Assuming that the white supremacist regimes of Rhodesia and Apartheid-era South Africa survived into the present, what would those countries look like by now? I'm not so much interested in how those regimes maintain their power as opposed to their effects on contemporary life. In particular, how would these regimes have dealt with the incipient AIDS epidemic which has severely affected the populations of Southern Africa, especially given that the National Party (not so sure about Rhodesia) was also quite socially conservative being dominated by Calvinist Afrikaners? In foreign policy terms assuming that the US and other Western democracies kept up their diplomatic and economic sanctions, South Africa and Rhodesia could slowly have moved into the incipient "anti-American", soverigntist bloc led by Putin's Russia and China.
Effects of a Modern-Day Rhodesia/Apartheid South Africa
- Thread starter Marius Mazzini
- Start date
It's an interesting question, and I think it could well be that you would see any surviving apartheid SA or Rhodesia moving into the authoritarian orbit of Russia (not China I don't think though).
Also, one thing that people often overlook is that the Nationalists weren't particularly big fans of capitalism, and were opposed to it. Much of the language used by the ANC today is not that different from that of the Nats in the 1940s and 1950s, railing against big capital.
I recently bought a book, Azanian Bridges by Nick Wood, about a surviving apartheid South Africa. Haven't started it yet but interested to see what kind of world building he does.
Also, one thing that people often overlook is that the Nationalists weren't particularly big fans of capitalism, and were opposed to it. Much of the language used by the ANC today is not that different from that of the Nats in the 1940s and 1950s, railing against big capital.
I recently bought a book, Azanian Bridges by Nick Wood, about a surviving apartheid South Africa. Haven't started it yet but interested to see what kind of world building he does.
As hilarious as I think it would be to see OTL's ostensibly left-wing defenders of Putinism(yes, I'm looking at YOU, Pepe Escobar) cheering for aparthied, I think that MIGHT be a little beyond the pale, even for them.
First off, the American policitians would probably have an ongoing ping-pong game with the sanctions, comparable to what happens today with family-planning foreign aid, ie. scrapped when the Republicans get in, reinstated when the Democrats are back. So, to much of the world, South Africa would likely still be viewed as an ally of the kind of right-wing Americans who are also the biggest(or at least most open) militarists and dictator-philes.
Secondly, while an "anti-American sovereigntist" bloc, consisting mostly of socially-conservative developing nations, is probably gonna be okay with, or even enthusiastic about, Putin's homophobia and religious chauvinism, I don't think white supremacy is going to be so easily accomadated. Anti-racism was just too much a part of the old anti-imperialist struggle to be so easily jettisoned in the name of Being Friends With Anyone The West Is Against.
But that would be a very interesting scenario nonetheless. The only way I could see getting it to work...
1. The US Democrats enjoy a decades-long period of acendancy, holding the White House and congressional majorities for at least twenty years. Anti-apartheid sanctions are kept in place throughout this time.
2. The "soverigntist bloc" faces severe financial hardships, both as a group and as individual countries.
3. South Africa asks to hook up with the sovereigntists, bringing her substantial wealth into the fold.
4. No one else in the Bloc has any interest in maintaining good relations with the other nations in subsaharan Africa.
China and South Africa actually WERE allied for a while in the 1970s Angolan conflict, when they got together to oppose the pro-Soviet factions. Though I doubt that China made this a big part of the image they tried to sell to the third-world.
I don't think China would be necessarily an open ally of such a regime, but rather indifferent to such a regime and openly trade with it. In return, China would openly trade with such a regime and probably become its largest trading partner. I imagine that official diplomatic relations might not even be a hindrance, and any such regime might continue to have formal relations with Taiwan.
After Nixon's trip to China, the world view of the People's Republic changed. This was especially true after 1979 when China began to view its relations with the world in an almost exclusively economic fashion. This pragmatism has led to China investing in and openly trading with some of the most brutal regimes on earth. It also led to less aid to Communist guerrilla movements and their allies. When Western nations impose sanctions on countries (Myanmar, Sudan), China usually is more than happy to fill the vacuum. Additionally, after Tienanmen in 1989, China's foreign policy adheres to Westphalian Sovereignty, meaning that it should not interfere in the internal policies of sovereign nations. Despite ideological differences, this doctrine was one defended by South Africa and Rhodesia.
China's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, originally formulated for relations with India, can actually be summarized as a guide for China's relations with all nations. Whereas the West's attachment to democracy and human rights has undermined the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty.
China's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence
1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
2. Mutual non-aggression.
3. Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
4. Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
5. Peaceful co-existence.
Prior to 1989, China's trade with South Africa was small but steadily increasing, so any South African or Rhodesian regime would probably enjoy the benefits of increasing Chinese trade. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea too were interesting insofar as Japan had become South Africa's leading trading and investment partner after 1985. Like China of today, it was mostly concerned with returns on investment, and South Africa presented an opportunity for Toyota and other firms. Despite this, Japan maintained low-level official diplomatic links. Taiwan, a country with fewer official diplomatic links and no longer a member of UN was only too happy to maintain relations with South Africa and even allow South African Airways to begin flights to Taipei in 1983. South Korea had no official relations, but its firms were increasingly investing in SA by the late 1980s, and I imagine with the growth experienced by South Korean firms like Samsung, LG etc since the 1990s, they too would not be adverse to selling their wares in South Africa or Rhodesia.
Putin's Russia would be interesting as well. Around 1989, the first relations with the Soviet Union and South Africa were being forged and the country was trying to attempt to recruit immigrants in Russia, even airing ads in the country. With the bogey of Communism gone, there were those in South Africa who saw an opportunity to boost the white population by attracting Eastern Europeans, particularly those with skills in engineering and especially in the military-industrial complex. Considering that the ex-Soviet economies continued to plummet in GDP until around 1999/2000, South Africa could still be attractive enough of a place for these immigrants. Additionally, as military hardware was one of the few sources of export income during the 1990s, one can envision a scenario where some of it ends up in SA. What I can see happening is a large enough Russian community in the country emerging (250,000) and Putin using this as an excuse to want to safeguard their interests. Meaning Russia would not be openly allied to South Africa, but probably bloc sanctions in the UN, on the premise that the US and Europe and trying to expand their influence and interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.
After Nixon's trip to China, the world view of the People's Republic changed. This was especially true after 1979 when China began to view its relations with the world in an almost exclusively economic fashion. This pragmatism has led to China investing in and openly trading with some of the most brutal regimes on earth. It also led to less aid to Communist guerrilla movements and their allies. When Western nations impose sanctions on countries (Myanmar, Sudan), China usually is more than happy to fill the vacuum. Additionally, after Tienanmen in 1989, China's foreign policy adheres to Westphalian Sovereignty, meaning that it should not interfere in the internal policies of sovereign nations. Despite ideological differences, this doctrine was one defended by South Africa and Rhodesia.
China's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, originally formulated for relations with India, can actually be summarized as a guide for China's relations with all nations. Whereas the West's attachment to democracy and human rights has undermined the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty.
China's Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence
1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
2. Mutual non-aggression.
3. Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
4. Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
5. Peaceful co-existence.
Prior to 1989, China's trade with South Africa was small but steadily increasing, so any South African or Rhodesian regime would probably enjoy the benefits of increasing Chinese trade. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea too were interesting insofar as Japan had become South Africa's leading trading and investment partner after 1985. Like China of today, it was mostly concerned with returns on investment, and South Africa presented an opportunity for Toyota and other firms. Despite this, Japan maintained low-level official diplomatic links. Taiwan, a country with fewer official diplomatic links and no longer a member of UN was only too happy to maintain relations with South Africa and even allow South African Airways to begin flights to Taipei in 1983. South Korea had no official relations, but its firms were increasingly investing in SA by the late 1980s, and I imagine with the growth experienced by South Korean firms like Samsung, LG etc since the 1990s, they too would not be adverse to selling their wares in South Africa or Rhodesia.
Putin's Russia would be interesting as well. Around 1989, the first relations with the Soviet Union and South Africa were being forged and the country was trying to attempt to recruit immigrants in Russia, even airing ads in the country. With the bogey of Communism gone, there were those in South Africa who saw an opportunity to boost the white population by attracting Eastern Europeans, particularly those with skills in engineering and especially in the military-industrial complex. Considering that the ex-Soviet economies continued to plummet in GDP until around 1999/2000, South Africa could still be attractive enough of a place for these immigrants. Additionally, as military hardware was one of the few sources of export income during the 1990s, one can envision a scenario where some of it ends up in SA. What I can see happening is a large enough Russian community in the country emerging (250,000) and Putin using this as an excuse to want to safeguard their interests. Meaning Russia would not be openly allied to South Africa, but probably bloc sanctions in the UN, on the premise that the US and Europe and trying to expand their influence and interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.
Last edited:
Very interesting responses... Does anybody have anything to say RE: how these governments would handle AIDS?
Well, apartheid South Africa might not be as bad as Mbeki's South Africa in handling AIDS. Hard to beat the Duesberg Hypothesis as an inspiration bad health policy.
As for specifics, well, the era of apartheid and the era of AIDS had an overlap of a little over ten years, so I would assume there is some sort of historical record about how the apartheid regime dealt with the disease. Maybe you could extrapolate from that, into the ATL of a surviving apartheid?
As far as I recall the apartheid government didn't do much regarding AIDS, the first organisations to do anything about it were the mining companies, when their workers started falling ill.
I think we would most likely see a policy of benign neglect with an apartheid government still in power re: AIDS. There might be some lip service paid to it, such as providing free condoms, but I doubt there would be any programme to provide free ARVs as happened eventually in South Africa under Zuma (about the only good thing that his administration has done).
The Red Menace
Banned
Marius' post is rather funny. Soviet Union had put fort strong support for the African National Congress, with was something both Yeltsin and Putin capitalized on when Mandela came to power:
http://rbth.com/international/2013/...ion_the_struggle_against_apartheid_32329.html
Do you know who in Russia was in favor of S.A. Apartheid? The anti-communist (and later — anti-Putin) liberal political activist Valeriya Novodvorskaya:
(Source)Valeriya Novodvorskaya in 1993 said:
It's amusing that RFERL describes her as a champion of "democracy and human rights"
And why would Russians/Eastern Europeans move to South Africa ATL when they did not do so (in any significant numbers) OTL? North America and Western Europe are much more attractive.
LOL.
Well, if "chauvinism" was too strong a word, I guess you could substitute "conservativism", though I suspect "pandering" might be more accurate. From RT...
In his autobiography “First Person”, published in 2000, Putin states that the first line in any Russian law code should be moral values and that Russia must pay complete attention to its spiritual position, in the same way as Russia is concerned with its political and geographical position.
This indicates that President Putin has real understanding of the fact that in this world, the spiritual foundations of political reality have a profound effect on the way a culture develops. A viable culture needs a moral compass that goes deeper than passing political expediency and the secularistic tenet “do what you will”.
The many Christians betrayed by the West now look to Russia for hope and protection, and this can open a new avenue of global influence for Russia.
That seems to fit what I perceive as Putin's views on religion and politics, based on other sources. If it's inaccurate, I guess the matter could be taken up with Russia Today.
link
In his autobiography “First Person”, published in 2000, Putin states that the first line in any Russian law code should be moral values and that Russia must pay complete attention to its spiritual position, in the same way as Russia is concerned with its political and geographical position.
This indicates that President Putin has real understanding of the fact that in this world, the spiritual foundations of political reality have a profound effect on the way a culture develops. A viable culture needs a moral compass that goes deeper than passing political expediency and the secularistic tenet “do what you will”.
The many Christians betrayed by the West now look to Russia for hope and protection, and this can open a new avenue of global influence for Russia.
That seems to fit what I perceive as Putin's views on religion and politics, based on other sources. If it's inaccurate, I guess the matter could be taken up with Russia Today.
link
And I can certainly believe that there were apartheid apologists among the anti-Communist Russian dissidents. A lot of their ideological soulmates in the west took the same position, in regards to South Africa or indeed any other country that portrayed itself as a bulwark against Bolshevism.
It's amusing that RFERL describes her as a champion of "democracy and human rights"
And why would Russians/Eastern Europeans move to South Africa ATL when they did not do so (in any significant numbers) OTL? North America and Western Europe are much more attractive.
The numbers would not be large in terms of overall migration, even if some 100,000 Russians and Ukrainians went to South Africa it would be significant inasmuch as the country only had 5 million whites around 1990. The U.S., Canada, Australia are all "more attractive", but South Africa did have one benefit in that it would be fairly easy to move to compared with the others. The Western Countries really would do little to "pull" immigrants from the former Warsaw Pact, whereas Israel did and attracted 1 million immigrants from the former USSR. Most of these were Jewish, but not all were particularly religious, and many were simply attracted to leaving the economic malaise of the Soviet Union, I imagine South Africa would be similar in that with assisted passage and other schemes, it would attract some.
South Africa did begin attempting to lure Eastern European immigrants around 1990, with 48,000 inquiries having been received by the South African embassies and consular offices in Eastern Europe during the first six months of 1990. Of course, by then apartheid was clearly being dispmantled. According to South African officials some 7,000 Soviet Citizens inquired about immigrating to South Africa between January and June of 1990. White immigration to the republic actually experienced a jump from the low point of 1987 and in 1990, 14,449 white immigrants arrived in South Africa, however by 1991 that number declined to 12,379.
Last edited:
Konrad Sartorius
Banned
In regards to AIDS, the South African government could intentionally neglect the health needs of the black population with the objective of culling the SA black population. Would this be enough to give white South Africans a majority of the population?
How willing would South Africa be to develop a ballistic missile program that could threaten/extort the West?
How willing would South Africa be to develop a ballistic missile program that could threaten/extort the West?
Per the 2011 census, there are 41,000,938 blacks to 4,586,838 whites. This doesn't include the people who in South Africa are called "coloured", of which there are 4,615,401.
It would be difficult to maintain Rhodesia. Once the Portuguese pulled out of Africa Rhodesia's borders were indefensible. You could keep the Portuguese in Africa for a while longer, but without some truly massive changes they're going to pull out long before ITTL 2017.
Marius' post is rather funny. Soviet Union had put fort strong support for the African National Congress, with was something both Yeltsin and Putin capitalized on when Mandela came to power:
http://rbth.com/international/2013/...ion_the_struggle_against_apartheid_32329.html
Do you know who in Russia was in favor of S.A. Apartheid? The anti-communist (and later — anti-Putin) liberal political activist Valeriya Novodvorskaya:
(Source)
It's amusing that RFERL describes her as a champion of "democracy and human rights"
And why would Russians/Eastern Europeans move to South Africa ATL when they did not do so (in any significant numbers) OTL? North America and Western Europe are much more attractive.
LOL.
Your post makes very little sense.
A POD in the second half of the 20th century is too late to give SA a white majority without a genocide (which, despite popular belief, was not the aim of the Nationalists or white South Africans).