investor and a chief trading partner. All of which makes Britain a key factor in the present emotion-ridden debate.
Margaret Thatcher has been fighting a lonely rearguard action against the demand for penal sanctions. Of course, she wasn’t quite alone. Her views were closely coordinated with those of President Reagan; which, to her critics, only made them worse. She also has on her side moderates in South Africa, black and white—the liberal Helen Suzman, for example, and the powerful Zulu Chief Buthelezi: but the British media, especially the BBC, pay very little attention to them, compared with the militant Tutus and Tambos.




Comments