7.
because he's married to a white Rhodesian, but she was of liberal stripe, and I thought he ought to have better information than that. But Chester insisted that the Bishop had a wide base of support and thatdirty, filthy, Marxist, God-hating Robert Mugabe had none. And so we go to elections and the South Africans had provided the Bishop with four helicopters with which to campaign. The Bishop won fewer seats than he had helicopters! When I saw my friend Chester again I had to ask what happened. The landslide went the wrong way, and it's the same thing now in Namibia. It's almost like we never learn lessons. The fact is people in countries know who won for them their independence. If you went to that ceremony.,last year on April 18, and sat in that stadium in Salisbury, the most thrilling part of that thing was the way the people responded. There were 30,000 people there that night when the Union Jack went down and the new flag went up. They had all of the troops March in. They had the regular units of the Smith government and some other units, but when the units from ZAPU and ZANU marched in, when the guerillas came into the stadium, the people went crazy. Because the people knew who had won for them this struggle. People always know. Chester didn't know, but the people knew. And you see, it's the same thing in Namibia. Those people in that country know who is fighting for them. And if you put that to an election test, they're going to elect a SWAPO government. So how are we going to negotiate with South Africa now when they say under no circumstances will a SWAPO government be allowed to take the reins there? What we're about here is apparently not democracy, and the Reagan administration is apparently playing into the South African hands to delay as long as possible.
The other thing, in closing, that I don't understand. In regard to the
Angolan situation, Haig explained to newsmen in a private session one time that we don't have an African policy and we will never have an Angolan policy. What we have is a global policy. You see, we ... what would the Saudis think if we kept this Clark Amendment on the books? We not only have to worry about the message to Africa, we've got to worry about the message to the Saudis, and we don't want our allies to think we're weak. We have to let our allies know that they are going to enjoy our support whatever they do. So that's the theory here. We might lose all of Africa, but we'll have the Saudis. And the Saudis now have become principal suppliers of arms and money to Savimbi (of UNITA) who's trying to overthrow the Angolan government. It's kind of neat when you examine the thing more closely. But again on the South African issue, the feeling is that if we are friendly to the South Africans, and we don't condemn them, perhaps we can sort of lure them oqt of the lair. Well, that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard! You know, I remember disagreeing with Andy Young about South African policies when Andy compared South Africa to the American Civil Rights struggle. That shocked a lot of South Africans. It shocked me too because if there are any similarities, they are very superficial. We in this country were always in a minority and we never threatened to take over the country. It might not be a bad idea, but I don't think we ever had the numbers to do that. What black South Africans are fighting for is not civil rights. It's not a question of who sits next to whom. They're fighting for the right to vote. They're fighting to take over the country, then they can determine who will sit where on an equal basis. The point is they're saying it's their country. So it's terribly dissimilar from the situation here. And they're struggling principally against Afrikaners. Unlike the English, they have nowhere to go. Can you expect, with moral