Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy

238. Editorial Note

On April 16, 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz delivered an address before the National Press Club in Washington. Shultz discussed the desirability of a national consensus on foreign policy, stressing that such a consensus was “imperative” in terms of U.S. policy toward Southern Africa. After outlining “the broad regional realities” that underpinned U.S. strategy, Shultz indicated that in pursuing its policy, the United States had “been guided by two important facts”: “First, South Africa is not a closed, totalitarian society in which the government controls all aspects of life, all means of communication, all avenues of thought. While the white minority dominates the system, there is in that system a significant degree of openness of political activity and expression—a generally free press, an independent judiciary, vigorous debate within the governing party and in parliament, and vocal critics of all viewpoints. There is nothing comparable in the Soviet Union. This degree of openness reflects the fact that white South Africa is not immune to the moral influence of the West; indeed, the white community’s desire to be viewed as part of the Western world and its growing recognition of the need for change are among the grounds for hope for peaceful change. How many governments in the world would permit ABC’s Nightline program to set up shop for a week, probe and dissect the country’s ills, film heated debates between government leaders and their most ardent critics, and then show those programs to its people?

“Second, we chose to focus on getting results. We cannot have it both ways: we cannot have influence with people if we treat them as moral lepers, especially when they are themselves beginning to address the agenda of change. South Africa’s neighbors recognize this. We must, too.

“By the same token, this has not kept us from speaking out—to South Africans of all races and to the American people. We have conveyed the message to the South African Government that a more constructive relationship with the United States is possible, provided that it demonstrates a sustained commitment to significant reform toward a more just society.

• “We have consistently called for an end to apartheid.
• “We have spoken out forcefully for press freedom and against repressive measures such as forced removals, arbitrary detentions, and bannings.
• “We have called for political dialogue between blacks and whites and for an end to Nelson Mandela’s long imprisonment.
• With our support, U.S. businesses have become a positive force for change in South Africa by adopting the Sullivan code of fair labor employment practices and by providing educational, housing, and other benefits worth more than $100 million to their black employees over the past few years.
• “We have developed nearly $30 million in assistance programs to train leaders in the black community to help them work more effectively for change in their own society.

“The truth is that South Africa is changing. For the most part, the transformation is being brought about by reality—by the growing realization that a modern industrial society simply cannot be governed by a preindustrial political philosophy of racial segregation.

“The old illusion that South Africa’s blacks could live permanently or enjoy citizenship rights only in designated tribal homelands—so that in the end there would no longer be any ‘South African blacks’—is being abandoned. Blacks are no longer prohibited from acquiring property rights in the supposedly ‘white’ urban areas. The right of blacks to organize trade unions has been recognized, and black unions are now a powerful factor on South Africa’s industrial relations scene; fully 50% of trade unionists in South Africa are black. Central business districts are being opened to black businessmen, and cities like Durban and Cape Town are desegregating their public facilities. Faced with the obvious injustice of forced removals of settled black communities and with the obvious inability to stop the influx of blacks into the cities, the government has suspended such removals and is shifting to what it calls an ‘orderly urbanization’ policy.

“The government has now acknowledged that it must consult with representative blacks about political participation outside the tribal homelands and at the national level; mere local self-government is understood to be inadequate. Just this week, the government accepted a special commission’s report that calls for the abolition of laws banning interracial marriage and sexual relations—one of the most important symbols of apartheid.

“If we recognize that white opinion holds vital keys to change, then we must also recognize that change must originate in shifts in white politics. In this regard, in the past 3 years, the white government has crossed a historical divide: it has been willing to accept major defections from its own ranks in order to begin to offer a better political, economic, and social deal to the nation’s black majority.

“These changes are not enough. South Africa is not now a just society. Serious inequities continue: repression, detentions without trial, and the prospect of treason trials for some black leaders. The issues of common citizenship for all and of black political rights have been raised but not yet concretely addressed by the government. The hated pass laws and influx control continue, though the government appears to be rethinking its actions on this front. Much more needs to be done. Change has just begun, but it has begun. Our job is to continue to encourage it.

“The recent domestic violence is clearly a setback. All Americans are saddened and dismayed at the almost daily reports of violent encounters that have caused nearly 300 deaths among black South Africans over the past 9 months. The United States has consistently, repeatedly, and publicly deplored this bloodshed and the police tactics that only produce killings and add fuel to the unrest.

“There is no excuse for official violence against peaceful demonstrators. Any government has a duty to maintain law and order. Nevertheless, that cannot be done simply on the basis of force; law and order also means due process and adequate channels for airing and resolving grievances.

“But just as we recognize the right of peaceable assembly, so, too, if we are to be taken seriously, must we reject the right of any to take the law into their own hands. That is a formula for anarchy. We applaud the courage of those black leaders who press for nonviolent change, confronted on one side by a surging mass of black bitterness and on the other side by a long-unresponsive political system. We welcome the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Prize laureate, who urged a crowd of blacks at a funeral the other day:

“‘Don’t undermine our wonderful cause. Let us not use the methods that are used against us by our enemies. When we finally achieve our goal of freedom, we must be able to look back with pride at how we got there.’

“There are responsibilities here for all South Africans, and most particularly for those in authority. We hope the government will move quickly and concretely to restore confidence in its reform commitments; we urge it to take up the dialogue with black leaders about the road to a just society. We urge all South Africans to take advantage of openings for peace.”

After discussing the United States’ approach to regional security and relations with Angola, Mozambique, and South Africa, Shultz concluded his address by restating the need for consensus: “The only course consistent with American values is to engage ourselves as a force for constructive, peaceful change. It is not our business to cheer on, from the sidelines, the forces of polarization that could erupt in a race war; it is not our job to exacerbate hardship, which could lead to the same result.

“At the same time, a clear bipartisan American voice that rejects apartheid as an unjust, anachronistic, and untenable system is another essential building block of a successful policy. And here I return to my opening theme of consensus. As long as Americans speak with contrary and confusing voices, our influence will be less than it could be.

“What, then, can we as Americans agree on?

“First, we can all agree that southern Africa is an important part of the world that demands our attention.

“Second, we can all agree that the pace of change, of reform and development in each of the countries of the region, depends on regional peace and stability. Continued conflict only helps perpetuate racism and poverty.

“Third, we can agree that apartheid must go. It is a system contrary to all that we stand for as a nation.

“Fourth, we can agree that we are more interested in promoting real progress than in posturing, debating points, or grandiose schemes that are likely to prove ineffectual.

“Fifth, we can agree that in southern Africa, as in every other part of the world, the engine of economic and social advancement is the productive private sector and its links to the global economy.

“And, finally, we should agree that America’s role must always be on the side of those seeking peaceful change. We should agree that we do not support violence but that we do support—and will support aggressively—those who have committed themselves to promote change and justice.

“These are the elements for a broad consensus that will allow America to speak with one voice.

“We must recognize the importance of what has been taking place in South Africa in recent years, and we must reinforce that process creatively. Only by engaging ourselves can we hope to do so. We will not be the main actors in this human drama; that role must be played by the region’s people—black and white Africans. But we must not stand by and throw American matches on the emotional tinder of the region.

“Our morality and our interests coincide. America’s values and America’s global responsibilities both compel us to stay engaged, to work actively for justice and decency and reconciliation. We should be indignant at injustice and bloodshed—but indignation alone is not a strategy. The morality of a nation’s policy must be judged not only by the noble goals it invokes but by the results and consequences of its actions.

“If all Americans work together, this nation can be a major force for good. Thus, we serve our highest ideals.” (Department of State Bulletin, June 1985, pages 23–24, 26) The full text of Shultz’s address is ibid., pages 22–26.

Noting that he delivered it with the intent “of winning broader public support” for the administration’s policy, Shultz recalled in his memoir: “Largely ignored by the media and disregarded by Congress, it was cited by right-wingers within the administration as proof that I was ‘selling out,’ because of my strong criticism of South Africa and my support for negotiations with the likes of Cuba and Angola.” (Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph, page 1115)