THE SPECTATOR
SIR GEOFFREY'S CAUTION
t was quickly pointed out that Sir Geoffrey Howe's speech on South African sanctions in the House of Commons on Tuesday committed the Government to nothing specific: the Government is agreed on the importance of 'measures', no more. This is true, but it does not follow that Sir Geoffrey was being cowardly. In fact, he was being quite brave. It is always easier for a government to bow to 'world opin- ion', Eminent Persons, Commonwealth leaders (especially when there are veiled threats about upsetting the Queen), than to Tory backwoodsmen and people with- out much power whose jobs happen to be at stake, but Sir Geoffrey has refused to take this course. The Government remains in a position to deal with South Africa, and capable of arguing that such dealings do have some good effect. Sir Geoffrey rightly mentioned that there have been reforms in South Africa — the abolition of petty apartheid, the reform of the pass laws, the granting of freehold rights to urban blacks. These changes were not brought about by the formal 'demands of external govern- ments, but they would never have hap- pened if South Africa had had no interest in working with the western world. By remaining part of the free trading world economy, South Africa is restrained from some of the extremes of Afrikaner tribal- ism. 'Dialogue' is acknowledged to be important in dealings between East and West: it is important with South Africa too. One of the most extraordinary claims of the out-and-out supporters of sanctions, such as Mr Neil Kinnock and Mr Oliver Tambo, is that not to support them is to make a tloodbath"inevitable'. It may be that the bloodbath will come whatever happens, but this claim about sanctions is not backed up by any argument at all. Would sanctions stop the black violence in the townships? Would they persuade freindly Afrikaner policemen to lay aside their sjamboks? Mr Tambo must know that he is not telling the truth; Mr Kinnock ought to know that he is not. The differ- ence between supporters and opponents of sanctions is not between those who abhor and those who apologise for apartheid, but between those who make moral gestures without thought of the consequences, and those who think that it is moral to care bout consequences. The anti-apartheid activist has developed a vocabulary which makes the destruction of white supremacy the main religious duty in the world (there is even bogus theology about apartheid being the 'Anti-Christ' written to back this up). This position is as evil, although fortunately less world-shaking in its effects, as the belief that the wickedness of Com- munism demands a world war between Russia and America. It has produced many deaths in South Africa and is working to produce more. Opponents of this view see apartheid very differently. For them it is one of many of the evil political doctrines alive in the world, a world in which the majority is denied the rights which we in Britain take for granted. Opposition to apartheid must be practical, and practice is always tempered by an understanding of danger. So, just as one would say that it is better for Poland to remain under the Soviet yoke for another generation than that Eastern Europe should go up in flames, one should also admit that the temporary preservation of white suprema- cy in South Africa is better than revolution and civil war there. This is a moral posi- tion, and no one should be afraid of adopting it. What makes life so difficult for western governments, however, is that their stand on South Africa is very exposed and yet their power is so limited. South Africa is not a Phillipines or the Nicaragua of Somoza, where a corrupt dictator is propped up by a foreign power. It is a resilient, thoroughly independent state with a long tradition of defying what the rest of the world wants of it. Britain should not make a fool of itself by insisting on what it cannot achieve, or worse than a fool by destroying where it cannot control. We should be grateful to Sir Geoffrey Howe for seeing this, and almost saying it.