You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: Actually South Africa was not "singled out" even in Africa [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. Actually South Africa was not "singled out" even in Africa
Edited on Thu Aug-03-06 02:30 PM by HamdenRice
Before the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa, the sanctions against Rhodesia were much more severe. In both cases, these countries had sanctions imposed on them because they were violating international law.

Rhodesia was a colony of the United Kingdom with a high degree of self-rule under a whites only franchise. Therefore, the UK had the responsibility for setting the terms of independence to which the UK had in principle agreed. Having granted independence to several other African colonies, the UK decided that the terms of independence required a full franchise. The Rhodesian whites instead chose "unilateral declaration of independence" in 1965 on the basis of a whites only franchise. This violated the international norm, established after WWI, of self-determination for the majority population. The matter was referred to the UN and sanctions were imposed. When Rhodesia finally gave up as a result of the armed struggle for majority rule, Rhodesia actually was returned to the UK, which allowed the UN to supervise elections leading to the creation of Zimbabwe.

South Africa also had sanctions imposed because of violations of international law. At the end of WWI, South Africa was granted trusteeship by the League of Nations (precursor to the UN) over the formerly German colony of South West Africa. South Africa imposed segregation and then apartheid over South West Africa. But ultimately, the United Nations had legal responsibility over South West Africa. Because South Africa refused to recognize its obligations to the United Nations trusteeship program and the obligation of decolonization and self-determination, sanctions were imposed -- but primarily relating to South West Africa. Later, United Nations resolutions determined that apartheid was a crime, and individual countries, including the United States, imposed various limited sanctions on South Africa.

Meanwhile, as a result of armed struggle by the movement for majority rule in South West Africa, South Africa agreed to return South West Africa to United Nations trusteeship, and elections were held, leading to the independence of Namibia.

The idea that sanctions were imposed on South Africa because of racism against white South Africans is simply wrong.

on edit: sorry my sarcasm detector was turned off. but the outline of events may be helpful in understanding what happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC