HomeCriminal TakeoverTHE SIEGE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA


BEHIND THE NEWS NOVEMBER 1978

It can be safely assumed that the reaction of most people, both in Southern Africa and abroad, th the recent goings-on in Pretoria, involving the foreign ministers of the five Western Powers and representatives of the South African Government, was one of total bewilderment. By “most” of course, we mean only those who have not long ago given up hope of finding any sense at all in the news about international politics.
Something like 99 percent of what passes as news makes no contribution to understanding – on the contrary, it only helps to clog the mental processes of those who still try to understand. This rules out any possibility of discovering the real truth about what is going on.
Point No 1: Let us therefore understand, right from the start, that what went on in Pretoria was only an aspect of what we have already described as the Third Boer War, or Third South African War, if you prefer to call it that.
Likewise, all this is only part of what people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and General Sir Walter Walker, the former NATO chief, have clearly identified as the Third World War.
With these points understood, we have then established what the land surveyors would call a geodetic base line, giving us the means of currently orienting and interpreting a vast quantity of other political phenomena.
‘The Mammon of Unrighteousness’
Point No. 2: World Government is something we already have – let us not be deceived by the fact that it is, at this stage, hopelessly inefficient. The foreign ministers of the five Western Powers, were, in fact acting as the agents of this ramshackle World Government called United Nations; and the United Nations is the instrument of a highly centralized global financial power which seeks to produce a corresponding centralization of political power.
This same financial power, which gave rise to the Second Boer War and the two World Wars, has now drawn the world into the “cold” phase of the Third World War.
Point No. 3: A vast number of apparent contradictions are instantly explained and resolved if we also understand that at the highest levels where decisions are made, there is no vital antagonism between “Capitalism” and “Communism” – these are only the twin heads of a Janus-like monster better known as “international finance capitalism” – not to be confused with private enterprise capitalism!
That is why it was possible for Dr. David Owen, when he visited Moscow in November last year, to say that “Britain’s interests are exactly the same as the Soviet Union’s” in regard to Rhodesia, and why in his book THE POLITICS OF DÉTENTE he stated that he could visualize a situation where he could visualize a situation where “a Russian presence could be used to ensure South Africa did not invade an African country which was harboring and encourage guerilla action.”
Masters of Deceit
We may be sure there is no difference between Dr. Owen’s attitude and orientation towards the Soviet Union and that of Mr. Donald Jamieson, the Canadian Foreign Minister, who can be regarded as the personal representative of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, of whose own orientation towards Communism enough has been said.
Also explained is the West’s apparently idiotic state of unconcern about Soviet Communist expansion in Africa. Western leaders are no so idiotic – they know what they are doing, even if they won’t say what they are doing. President Carter has not been “incorrectly briefed” about Rhodesia, as Mr. Ian Smith complained. President Carter probably doesn’t know what he is doing, but those on whose knee he sits like a ventriloquist’s doll certainly know, so it’s no use telling them!
Point No. 4: Therefore, we can safely sweep out of our minds the hundreds of thousands of words printed every week about all the ostensible reasons for the present undeclared war against Southern Africa. Likewise all the reported arguments and proposed “settlement” clauses and objections to clauses, all of them based on the logic of a completely spurious set of complaints against the present rulers in Southern Africa – that’s just not what the struggle is all about!
Point No. 5: Which raises a question that must be dealt with before we proceed. Why then does the South African Government go on negotiating with these representatives of an invading imperialism of money?
Here it is necessary to remind ourselves that there is an important difference between the political analyst’s mental activity as conducted by a nation’s leaders. In the realm of the mind the shortest way from A to B is a straight line, whereas in realpolitik it often happens that the only way from A to B is via X,Y and Z. In other words the analyst deals with “ideas” while political leaders are called upon to deal with actualities, not situations as imgained but situations as they actually exist, not with people obedient to the laws of the analyst’s mind, but people as they actually are – and what people!
Stratagem
Therefore, a government can find itself under the necessity of agreeing to “negotiations when it knows that the whole logic of such negotiations is spurious. For as Von Clausewitz, the philosopher of war has correctly stated, the weapons used in any struggle are dictated by the circumstances of the times, and there is no more sense in refusing to meet words with words than in refusing to meet artillery or guided missiles with guided missiles.
We may be sure that Mr. Menachem Begin is under no illusion about his talks with Mr. Anwar Sadat – their purpose is to get the better of Egypt and of the Arab world in general, nothing more and nothing less!
Likewise, we may be quite sure that Messrs. Vance, Owen, Jamieson and company are under no illusion about the purpose of their “negotiations” with the South African Government – it is to bring about an overthrow of local political self-determination in Southern Africa. And we can only hope that Mr. P.W. Botha in South Africa and Mr. Sadat in Egypt understand this.
Point No. 6: has to do with the strength or weakness of Southern Africa in the present undeclared-war situation. Could South Africa withstand sanctions? Is the enemy in any position to impose sanctions? Answers to both questions can be summed up in one sentence: The enemy would hate to have to try to impose sanctions!
Why? Because, like a toy pistol in the hands of a bandit, it is useful only so long as the victim believes it is real.
If South Africa’s leaders know this it might still be expedient to go on pretending that they are terrified. On the other hand, it is important that the people of South Africa should know the truth and not be terrified.
A blockade against South Africa would also be a blockade against all Southern Africa, including Lersotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Mozambique and even Zambia – and as General Walker has pointed out, it would also be a blockade of the West in terms of vitally important raw materials, not to mention the servicing of a sea around the the Cape which they all need.
‘White Hand in Black Glove’
Point No. 7: Another considerable acreage of newspaper reporting (much of it repeated on radio and television) to which we should give no more than a passing glance – to the great advantage of our mental health and understanding – is that which has to do with the unceasing and voluble utterances of the spokesmen of the so-called independent Black states in Africa.
These states are completely artificial, and by no stretch of the imagination can they be said to represent the aspirations and interests of the indigenous people of the continent. In fact, they have no reality except as part of the political scene-setting required by an invading imperialism of money.
What is more, they have no power whatever they can call their own, whether political, economic or military. It is the height of craziness, therefore, to take notice of shouts, exclamations and threats which emanate from these politicians – except only insofar as it becomes evident that their external manipulators find it harder to employ them as puppets or stalking horses.
The fact that in Africa the global revolutionaries have been compelled to set up and try to use these bogus politicians as proxies is a major factor of weakness on their side, and a corresponding factor of strength on the side of those trying to stem the Communist-liberalist revolutionary tide in Africa.
The importance of this “K-factor”, as we have called it, cannot be exaggerated – both as found in the United Sates, the United Kingdom and in Africa, it could prove fully to be the salvation of the West.
The truth of the above remarks was demonstrated again last month when the Rhodesians, a mere handful of them, went into Zambia and wiped out a couple of terrorists in their training camps, without encountering any resistance.
Only the massive intervention of one of the major powers could prevent the Rhodesians capturing the whole of Zambia and Mozambique within a few days – in fact, the major powers would be powerless to intervene except after the event!
This is the reality against which to set the blustering, threatening speeches from characters like Joshua Nkomo and Sam Nujoma.
Point No. 8: So how are we to expect South Africa to react to the challenge of the present undeclared war, the beginning of a re-play of the drama of the Boer War?
General Walker has remarked, correctly we believe, that one of the most serious gaps in South Africa’s national defense is the failure to mount a full-scale political and propaganda warfare strategy.
‘Know Your Enemy’
It would not be easy to place in order of precedence the requirements of such a strategy, but there can be no doubt about what should come first: the freeing of the political authority from subordination to the economic.
It goes without saying that the political authority can find no effective counterpoise to the pressure and influence of the economic except that which can be drawn from religious sources; no one has explained this better than Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Men are willing to risk all in defending moral and ethical values against material power, but they will not risk all to defend a smaller set of material interests against a greater – they would be tempted rather to join the greater!
The other requirements of the viable strategy unfold quite naturally from this one – the need to distinguish clearly between appearance and reality in the present global power struggle scene: the need to analyze, understand and define “the enemy” so as to be able to distinguish friend from foe in those areas whence the pressure of enmity proceeds as well as inside the boundaries of our own country, the need to asses correctly all the causes of our weakness and the sources of our strength, as well as know where is the strength of the enemy.
In a word, what South Africa needs is a strategy which understands what it is fighting for, what it is fighting against, and how, in all the changed circumstances of the 20th Century, warfare is waged and can be successfully resisted.
IVOR BENSON
Men are tired to disgust with money politics. They hope for salvation from somewhere or other, for some real thing of honor, of inward nobility, of unselfishness and duty. – SPENGLER.
at


Comments

THE SIEGE OF SOUTHERN AFRICA — No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*