In Whose Interest: A Guide to US-South Africa Relations

Kevin, Danaher. In Whose Interest?: A Guide to U.S. South Africa Relation. (Washington, Washington 0. C. Institute for Policy Studies, 1984). pp. 279. $11.95. In this book, Danaher critically examines the premises upon which U.S. policy toward South Africa is built. The book consists of four chapters. Chapter one debunks the myth about alleged reform through existing political institutions, chapter two exposes the sham of U.S. business involvement in South Africa as an impetus to the abolition of apartheid, chapter three traces U.S. policy toward Africa since the Kissinger Doctrine, and looks at the hypocrisy of 'constructive engagement,' and chapter four demonstrates that under the Carter and Reagan Administrations the linkage of anti-comnun1sm with the question of strategic minerals has meant U.S. SUPPOrt of the status quo. Danaher's major point in his book is that U.S. relations with South Africa are hypocritical and antidemocratic. He debunks the myths about alleged U.S. inability to be a powerful catalyst in effecting real change in South Africa. He reveals that what is lacking is a genuine commitment and a lack of will regarding the struggle to dismantle apartheid. Tacitly, the true democratic rights of Africans in South Africa have been consciously and systematically subordinated to the interests of multinational corporations and a repressive white minority regime. The Reagan administration remains unconcerned about the on-going genocide of the Black people in South Africa under the whit~ minority regime. The grim realities of the recently declared state of emergency in South Africa, the accompanying state violence perpetrated against Africans--mus arrests, indetenninate detentions, military oppression · and cold-blooded murder of men, women and children have been tacitly removed from the media. The first premise on which the U.S. policy of 'constructive engagement' towards South Africa fs built is that fundamental change can come abo~t through existing political institutions. Danaher reveals the patent falsehood of this premise. First. no real change h POSsible through existing political institutions because of the very exclusive and prohibitive structure inherent in apartheid. Africans have historically been denied the franchise, they have no representation in the parliament, and they also tack constitutional guarantees of protection regarding civil liberties, human rights and entitlements to due process. Furthermore, with Botha at the helm, the National Party continues to commit genocide under the banner of Christian Nationalism, an ally of Nazism. The apartheid minority regime in South Africa has forcefully and arbitrarily divided the Africans into ten Methnic nations• and confined them into reserves called 209