Commonwealth split over South Africa: worst-case scenario

In the 1980s the Commonwealth nearly came apart at the seams because of Thatcher's intrasingent opposition to sanctions, a position shared by the Reagan administration. In particular, the ones pushing the hardest were the UK's staunchest allies most of the time: Australia, Canada, and India. In their respective memoirs, Thatcher, Hawke, Mulroney and Gandhi all make clear that things got extremely heated, often uncivil, and at some points there were calls for Britain's censure or even expulsion. So let's say that no one backs down, things escalate and one of those motions pass. What happens next? How long does it take to recover? Effects on the South African situation?
 
Well if no one backs down then Britain gets expelled from the Commonwealth. However the problem is that people would back down before it got to that point. Labour and the Liberals aren't going to stand by and let Thatcher get Britain thrown out of the Commonwealth and neither will a lot of Tories, not for South Africa at any rate. Depending when it happens she could end up being deposed as leader before 1990.
 
The problem was by pushing her into a corner it would only further UK resistance. BTW, the censure motion came mostly from the African countries, the other 3 were more flexible. No one would go so far as expulsion, but a censure motion where the 3 ROC negotiators abstain and it passes is within the realm of possibility, since no one held a veto. SA might follow its present course while everyone else is bickering, or Botha, sensing an opportunity, might decide "the hell with it" and only give a damn about what the US is saying. Certainly bilateral relations, both on a national level and personally between the leaders, would be deeply colored. (Of the 3 IOTL, her relationship with Rajiv Gandhi went frigid after he remarked, not without reason, that "Britain is no longer the leader in the Commonwealth anymore, because it is sacrificing its basic principles for commercial ends")
 
I think a Commonwealth vs. Britain war would certainly be interesting (though improbable).
Numerous elite groups battling over the custody of the Queen!:eek:
Indo-UK nuclear exchange!:eek:
 
Reagan was not pro-white SA. SA leaders at the time have come forward saying that at cabinet meetings, US officials constantly hammered away at the issue of apartheid.
 
I was thinking less of military conflict than the UK being drawn closer into the US orbit and away from the Commonwealth. Certainly Thatcher never had much love for the institution, which she doesn't bother hiding in her memoirs. IOTL HMQ was quite anxious that the worst would happen and if Mulroney is to be believed, she personally asked him to prevent this from happening. Hence the "N3" (3 negotiators: Gandhi, Hawke and Mulroney) of which Mulroney was the unofficial leader, something in which everyone's memoirs concur.
 

Cook

Banned
It probably would have led to the end of the pointless talkfest called the Commonwealth.
 
Reagan steadfastly refused the call for sanctions (ironic given the US sanctions on Cuba) and introduced a limited package in 1986 to forestall Congressional pressure. In the end, as with the Soviet collapse, there was no single cause but a mix of factors, the most underrated ones often being internal: in this case the South African business community. So the whole debate was rather a moot point in the end, but no one could've been expected to foresee that at the time.
 
Not formally signing onto sanctions like Carter doesn't mean Reagan in any way was a fan of apartheid. He was working hard to be a friend to Gorby and he certainly didn't want to be seen as supporting a rogue racist regime internationally. Like I said, in private, he was a merciless foe of apartheid, and he was in a much greater position to bring Botha to heel than the Soviets or Carter or anyone else.
 
It probably would have led to the end of the pointless talkfest called the Commonwealth.

Another thing; an open rift between Thatcher and HMQ, who would never have forgiven Thatcher for having helped destroy the institution ITTL. This peaked in 1985-7, when Thatcher was at the peak of her power post-Falklands, so a leadership challenge is doubtful.
 
Not formally signing onto sanctions like Carter doesn't mean Reagan in any way was a fan of apartheid. He was working hard to be a friend to Gorby and he certainly didn't want to be seen as supporting a rogue racist regime internationally. Like I said, in private, he was a merciless foe of apartheid, and he was in a much greater position to bring Botha to heel than the Soviets or Carter or anyone else.

I didn't say Reagan (or Thatcher for that matter, I fully agree that both despised it, as do the N3 leaders in their memoirs) supported apartheid, I said that he supported Thatcher's anti-sanctions stance. There were valid arguments on both sides: the same arguments made against SA sanctions are quite similar to the ones made today about Cuban sanctions: detente allows dialogue and an economic relationship helps create internal pressure on the regime in question. On the other side, they aren't going to respond if there aren't consequences. Using only carrots or only sticks would not work, a mix had to be found.
 
Maybe so, but I was addressing a previous point. So if the whole thing goes to hell, I doubt the Commonwealth would be abolished, just very frosty CHOGMs until Thatcher leaves office. John Major would not be so intrasigent, while a Labour government (ironically this would give Lab plus the two Davids a major foreign affairs critique to use in the '87 election) would do an instant 180 if they won in 1992.
 
I think Reagan was more motivated to want to end apartheid than MT. Britain didn't have a long and painful civil-rights struggle that it had recently passed through and at the time, was overwhelmingly majority white--not to mention its longstanding relationship with SA, and the fact that it was a former colony. That's not nearly the same as her being an ally of the apartheid regime but she did not play anywhere near the same role Reagan did.
 
So, does the Alliance get any traction over this issue in 1987? Not that they'd come close to winning, just points-scoring.
 
Top