allAfrica.com: Africa: Interview With Chester A. Crocker (Part 2): Southern Africa Two Decades Later (Page 1 of 3)

Africa: Interview With Chester A. Crocker (Part 2): Southern Africa Two Decades Later

Few heads of the State Department's Africa Bureau have been as identified with a policy as has former Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Chester Crocker, the architect of the still controversial "constructive engagement" that drove the Reagan Administration's policy toward South Africa at the time. Nowhere was Crocker more sharply criticized than from within the leadership ranks of South Africa's African National Congress (ANC). Today the ANC governs South Africa and in the second part of his interview with allAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr., Professor Crocker declares his admiration for the ANC leadership.>

One of the countries that you are most identified with in your role as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs is South Africa. Looking at how politics and development have unfolded, first under Mandela and now under Mbeki, are you encouraged by what you see in South Africa?

South Africa has always been important and it continues to be important. It is in this current climate a pivotal state, and not only on purely African issues. South Africa's leaders like to think of themselves playing on a somewhat larger stage than as leaders of South or southern Africa, or even just Africa. The South African stock exchange market cap is larger than that of Brazil, even though the Brazilian economy is many times larger than the South African economy. In various ways South Africa is a significant country.

Anything surprise you about how domestic development has unfolded in South Africa?

I think people use the word "miracle" and "soft landing" to talk about South Africa. I'm not sure it is a "miracle." There are some very, very competent people in that country and they negotiated for themselves a strong transition and a new system and they've done some things very effectively. They've dealt with the past in ways that while there has been some controversy, I think has been thoughtful. I'm talking about the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. They've dealt with their at the macro level in a way that can only be applauded as tough and thoughtful and rational. The macro-economic framework that is in place in South Africa is a model. It's going to take some time to produce results because South Africa needs to figure out where is the growth going to come from in terms of its role in the world economy and also in terms of job creation. There is, I think, a healthier dialogue today than there was maybe 3 or 4 years ago, between the government and the private sector about some of those issues and that's vitally important. The South African government has a lot of able people in it.

What would you criticize in South Africa?

I stated some of the positives. We don't see political violence anymore. We see political stability and legitimacy have been accomplished. One of the most democratic constitutions you can imagine. But, there are some issues there I think in terms of the ability of leadership at the very top level in South Africa to grasp the nettle on tough issues. And I'm talking about the HIV/AIDS crisis which is simply appalling and I just don't know how much further we're going to go and still see the reality that we see, which is that there's no remedies being made available to people through the South African health system. Despite all the speeches and all the meetings and what-have-you, nothing is happening; the problem continues to get worse. I think the leadership of any country that is experiencing something like that has to ask itself some questions.

Is nothing being done because officials are deferring to Mbeki?

Well, he is the president and I think he's in a position to make his views known and to get his preferences carried out. It is an overwhelming ANC majority and he is the head of that. And then you have the problem I was referring to earlier; we were discussing Zimbabwe (see part one of this interview, posted Friday). It's a little bit unclear why the politics internally in South Africa are such that it's not possible for South Africa to step up to the plate and do something. I understand the idea and I empathize the idea of solidarity of leaders of liberation movements and all that. It's great. And you can go out to lunch and dinner on that for years. But you can't run countries that way. You've got to ultimately decide what your national interests are.

You were Assistant Secretary of State for Africa for eight years. Could you talk some more about the difference in the approach to Africa ranging from the Reagan Administration, the first Bush administration, Clinton and the current Bush administration? Do you see significant differences?

There certainly are differences. Some of the differences are contextual in the sense that any administration has to deal with the reality that's out there on the ground in Africa. And it can't just come with its own favorite agenda and pursue it without reference to realities on the ground. During the Reagan years we had a very clear set of mandates for the conduct of African policy. And despite a few skirmishes, there was for the most part a clear sense of who was running it, where the diplomacy was directed and what the responsibility lines were and so forth.

Will you describe that?

Yes. I felt that at key moments I had the support that I needed to do my job. I would never have stayed in that job for eight years if it hadn't been for the presence of superiors who backed me when things got rough. And things got rough as they often do. So, that makes a big difference, working for a Secretary like George Schultz, which I did for seven of those eight years.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories