Letter FromnWashingtonnby Samuel T. FrancisnTo the Pretoria StationnGovernments, Lenin once wrote,nnever fall unless they are first pushed.nWhatever his faults, the old Bolsheviknmust have known something aboutnhow to get rid of unwanted regimes. Innthe Revolution of 1917, it was thenImperial German government thatnhelped to push over what was left ofnthe Russian state by dispatching Leninnand his friends from Swiss exile to St.nPetersburg on the famous “sealedntrain.” In the case of South Africa, thengovernment of the United States isnabout to play a similar role.nIn June and July, the U.S. Congress,nagainst the wishes of the ReagannAdministration, imposed economicnsanctions on South Africa as an “incentive”nto end apartheid. Those sanctionsnpassed by the House were prettynstringent; those from the Senate, lessnso; but the differences will be adjudicatednin conference between the twonchambers, and the President probablynwill not veto the final bill. The enactmentnof these sanctions against anfriendly country with which we transactna multimillion-dollar business, thengovernment of which has generallynsupported the more controversial partsnof our foreign policy and which hasnnever harmed any American citizen,nsets in motion a process that maynwell end in the destruction of thenmost civilized society on the Africanncontinent.nThe violent agitation within SouthnAfrica is largely under the control ofnthe Communist-dominated AfricannNational Congress and its front groupsnand agents. The Communists andntheir fellow travelers also play a significantnrole in mobilizing the antiapartheidnmovement in the UnitednStates. Indeed, it is fair to say that thenCommunists and the extreme left setnCORRESPONDENCEnthe pace of this movement. Of course,nmany of them are not smart enough tonbe real Communists. Recently, MayornBarry of Washington proposed that thenname of Massachusetts Avenue, wherenthe South African Embassy is located,nbe changed to “Nelson Mandela Avenue,”nafter the Marxist revolutionarynwho is now serving a life sentence innSouth Africa for his role in anCommunist-organized terrorist conspiracynof the 1960’s. What the Communistsnand revolutionaries want isnnot “freedom” but the destruction ofnSouth African society and the impositionnof their own tyrannical power.nNon-Communist elements predominatennumerically in the anti-apartheidnmovement, and their motives arenmixed. The puddingheads who arrangento have themselves arrested innfront of the South African Embassynevery day, while partly fascinated bynthe word “Liberation,” are really morenconcerned to revive the civil rightsnmovement as the base of a viablenleft-wing political coalition, somethingnJesse Jackson conspicuouslynfailed to do in the last election. Thennthere are the establishment liberalsnwho support sanctions on South Africanbecause they cannot operate in theirnsocial and political milieu withoutnsupporting them. Finally, there arenmoderates and some conservativesnwho, having committed themselves tonthe position that it is the proper businessnof the United States to fosterndemocracy and free enterprise everywherenin the world, lack a firm philosophicalnbasis for resisting the argumentsnagainst South Africa. It is notnuncommon to hear such people claimnthat there is no difference betweennSouth Africa and the Soviet Union, fornexample, though few are courageousnenough to propose serious sancfionsnagainst the Soviets and none have thencultural power to lead a mass movementnfor such sanctions.nThe vanguard of the anti-apartheidnmovement, then, consists of the revolutionarynleft, and it is from the far leftnnnthat the demand for sanctions originated.nThe left will not be satisfied withnmeasures that only “make a statement”;nit wants sancfions that willncripple and destabilize the South Africanneconomy and government, and itnwill keep demanding such sanctionsnuntil they are passed. And who in thenanti-apartheid coalition will resist theirndemands? Littie Stevie Wonder, whonaccepted his 1985 Oscar in the namenof Nelson Mandela? Jesse Jackson, onenof whose top advisers is himself anformer member of the CommunistnParty and a present member of thenWorld Peace Council? Or perhaps thenestablishment liberals, who even nownare inventing excuses for not helpingnanti-Communist forces in Asia, Africa,nand Latin America? When, inntheir overextended and miserable careers,nhave these people ever resistednCommunism effectively?nNor will the moderates who supportednthe sanctions on South Africanprovide an effective brake on the farnleft. Their foreign policy is based onnthe dubious premise that the UnitednStates must officially punish countriesnthat do not conform to our institutionsnand traditions (and their interpretafionnof our institutions and traditions isnitself dubious). Their feeble argumentnagainst tougher sanctions is simply thatnthey would harm South AfricannBlacks, just as their argument for aid tonthe Nicaraguan contras is that thenSandinistas are not good for democracynin Nicaragua. The national interestnof the United States does not appear tonbe a significant element in their worldnview, and the soft sanctions legislationnthat they guided through the Senatencontain provisions for harder measuresnif there is insufficient progress by thenSouth Africans in ending “apartheid,”nwhich is not precisely defined in thenbill.nIn South Africa itself, reforms undertakennby the ruling National Partynin the last few years have gone far tondismantle apartheid, a term that isnseldom used there today. Na’ifs innOCTOBER 1985/33n