WI: South Africa expelled from the United Nations

In 1974, the United Nations strongly considered a proposal to expel South Africa from the organisation due to Apartheid. The proposal received 10 votes in the Security Council, but France, the US, and the UK voted against the proposal which killed it dead. No other proposal for South Africa's expulsion was attempted afterwards despite increasing sanctions from the world and condemnation from the UN.

So what if somehow South Africa did end up expelled, either in 1974 or during the 1980s? How would this affect the later days of the Apartheid regime and the sanctions against it? Would things come down quicker or would it strengthen the resolve of the regime and result in a more grisly end to Apartheid?

And I'm especially curious if this would set a precedent and lead toward more nations being expelled from the UN (IIRC Taiwan's expulsion was handled differently than South Africa or most other hypothetical expulsions would have been). For instance, some have proposed that North Korea be expelled from the organisation, although clearly they'd have to piss China off a lot more than they already have. Same goes with Israel, just replace "China" with "US". Other nations that might be expelled would be Rwanda (assuming the genocide is worse and longer lasting), Serbia (IIRC they were "suspended" rather than expelled OTL), Ethiopia (Derg era), Sudan (over Darfur), Burma (probably during Ne Win's regime assuming it gets even worse) and Iraq (any time after Desert Storm). This would certainly have some drawbacks in international diplomacy with these nations, which would make this a risky precedent to set (as seen in how expelling South Africa might affect the later days of Apartheid). Even in this case, I think only the "worst of the worst" would ever be in any position to be expelled, so many oppressive regimes

Thoughts?
 

samcster94

Banned
In 1974, the United Nations strongly considered a proposal to expel South Africa from the organisation due to Apartheid. The proposal received 10 votes in the Security Council, but France, the US, and the UK voted against the proposal which killed it dead. No other proposal for South Africa's expulsion was attempted afterwards despite increasing sanctions from the world and condemnation from the UN.

So what if somehow South Africa did end up expelled, either in 1974 or during the 1980s? How would this affect the later days of the Apartheid regime and the sanctions against it? Would things come down quicker or would it strengthen the resolve of the regime and result in a more grisly end to Apartheid?

And I'm especially curious if this would set a precedent and lead toward more nations being expelled from the UN (IIRC Taiwan's expulsion was handled differently than South Africa or most other hypothetical expulsions would have been). For instance, some have proposed that North Korea be expelled from the organisation, although clearly they'd have to piss China off a lot more than they already have. Same goes with Israel, just replace "China" with "US". Other nations that might be expelled would be Rwanda (assuming the genocide is worse and longer lasting), Serbia (IIRC they were "suspended" rather than expelled OTL), Ethiopia (Derg era), Sudan (over Darfur), Burma (probably during Ne Win's regime assuming it gets even worse) and Iraq (any time after Desert Storm). This would certainly have some drawbacks in international diplomacy with these nations, which would make this a risky precedent to set (as seen in how expelling South Africa might affect the later days of Apartheid). Even in this case, I think only the "worst of the worst" would ever be in any position to be expelled, so many oppressive regimes

Thoughts?
Indonesia actually did briefly withdraw once, how does this precedent affect them???
 
Isn't expelling a country from the UN, no matter how despicable the country's government or ideology, somewhat contrary to the whole purpose of the UN? For the sake of international order, I would think it's better for rogue states or pariah states to be in the UN as this gives the rest of the world framework to keep them in check.
 
Indonesia actually did briefly withdraw once, how does this precedent affect them???

Sukarno withdrew them because of concerns of imperialist domination of the UN, but once Suharto was in power, they rejoined the UN. Incidentally, Indonesia came under quite a bit of criticism over the Papua conflict and especially East Timor. Plus there was the government-organised mass murder (at least a few hundred thousand dead) of Indonesian communists/suspected communists in '65-'66. Unfortunately, this is all in the context of the Cold War so the United States can't afford to throw Indonesia under the bus, and Indonesia knows this. Even if the US votes to expel South Africa in 1974, supporting the suspension or expulsion of Indonesia is a far more difficult thing to do, so Indonesia has no need to withdraw again.

Isn't expelling a country from the UN, no matter how despicable the country's government or ideology, somewhat contrary to the whole purpose of the UN? For the sake of international order, I would think it's better for rogue states or pariah states to be in the UN as this gives the rest of the world framework to keep them in check.

Article 6 of the UN Charter - "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." Whether the United Nations chooses to use Article 6 is an entirely different matter.
 
I'm actually surprised they considered such in '74, given SADF hadn't even went into Angola in force yet as they would do the following year. Given the collapse of the Portuguese position in Africa and the realistic assessment that Communism was attempting to spread into the area in the wake of the aforementioned collapse I just don't see the Western Powers being in a position where they could turn their back on South Africa. They needed Pretoria to help contain such a threat as well as for Pretoria itself not to slip, given the strategic importance of the Oceanic supply lines that pass near the country as well as the mineral resources of the region.
 
Perhaps the PoD could be Vorster doing something silly to bring apartheid to the extreme or something sillier with nukes.

EDIT: perhaps a heavy-handed intervention in southern Rhodesia?
 
I think that the UN would come apart at the seams rather quickly, as people demand expulsion of other nations for things that are arguably worse...genocide, religious based oppression in Arab states, Israeli imperialism in the West Bank, combined with nuclear weapons, Chinese purges, Argentine "disappearances," and more.
When no one isle is expelled, it becomes clear that the rights and wrongs of the case are not as important as blatant power, and the UN becomes less important than it is in OTL.
 

samcster94

Banned
I think that the UN would come apart at the seams rather quickly, as people demand expulsion of other nations for things that are arguably worse...genocide, religious based oppression in Arab states, Israeli imperialism in the West Bank, combined with nuclear weapons, Chinese purges, Argentine "disappearances," and more.
When no one isle is expelled, it becomes clear that the rights and wrongs of the case are not as important as blatant power, and the UN becomes less important than it is in OTL.
The DDR would be on that list but the Russians would veto that idea.
 
I think that the UN would come apart at the seams rather quickly, as people demand expulsion of other nations for things that are arguably worse...genocide, religious based oppression in Arab states, Israeli imperialism in the West Bank, combined with nuclear weapons, Chinese purges, Argentine "disappearances," and more.
When no one isle is expelled, it becomes clear that the rights and wrongs of the case are not as important as blatant power, and the UN becomes less important than it is in OTL.

People might demand it, but there's too many nations involved in human rights abuses during the Cold War and now to get a vote through the General Assembly. Cases like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Yugoslav War-era Serbia, involved in warfare and genocide, would generally be recognised as worse than other human rights abuses.
 
I think that if France, U.K., and the U.S. all hadn't voted to reject the UN's proposal to expel apartheid-era South Africa then it set a precedent for the United Nations to expel any country/regime that is rogue like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Kim family North Korea.
 
I think that if France, U.K., and the U.S. all hadn't voted to reject the UN's proposal to expel apartheid-era South Africa then it set a precedent for the United Nations to expel any country/regime that is rogue like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Kim family North Korea.

Then let's include the Kmer Rouge regime which the Chinese would probably block. the Arabs would want Israel expelled which the Yanks would block and before long as none of these countries are being expelled for things worse than Apartheid well people stop viewing the UN as a impartial legitimate force
 
Top