(4 of 4)
None of these factors, however, will soon affect the main pillars of apartheid: residential and educational segregation and forced relocation to the homelands. Nor are those pillars likely to fall soon. For one thing, the fear of retaliatory action by blacks in the event of majority rule is so pervasive among whites that even minor moves against apartheid provoke a fearful political backlash. Yet so long as those barriers remain, the potential for upheaval will persist. Says Helen Suzman, a Liberal Member of Parliament and longtime foe of apartheid: "I see an ongoing situation of unrest that will have flash points."
That means, among other things, that the Reagan Administration could continue to have problems convincing Americans that constructive engagement is the proper way to deal with South Africa. The Administration may be right that Western hopes and expectations for reform in South Africa are unrealistic and that even drastic punitive action, such as pulling all U.S. investment out of South Africa, would be unlikely to change that unpalatable fact. The U.S. can in fact claim some success for helping persuade South Africa to sign recent agreements with its black neighbors.
Beyond that, the reforms that have taken place inside South Africa are more significant than many critics care to admit. As U.S. Ambassador to South Africa Herman Nickel put it, "Evolutionary change, almost by definition, is incremental change, and it is only natural that each increment will be viewed as inadequate by those who feel aggrieved by the present system." The problem is that the same point of view could be used as an apology for whatever cosmetic changes the South African government chooses to make. The Administration is likely to feel increasing pressure to prove that its policy means something more substantial.
—By George Russell.
Reported by Marsh Clark/Johannesburg and Barrett Seaman/Washington