Don't Go Wobbly

UNTIL A COUPLE of weeks ago, George Bush had been in hasty retreat from his internationalist ways. With Patrick J. Buchanan bellowing all over New Hampshire for "America First" and the democrats selling "George Bush: The Anywhere But America Tour" T-shirts, the new f-word had become "foreign affairs."

But then last month a voice from the past, belonging to Richard M. Nixon, fired off a damaging memo attacking the president for letting election-year posturing stand in the way of pursuing America's interests and ideals. (And Nixon, of all people should know.)

Nixon said that if Western politicians--read: President Bush--failed to act decisively to help Boris N. Yeltsin weather Russia's economic and political typhoon, the refrain (or witch hunt?) of 1990s politics would be "Who lost Russia."

Nixon's warning to Bush had the same effect as margaret Theater's "George, this is no time to go wobbly" comment from the early stages of the Persian Gulf crisis: it motivated the president to act presidential.

Earlier this month, with great fanfare and broad pundit support, he announced that the United States, along with some of its Western allies, had agreed to a $24 billion aid package for the former Soviet Union. This is great news for Russia, and also for America, which has shown itself not to be as shallow and self-absorbed as Buchanan wants it to be.

President Bush has shown courage and decisiveness in going ahead with the aid plan, and the pundits are proclaiming that his self-imposed exile from the international scene may finally be over. But as he demonstrated at the end of the Gulf War, Bush is always prone to wobbliness.

And if he now returns to his normal stance of "prudence without purpose" as Bill Clinton calls, it, he will have missed perhaps the last chance to help the other great democratic transformation of the 1990s succeed. If only Nixon would come out again from his political grave to frame this question: "who lost South Africa"?

ON MARCH 17, in a national referendum with an 85 percent voter turnout, South African whites voted overwhelmingly (69 percent for, 31 against) to end the system of apartheid. This was no political gimmick on the part of the governing National Party, nor was it a merely grudging acceptance of reality.

The vote was an enthusiastic embrace of the future, and it showed a real commitment to a revolution in society that goes far beyond anything Bill "Fundamental Charge" Clinton or Jerry "Take Your Government Back" Brown has proposed for our country.

So eager were they to cast their "JA" votes that thousands of whites lined up outside polling places even before they opened at 7 a.m. One woman who was experiencing labor pains insisted on being driven to the polls before going to the hospital.

Not only whites, but a majority in all racial groups voted for a unified, multiracial South African democracy. The Indian and mixed-blood populations have long supported integration with whites, and many observers believe that if given the chance, they would vote for President F.W. de Klerk and the National Party.

And while some Blacks want to "throw the white bastards out," there are sings of moderation in their aims as well.

A survey in the middle of 1991 found that 52 percent of Blacks were "very satisfied" with the present government, and another 30 percent were "satisfied" (those numbers are probably higher today.)

And even the once-firebreathing African National Congress (ANC) has moderated its goal of pursuing state socialism to one of creating a multiparty democracy and "mixed economy" with a healthy private sector.

So there is hope for South Africa's future. Except for a handful of right-and left-wing extremists, most South Africans want to live and work together in the new South Africa.

But, as in the case of the former Soviet Union, South Africa needs help. The economy, once Africa's strongest (in spite of the horrendously inefficient apartheid system) is reeling under the blows of Western economic sanctions, Western divestment, desertion by South African capital and skilled professionals, and a population growth rate that far outstrips growth in the gross rational product.

Furthermore, AIDS has spread uncontrollably across the country. It is estimated that by the year 2000, 7.5 million South Africans will be HIV positive (South African's population is a little over 32 million.)

To make matters worse, the worst drought in a century has hit southern Africa this year--famine threatens to engulf the entire region. Normally a big exporter of food, South Africa will have to import four million tons of corn this year, or about two-thirds of its consumption.

SO THE CHOICE for American foreign policy is clear. We can support South Africa now, helping them chart a course toward joining the club of newly democratic, economically advancing nations. Or we can sit back and watch as it deindustrializes and collapses into Lebanon-style tribal warfare, pulling the rest of southern Africa down with it. The U.S. has made an enormous investment for change in South Africa. Have we become so penny-pinching that we refuse to make the final effort to bring democracy to the nation.?

Some steps should be taken immediately. The American government has already lifted most sanctions against South Africa, but some loan restrictions remain in place. The U.S. should lift these and should send major economic and technical assistance, as well as food aid, as soon as possible.

Furthermore, Washington should lean on its allies to do the same. But the federal government is only a part of the story. States and municipalities who have passed their own sanctions against South Africa should annul these as well. And government officials and activists alike should encourage American businesses which divested in the 1980s to go back to South Africa and set up shop again.

Such economic support will give us leverage in South African politics. But we should not try to use this leverage to benefit any side in the negotiations on a new constitution. Such heavy-handed tactics could only help to jeopardize the fragile spirit of accommodation and reconciliation now taking hold.

In his speech announcing the "yes" vote in the referendum, President de Klerk said, "It doesn't often happen that in one generation a nation gets the opportunity to rise above itself." The U.S. has already risen above itself twice during the Bush administration alone: in repelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and in creating a Marshall-type aid program for the consolidation of democracy in Russia.

Now a third such opportunity, to promote political and economic stability in South Africa, has arisen. George, this is no time to go wobbly.