Hello everyone

I don't know if it's a taboo subject here...but I'd like to know what were the countries, international organizations...Etc that supported directly & indirectly the Apartheid Regime

thank you !

Hello everyone

I don't know if it's a taboo subject here...but I'd like to know what were the countries, international organizations...Etc that supported directly & indirectly the Apartheid Regime

thank you !

South Africa, and lately if you read this article, the whole world except China:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165473/He-wives-faced-783-corruption-charges-PETER-HITCHENS-South-Africas-president.html?ITO=1490 :)

Comon Pete, this has nothing to do with Apartheid Regime and the countries that supported it?

Weren't SAA (South African Airways) only allowed to land in Cape Verde, United Kingdom, Taiwan, Mauritius and Israel back then... can't remember?

Heh, a wonderfully one-sided article as usual... :|

Gulivar, your signature is priceless! :rofl:

Hello everyone

I don't know if it's a taboo subject here...but I'd like to know what were the countries, international organizations...Etc that supported directly & indirectly the Apartheid Regime

thank you !
United States, United Kingdom, Israel, etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_apartheid_South_Africa

CleverPete wtf?

You have got to be kidding me - they actually published that piece of "journalism".

I am not even going to comment on it, lest I fly into a towering rage and dismember the moron that wrote it...what absolute POPPYCOCK! ( Yes, I have decided to cut down on the swearing, and poppycock is all I could come up with...)

To get back to the Apartheid govts international relations, I can tell you that SA had tacit, clandestine support from all the western govts, especially wrt the war in Angola and halting the spread of communism.

Whilst publicly these countries lambasted the apartheid govt, behind closed doors information was exchanged, (west) german military equipment was supplied, US intelligence was involved etc.
Because the USSR and China were backing the Angolan and other African govts, SA was supported by the democracies of the world, even as they decried the lack of democracy in SA!

So there are different kinds of international relations - the ones we see and hear on the news 'Free Nelson, down with apartheid, rise up against the SA govt' -
and the stuff we only sniff out through leaks and stuff ups -
'Here are some all-american anti-aircraft missile batteries for you - can you test them and see if they can bring down the Mig-27's?' etc.

Its all smoke and mirrors and lies...

Gulivar, your signature is priceless! :rofl:

:okay:

That article again is a load of bull, mind you I havent had the time to read the whole thing, but in anycase you can make out its just out to hit us, and hit us hard.

^^ I agree with the Zuma part... I disagree with 90% of the rest where South Africa is "once again" on the verge of anarchy and collapse.

To add to Diggerdog - Reagan's USA and Thatcher's UK refused proper sanctions on SA as there were a number of multinationals operating in the country - eg Philip Morris, Ford, Coca Cola etc. A few years ago, a class action lawsuit was attempted against some US companies who benefited during aparteid but this was not supported by our govt.

It's usually always the UK papers that do this... and despite a view valid points he raised, the article on the whole is not particularly well-balanced and is slanted to a wholly negative view of the combined efforts of a nation recovering from the tyranny of apartheid. Furthermore, I don't agree with his so-matter-of-factly assumption that post-apartheid South Africa is a "failure."

Also, to quote him; You don't hear about the terrifying crime. You don't hear about the pestilence of corruption... and There is a little about AIDS, but nothing like as much as there should be...

On the contrary that's usually all people abroad hear of SA, the negative. You would actually have to search somewhat exhaustively to find any lasting positivity in the media, thus his little article implodes on itself.

The rest of his bogus 'journalism' I am not going to bother with. Articles like these just rub me the wrong way. :|

I think you are all being a bit kind - this is not journalism at all - how dare anyone say post-apartheid SA is a failure - it is nothing short of a miracle, our beautiful country.

'Dont hear about the crime' - what shit - thats ALL dickheads like this talk about - even as huge strides are being made, as the country tops all sorts of 'must visit' lists, as the previously non-existent black middle class blossoms, as the stadiums rise and the world comes to visit...

I am swearing againg, but fuck it, I have had enough...

South Africa, and lately if you read this article, the whole world except China:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165473/He-wives-faced-783-corruption-charges-PETER-HITCHENS-South-Africas-president.html?ITO=1490 :)

The Dailymail is a tabloid, no?

It is.

Totally...

Whilst Peter Hitchens isn't wrong per se... it is sensationalist and that is where the article falls down.

Countries apartheid SA had strong links with include Taiwan and Israel. In fact, we likely learnt how to build the atomic bomb from Israel. Taiwanese citizens were classified as "honourary whites' in return for Taiwan recognising the SA regime and trading with SA. Post 1994, ties between Israel and SA are strained and official recognition of Taiwan has been dropped in favour of mainland China.

In fact, we likely learnt how to build the atomic bomb from Israel.

No doubt you did. it well known.

Comon Pete, this has nothing to do with Apartheid Regime and the countries that supported it?

ru(my)lani, just calm down, I referred to this article as this seems to be more and more a "common"(note spelling) view abroad.
If you read the very biased "article" you will notice that he is of the opinion that most countries that opposed apartheid pre 1994 is now not so sure about us anymore.
I posted reference to this article to bring it under you all's attention and I am as upset about the article as everyone else was that read it.
SO, PLEASE CALM DOWN.
(did you not notice the smiley face with the original post...here it is again x 4 :) :) :) :))

'Dont hear about the crime' - what shit - thats ALL dickheads like this talk about -

Yeah true, but as much as I hate some parts of it("article"), he mostly wrote about what our next preZisdent sings about mostly

CleverPete wtf?

The E.N.D, I dunno, ipn.

Yes, and Zuma has explained a million times that is a 'freedom fighter' song from the exile days, and yes he will still sing it, but no, it has no relevance today etc...

But as always, the press ignores that part and focuses on the song. Just like the twat who wrote that article.

^^ And his supporters saying they will "kill for Zuma" are not someone instigated by that song even more? I find that hard to believe.

Hello everyone

I don't know if it's a taboo subject here...but I'd like to know what were the countries, international organizations...Etc that supported directly & indirectly the Apartheid Regime

thank you !

Seriously though:
These countries maintained relations with the apartheid gov:
Most of the countries of the now European Union
Iran
Israel
Taiwan

And these countries announced the end of trade sanctions after the 1991/1992 watershed referendum, paving the way for full diplomatic relations.
(They were formally against apartheid)
Algeria
Bulgaria
Italy
Libya
Mauritania
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
Singapore
Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia

The USA supported the apartheid gov up until the fall of the Soviet Union when it could no longer justify the danger of the "communist threat"
Mrs Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist and was never openly oposed, making her a kind of supporter?
The UK and USA had a ban on all entertainment, arms and athletics, but still maintained diplomacy.
So all in all it's not that straight forward.
Lots of companies still operated and sold their goods here. Expecially luxury items.
There seems to have been a lot of support behind the scenes because the country had and still has one of the most important commodities, gold.

In the ambiguous world of cold war politics there were plenty of double standards. Many countries vocally opposed Apartheid but quietly supported South Africa behind the scenes.

Initially (in the 60's), no western nations supported sanctions against South Africa at all, despite a non-binding UN Resolution condemning Apartheid. Most opposition came from 3rd world and African nations. Real sanctions only started to have an impact in the 80's as a result of growing popular opposition.

- economic sanctions gained momentum and started to have a real impact from the mid 80's onwards
- an academic boycott started in the 60's but is not really thought to have had too much significant impact
- a sporting boycott prevented South Africa from participating on the international stage in most sports from the 60's/70's onwards including athletics and soccer
- an arms embargo was imposed from the 60's (US) and the late 70's (UN) onwards

But in general most western nations heavily supported and continued to trade with South Africa for the vast proportion of the Apartheid period (although they often condemned the principle of Aparthied itself):

Notably, the US continued to support South Africa as it fought against communist insurgencies in Angola and Mozambique.

France also supplied South Africa with a large proportion of its arms (before the arms embargo come into force) and also provided us with the nuclear reactors for Pelindaba and Koeberg.

Israel co-operated with South Africa on many weapons programs (even after the embargo). South Africa is rumoured to have supplied Israel with large amounts of Uranium for its WMD programs in exchange for a tiny amount of tritium which is almost impossible to come by but which is a vital ingredient in nuclear weapons. South Africa is also rumoured to have co-operated with Israel in ballistic missile programs resulting in the Jericho range of missiles for Israel and South Africa's RSA missile program.

The Vela Incident may or may not have been the joint testing of a nuclear device by South Africa and Israel.

South Africa's Cheetah fighter aircraft, our very capable range of air-to-air missiles and our helmet-mounted-sight technology is also heavily suspected as being a result of co-operation with Israel.

I think some of the realpolitik behind the scenes of the Angolan war went along the lines of France wanting access to oil fields for ELF in Cabinda (northern Angola) and was prepared to offer South Africa ongoing military hardware to encourage them to attack Communist Angola from South West Africa. South Africa duly took the hardware but was later encouraged by the CIA to be their proxy in Angola for their oil companies.

South Africa switched sides (infuriating France, who then cut off aid) without realising that such deals with the CIA had to be ratified. The deal was not ratified and SA ended up stuck in a hot war without any major power ally and international condemnation. The Cuban army was ramping up troops and hardware and although South African forces were very effective on the ground - largely able to range at will in spite of being heavily outnumbered, they soon after pulled out of Angola. Both France and the US naturally denounced the agression of the apartheid regime.

Basically SA was a dumb (though willing) pawn of the powers.

Gulivar, your signature is priceless! :rofl:


United States, United Kingdom, Israel, etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_apartheid_South_Africa

I think you misunderstood the signature...."Freestate" is a province in South Africa. I don't think the quote meant welfare tourism. She is promoting tourism in 'freestate'.

I think you misunderstood the signature...."Freestate" is a province in South Africa. I don't think the quote meant welfare tourism. She is promoting tourism in 'freestate'.

Her old signature was "Matthias Offodile: I have seen people with my own eyes in Nigeria get turned into snakes and other animals." (not the exact quote but close).

I wouldn't take any of this too seriously, everybody knows certain Brit papers are just pros at bashing other countries... no biggie.

SAA at Rio de Janeiro International Airport in mid 80's

http://f.imagehost.org/0264/1107909974.jpg


SAA timetable in 1983

http://f.imagehost.org/0518/sa8311i.jpg

Be nice to compare the routes and such from SAA then, to SAA today...

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons

Chris McGreal in Washington
The Guardian,
Monday 24 May 2010

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.

Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.

South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.

The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with "special warheads". Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.

Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: "It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement... shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party".

The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.

The existence of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.

Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.

Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. "The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

Israel's Peres denies offering South Africa nukes
By KAROUN DEMIRJIAN (AP)

JERUSALEM — Israeli President Shimon Peres on Monday categorically denied a report that he offered nuclear warheads to South Africa in 1975, when he was defense minister.

The report published Sunday in the British newspaper The Guardian is based on an American academic's research and claims to cite secret minutes of a meeting Peres held with senior South African officials.

Peres said Israel never negotiated the transfer of nuclear weapons to South Africa.

"There exists no basis in reality for the claims published this morning by The Guardian that in 1975 Israel negotiated with South Africa the exchange of nuclear weapons," the president said in an English-language statement. "Unfortunately, The Guardian elected to write its piece based on the selective interpretation of South African documents and not on concrete facts."

The article is based on a series of documents the South African government declassified in response to a request from American academic Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is writing a book called "The Unspoken Alliance" about the close relationship between the Israel and South Africa.

Appearing alongside the article, the partially censored documents show a formal request from the South Africans for nuclear-capable warheads, and minutes of meetings in which then-Defense Minister Peres listed weapons available for sale.

But they do not appear to confirm any transfer of weapons, or any explicit offer from the Israelis to sell nuclear materials or nuclear-capable weapons to the South Africans.

The documents accompanying the story do show Peres' signature on minutes from a meeting where the then-defense minister discussed payloads available in "three sizes," one of several phrases that Peres said The Guardian misconstrued.

The British paper did not call the Israeli government for a response to the article, Peres said, adding that his office "intends to send a harsh letter to the editor of The Guardian and demands the publication of the true facts."

The Guardian claims the documents offer the first documentary evidence of Israel's nuclear program.

In 1986, another British newspaper, the Sunday Times, published pictures and descriptions from a former technician at Israel's main nuclear reactor, leading experts to estimate that Israel had the world's sixth-largest nuclear arsenal.

According to its policy, Israel has never acknowledged or denied possessing nuclear weapons, though it is widely assumed to have them.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gamEQIkjOS-FXZg9lq5CSWeMhK2wD9FT85880

South Africa, and lately if you read this article, the whole world except China:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165473/He-wives-faced-783-corruption-charges-PETER-HITCHENS-South-Africas-president.html?ITO=1490 :)



really?

wow! you compare this to Apartheid? I don't even care for SA's politics but seeing that the election of Zuma is pissing off pathetic whites like you and the other British loser just made my day.

SAA at Rio de Janeiro International Airport in mid 80's

http://f.imagehost.org/0264/1107909974.jpg


SAA timetable in 1983

http://f.imagehost.org/0518/sa8311i.jpg

It's so cool to see all these maps in both Afrikaans and English. I also loved the pic. Thanks Lost!

Pre 1974 Portugal was certainly supported apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia. The governments of the first two countries both knew that if either Portuguese colonialism or South African apartheid collapsed, the other one would follow. Rhodesia then depended on South Africa.

SAA timetable in 1983

http://f.imagehost.org/0518/sa8311i.jpg

Oh my god, I can read Afrikaans. :eek: