Commercial Engagement is a Failure!

“The current policy of engagement is a failure! There is no evidence that there has been any lessening of (this regime’s) oppresion!

(This regime’s policies) are anathema to everything that we in the united States hold dear. It mocks democracy, mocks fundamental human rights, mocks human dignity!
A (subject of this regime) cannot worship were he wants to worship! He cannot say aloud what he wishes to say! He cannot even meet in private with those with whom he wishes to meet. He cannot vote. Nor can he travel where he wishes to travel, or work where he wishes to work.”

All this because the government dictates it!”

The U.S. has held ideals of freedom for more than 200 years and we should not tolerate their abrogation by any other country! . The more we tolerate this, the more we become tainted by this association. Every dollar we spend with (this regime) makes us accomplices in their crimes! No true friend of democracy can also be a friend of (this regime) In any business dealings with (this regime) we become tainted by association!”

“The policies of (this regime) are unspeakable evil and moraly and politically wrong. The U.S. Gov and it’s citizens are accessories to this evil by virtue of our aquiesence of an unjust and morally reprehensible government in our business dealings!”

“It should be understood in Europe and North America that foreign investment only supports the current system of political injustice in this nation!

“I urge a policy of comprehensive sanctions. Of total disinvestment, a complete ban on imports and exports…in other words I urge adoption of a policy that demonstrates our total abhorrence of apartheid.

Above, I quote circa 1986, Charles Rangel and Ron Dellums–founders of the Congressional Black Caucus.

5 thoughts on “Commercial Engagement is a Failure!”

  1. Outstanding Humberto! Now, where’s the MSM? The friggin hypocrisy and double standard is gut-wrenching. Those worthless sons-of-bitches make me sick (CBC). That’s the Democratic Party and liberalism for you. That quote should be printed on a piece of paper and passed out to every congressman. Maybe we can shame them into backing off.

  2. Mambi, these people have no shame. And why should they? The American people are putting up with all of this and loving them all.

    How successful will those tea parties be? I hope people show up.

  3. And from the NYT…

    Epitaph for Constructive Engagement
    February 14, 1987

    A panel appointed by the Reagan State Department to evaluate policy toward South Africa offers this startling judgment: ”The Administration’s strategy of constructive engagement has failed to achieve its objectives.”

    Does that mean what it seems to mean? Not quite, asserts a stung State Department, because the Administration has never claimed to achieve all its objectives. True. But those who trouble to read the panel’s report will also find it a devastating attack on the six-year-old policy of trying to end apartheid by friendly persuasion.

    Like Americans in general, the dozen panelists divided over whether harsh sanctions will hurry the end of apartheid. Perhaps, as the State Department argues, the report fails to deal convincingly with all the nuances of race-based violence. So what? Seldom has an official panel punctured as many official myths as this one, headed by William Coleman, a former Transportation Secretary, and Frank Cary, once chairman of I.B.M.

    What are America’s vital interests in South Africa? For starters, the panel rejects cliches invariably invoked to justify coddling Pretoria, like the need for chromium and other strategic minerals and the security of sea lanes around the Cape of Good Hope. ”Our most fundamental interest,” it declares, ”is to assist in ending a political and legal system in which over 80 percent of the population are denied basic individual political rights on the basis of race alone.”

    Reacting against the moralism of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan tried a different tack in dealing with the white minority regime in Pretoria: nudging it with quiet diplomacy in place of lectures and veiled threats. It was worth a try. What happened, however, was that Washington routinely exaggerated token ”reforms” proffered by Pretoria. To black Africa, Mr. Reagan became an apologist for apartheid.

    The panel gets it right. It recommends ”against U.S. endorsement of ‘reforms’ that fail to address the fundamental concerns of black South Africans.” It says that ”Applause for piecemeal reforms has proven counterproductive.” The report argues that change must be part of a process of negotiation with the spectrum of black organizations, including the outlawed African National Congress and its jailed leader Nelson Mandela.

    What about Communist domination of the A.N.C., a menace continually invoked by White House speechwriters? Sure, there’s a problem but Pretoria itself bears much of the blame for creating it: ”By banning the A.N.C. and closing all effective channels for peaceful political opposition, the Government has created a favorable environment for a tightly organized, clandestine party with close links to external sources of arms and military training.”

    South Africans of all races have been confused about where America stands. Congress answered by adopting sanctions – whose effect may be uncertain but whose message is unmistakable. To say that sanctions haven’t ”worked” because repression is now harsher within South Africa comes with ill grace from those who once argued that American influence was only marginal anyway.

    The Carter policy did not work and the Reagan Administration changed it. Now the State Department’s own hand-picked panel says the Reagan policy has also failed. It’s about time to abandon the wreckage.

  4. Cuba is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial country, but many militant Afro-Americans who have their own particular brand of arrogant ethno and racialcentricity believe that they can impose their mindset on Cubans. I’ve been at debate forums where Cuba was discussed and many of the Afro-Americans in the audience believed that they had a greater right to discuss Cuba than white Cubans did. In fact many of them told the white Cubans in the audience, “your white, you have no right to talk about Cuba.” They have in effect disenfranchised white Cubans, because to them Cuba is an African nation. They have neatly wiped out 500 years of European culture and turned Cuba into an African country. While Cuba has an important African component, it was settled by the Spaniards who gave us their genes, language, religion, costumes, food, etc.. Later these were modified by the wonderful contributions of Africans who have enriched Cuba so much, but to try and say that no white Cuban has a right to Cuba is the mind of a very confused person. To the Maxine Waters types, however, that is what it is. They see the vast majority of Cuban exiles including their Cuban American colleagues in congress as interlopers very much in the same way that they viewed Afrikaners.

    That’s why they go to Cuba all of the time, don’t consult with Cubans in congress and are diametrically opposed to our position on Cuba. In fact, they are hostile to us.

  5. Good find Humberto. I think this is actually a very strong argument that could wake up CBC members to their self-imposed blindness if they came across it. I hope they do.

Comments are closed.