Not arguing against sanctions in general, but for South Africa, the collapse of the soviet union, which had been propping up the south african economy, played a more important role.
Economic pressure is usually cited as a primary factor leading to the end of apartheid, beginning in 1990, which is before the collapse of the former Soviet Union. I'm not disagreeing that the collapse played a part, but I think it's safe to say there was no single cause. Without ever-increasing sanctions the ball might not have started rolling in 1990. Without Soviet collapse it might not have unraveled quite as fast or in the way that it did.
The article is revisionist BS. There was no "misunderstanding" of what Apartheid and its value system were, it is just that back then, institutional racism wasn't a deal breaker for allies involved in overt and covert proxy wars against communism in southern africa. The South African government negotiations with Mandela predate the fall of the Berlin wall and the Soviet collapse. The post facto rationalization to say "Apartheid was the real socialism, and should have been rejected for that reason" rings a little hollow when it's said in retrospect, but it's on-message for reason.com
That was kind of my thinking too, the ball was right rolling 2-3 years before the Soviet collapse. Though I know 1994, after the collapse, was a major milestone is finalizing the end of apartheid, so I'm not sure if the Soviet collapse had a large effect... I'm don't know (I didn't think) the Soviets had much influence in SA, but it seems plausible that the upending of world power structures in general broke down the realpolitik dynamics that might have preserved toxic power structures like apartheid, even indirectly. I honestly don't know, except to say that change began before the collapse.
Good article. However it doesn’t say the Soviet Union propped up South Africa.
Rather it says that the ANC (opposition) was supported by the Soviets. So the apartheid government argued that apartheid was necessary to keep out communism.
When the Soviets collapsed, this argument weakened and more people were convinced to dismantle apartheid.
There are some theories floating around that claim that one of the reasons Apartheid was instituted or started forming as an idea was because of a scare about Communism taking root in South Africa among the black population.
There will be collateral damage. ~20% of Kyrgyzstan’s GDP is remittance from Russia. Sanctions should be kept on Russia. This is an opportunity to further unite.
Supporting these affected nations is a win for all involved, except Russia. We should prevent them from going into recession, enable them to reduce their dependence on Russia, while strengthening our relationship with them.
>Supporting these affected nations is a win for all involved, except Russia. We should prevent them from going into recession, enable them to reduce their dependence on Russia, while strengthening our relationship with them.
I mean.. do you really think this is going to happen? No one will pay attention to Kyrgyzstan just at they aren't paying attention now. I don't understand these flowery, optimistic arguments that have no bearing to reality. Russia is still the local superpower in the area and they will likely continue to lean on them for support. The alternative is to entirely change their economy to rely on western support, and except western countries to actually bother to try and prop up Kyrgyzstan