Ron Brown has placed his point-man in southern Africa. It’s an ambitious move to help Africa to get up and go for it Neil Lurssen surveys the prospects.

More than three years· ago when the South African transition was on the cards, but by no means a certainty, he wrote a paper for Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies in which he argued that one of the reasons for post-independence Africa’s decline was that no country or region on the continent had sufficient economic strength to serve as a catalyst. With the emergence of southern Africa free of the shackles of war and apartheid, Africa would finally have an engine for both it so desperately needed, he said. In his review of the region’s resources, he noted that, unlike any other region of sub-Saharan Africa, the countries in the south were remarkably compatible in their judicial, financial and institutional infrastructures. Millard W Arnold, Jr., the first United States minister-counsellor ever to be sent to South Africa for the sole purpose of promoting trade and commerce, is clearly one of those American Afro-optimists challenging the many Afro-pessimists in the United States who look across the South Atlantic and see mostly doom and gloom. The optimists say give Africans a fair chance and they will achieve great things. The pessimists look at the mess created by nature, history, the colonial powers and inept politicians and see little hope. From his office in Johannesburg, Arnold’s mission is to develop and manage American commercial activities in what is designated by the US Department of Commerce as one of the world’s 10 big emerging markets. In effect, he is there to help the disadvantaged people of southern Africa to get a fair chance to reach their potential in a democratic, post-apartheid market economy – while promoting trade opportunities that can create jobs for Americans. The theme is black economic empowerment in southern Africa and new markets for American exports, with an emphasis on those produced by black American companies. Certainly, from the American perspective, there are good reasons to be pessimistic about Africa, starting with the nightly television news broadcasts with their grim scenes from Rwanda, Somalia and other hell-holes, and ending with familiar accounts of continent-wide overpopulation, economic decay and political corruption. But there are good reasons to be optimistic and the Clinton Administration’s policy planners hope the Afro-optimists will use their talents and energies to counter the gloomy prognoses of the pessimists. One of the Administration’s strategies in this context is to foster an African constituency in the United States. The South African transition has given the Afro-optimists exactly what they need to push their cause. News coverage of the long lines of voters waiting in the sun to take part in the new democracy and the colorful  inauguration of President Nelson Mandela sparked an American emotional high – especially among African Americans – which Clinton planners hope will help them boost South Africa into the role of the catalyst that will turn Africa around. Arnold, a 47-year-old Washington author and lawyer whose resume includes 19 years of public and private international law practice, much of it involving Africa, was an optimist long before Nelson Mandela took his presidential oath of office.

With excellent ports, the makings of a substantial transport and communications network, with Africa’s most sophisticated financial institutions and with most of the mineral, oil and agricultural potential barely tapped, prospects seemed pretty good, Arnold suggested. In his new job, Arnold – who served in the Carter Administration as a deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs – has an opportunity to help bring nearer to reality his vision of the region exploiting its resources properly for the benefit of everyone. His area of responsibility includes South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Angola, Zambia and Malawi. He will serve as principal advisor to US Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and to the American ambassadors in the countries under his jurisdiction.

Millard Arnold’s appointment ties in with the new American foreign policy doctrine of preventive diplomacy which is evolving, not without difficulties and stubbed toes, in the place of Cold War strategies where nations sometimes qualified for partnership even if they were scurrilous dictatorships but were considered useful in the anti-Soviet effort. The new doctrine aims to help countries deal with short and long term problems so that US foreign aid, never popular among American taxpayers, can be used for development rather than emergency relief during crises when the hungry have to be fed and US soldiers often have to keep the peace. Thus, Clinton planners judge a strong and stable South Africa, with economic benefits spreading out over the region, to be very much in the American national interest now and for the future. They want South Africa to grow. President Mandela’s speech to the Organization of African Unity in Tunis in which he urged Africans to deal with their own problems was much applauded in Washington. But the Americans recognize that Mandela must have economic clout to back up his moral leadership. At the time of writing, Arnold was still drawing up a game plan for his new job. But his boss, Ron Brown, has already set guidelines. It is clear that Arnold will have an open telephone line to Brown’s office.

The Johannesburg posting seems to have a very special meaning for Brown – the first African American to be appointed US Secretary of Commerce. In an emotional speech earlier this year to students at Howard University in Washington DC., Brown said this of himself: “My ancestors, came from Africa. Some 200 years ago they were led in chains on to a slave ship… I feel a special  connection to these events. A man whose ancestors were brought to America by the slave trade now shapes American trade policy as Secretary of Commerce. So much has changed; too much remains the same.” Brown went on to relate the changes in South Africa, with a warning that matters could not remain the same in terms of black economic exclusion there. In several speeches, Brown has described the US eagerness to help bring all South Africans into the economic system as managers, consumers, skilled workers and entrepreneurs. “This is the area where the US can make its greatest contribution,” he said. “Just as the economic pressures of sanctions and divestment helped end apartheid, economic assistance and private sector investment and trade can help encourage the healing process…. “It will be the private sector that drives the economic recovery in South Africa. Only substantial private investment domestic and foreign – can fuel the economic growth needed to provide the jobs, housing, education and human services to those so long excluded by apartheid.” Millard Arnold’s job is to try to tum those words into facts. In Washington, Arnold told the US-SA Business Council that he envisaged a central co-ordinating point for American firms doing business with South Africa to bring together all the numerous policies and programmes introduced by the Clinton Administration. His job, he said, was to promote:

• American economic engagement in South Africa and the region;
• The interests of American companies;
• South Africa and the region as venues for direct investment by Americans; and
• The economic empowerment of black South Africans in conjunction with American businesses with an emphasis on – but not exclusively – business owned by African-Americans.

Clearly, Arnold will be an influential figure in the bilateral relationship between Washington and Pretoria. Commercial and trade matters will be high priorities with tax and tariff treaties and trade strategies getting much attention. But the bottom line for his success or failure will be whether American investors feel their money will be safe and profitable in South Africa. And only South Africans will be able to control that.

 

Neil Lurssen is Washington correspondent at South Africa Magazine

South Africa, The Journal of Trade, Industry and Investment
Publisher, David Altman
Writer, Neil Lurssen

 

 

Apartheid denied the most basic rights to millions of South Africans. Now, huge backlogs in housing, education, health care and job creation must be tackled. Jay Naidoo, as Minister without Portfolio in the new Government of National Unity, is the person in charge of co-ordinating a Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) involving the provision of a vast range of services and infrastructure. There is no doubt that his heart lies in the right place. As the former secretary general of the Cosatu trade union movement, Naidoo was at the forefront of the fight against apartheid.

He knows what needs to be done. But, as he tells Jenny Cargill: “We have had to come to terms with the fact that the challenge of setting up government was greater than we anticipated.”

 

How do you encapsulate the RDP?

The RDP is a growth and development strategy. The key elements relate to how we shift government expenditure from old priorities to new ones; and how we re-organize the civil service to deliver efficient and effective services. In that context, how do we establish a set of socio-economic indicators against which the performance of government can be assessed in a transparent way?

 

But there are various interpretations of the RDP. For example, the South African Communist Party has criticised government for being too statist in its approach to the RDP. It argues that the RDP should not be a market driven program, but a people-driven initiative.

There is no contention around what the RDP seeks to achieve, but there is a debate on how we achieve the RDP. I think that is very healthy. Our President, Nelson Mandela, has emphasized that the RDP needs to be driven by our people and focused on meeting their needs. But our people include all stakeholders, from government to employers to trade unions, to civil movements to rural organizations. Essentially, therefore, the RDP is a partnership between government and the rest of society. All the stakeholders must have an input and must participate in the implementation of the program. We must strike a balance between the role of the market – crucial to economic growth – with the role of government in ensuring that the basic needs of our people are met.

 

There is a strong perception that the RDP is something that the government does unto others. How do you ensure that it becomes something more than a government program?

The government needed to kick-start the RDP. So, up to now we have focused on social upliftment; delivering in the short term. But a critical area of the RDP is the stimulation of economic growth, which is needed to sustain the RDP in the medium- to long-term. In May, the President announced a number of projects, most notably free health care for certain sections of the population and a school-feeding program to be implemented within the first 100 days of the new government. We have spent a lot of our time conceptualising these projects, and planning them in a participatory way. Clearly, the need to involve communities is a critical second phase.

 

Governing in a manner which seeks the participation of all stakeholders is time consuming, but grassroots supporters are intolerant of delays.

Our approach is to move with haste, but to proceed slowly. We have had to come to terms with the fact that the challenge of setting up government was greater than we anticipated. The planning and co-ordination phases have taken up a lot of our time. But we are confident that we have made an enormous amount of progress. Of course, the 100 day deadline put considerable pressure on us. But it was the right decision. It drove us to work on the delivery of the RDP. We cannot ignore the fact that there are bottlenecks in delivering on the RDP and we cannot ignore the fact that there are expectations among the people. Our lack of communication with people about what we are doing and about the constraints we are facing has been a weakness, but we are addressing that now.

 

What has struck you most about coming into government?

That you have the power and capacity to do things which can change the lives of millions of people. We are finding an incredible amount of agreement within the Government of National Unity and within the civil service about what the most important challenges are. Therefore, we are developing processes which are creating the political will to fulfil those challenges. It is exciting. Therefore, despite the debate and different interpretations, the will to make the RDP work is there among all parties.

 

But there is a sense that the political power needed to achieve the required transformations remains constrained particularly at provincial level.

Understand the challenge we face. There has been decades of operating according to the needs of a minority. We face the problem of extending the delivery of social services to all our people. That is monumental. We are talking about improving delivery to three quarters of the population. To do this we must find mechanisms which enhance our capacity to deliver. So, we are incorporating into RDP projects capacity building criteria. For example, the school feeding scheme would have been very easy to implement had we simply gone to a large company and asked it to take charge. Instead, we sought to build into this project criteria which enhance community involvement, job creation, affirmative action and training. On the whole, projects funded through the RDP Fund must meet these criteria. By getting these criteria incorporated into projects, the Fund can leverage into the civil service different management practices.

 

When do you expect the private sector and international capital to enter the RDP picture?

Having met the challenges of the first I00 days, we now expect to begin to interact with donors and the private sector for grant finance for the RDP Fund. On the question of investment, both domestic and foreign, there are great possibilities: take areas like electrification, telecommunications, transport and water provision.

 

There is scepticism in business about your taxation intentions. What assurances can you give?

We do not anticipate a permanently high level of taxation. We are committed to maintaining fiscal discipline. In fact, we are introducing mechanisms to bring government consumption expenditure down and hence to reduce the budget deficit. These mechanisms will tackle the organization of the public sector and the budgetary expenditure patterns. Under review are specific measures around tighter financial controls and performance audit trails that would insist on more efficient use of state resource.

 

It has already been stated within government that civil service numbers will have to be increased as an affirmative action program is undertaken. In addition, a number of ministers have registered their need for bigger budget allocations for expenditures which do not fit well with RDP priorities: for example, defence and foreign affairs. In this light, how will you contain government expenditure and the deficit?

We will see a fascinating debate about priorities. We have got to accept that there is a limited resource pool, and the distribution of that pool must relate to the priorities of the people. The Cabinet will certainly have to make decisions on this; and some of them will be pretty harsh. Furthermore, the priorities will not be determined by government alone. Parliament will play an important role, particularly given the plan to make the budgetary process more transparent.

 

Jenny Cargill is a specialist writer on South Africa’s political and economic policy changes. She is a director of an information service, BusinessMap SA, which assists, among others, investors in all understanding of the new environment in South Africa.

South Africa, The Journal of Trade, Industry and Investment
Publisher, David Altman
Writer, Jenny Cargill

The thing you’ve got to wonder about Donald Gordon is why, at the age of 64, he has launched into another stage of his career.  Surely after all he has achieved he could pack up a few trunks and retire to somewhere peaceful like the Galapagos  Islands, spending his days taking one  hour at a time. Rather like mountaineers who regard as witless anyone who poses the obvious question about why bother – especially if there’s a cable-car going that way – Gordon seems to find it difficult to comprehend-why he should be thinking of retiring. Yes, he is 64 but…

Almost in deference to the questions asked of his retirement he has sort of agreed he will be taking that route around 1998. But what he will do on retirement is indeed a puzzling thought. Gordon delights in deal making. He thrives on putting together the most mesmerising of transactions. And he seems at his most relaxed when he has just bedded down some or other scheme and is announcing it to the public. Such is the blur between fun and finance that the uninitiated might be inclined to think Gordon is hosting a business summer school on his regular sojourns at the beautiful Plettenberg Bay on the east coast of the South African cape. It is perhaps more than coincidence that during the Easter and Christmas vacations – when Gordon is most likely to be there – it has become something of a tradition for many of Johannesburg’s business leaders to relocate to “Plett” for their holidays. No doubt libraries of research have been done on the forces that propel seemingly ordinary enough people to become financial giants. Certainly an important part of what continues to propel them must be enthusiasm. Gordon oozes enthusiasm – he has so much to get done before his work or life is over. No matter how large the deal, he pays attention to detail. As one Johannesburg analyst remarks: “That, and his ability to see the whole picture before most people have even started to put the pieces together, is why he is regarded as this country’s most outstanding businessman.” South African mining magnate Harry Oppenheimer agrees. He once described Gordon as “perhaps the greatest businessman of the post-war generation”. Chatting in his Johannesburg head office which is as discrete as the man’s own business style wooden panels pull back to reveal shelves of books or, if the hour is appropriate, a small bar – he is excited. He is keen to move into the next phase of the development of his special creation, Liberty Life. Just back from the sort of tour of the US and Europe that would have jaded Mick Jagger, his energy level is remarkable. On some days during the two-week tour of the financial hot spots of the US and Europe, Gordon and his executives met with as many as five fund manage- meant teams – frequently taking in more than one city, country or state a day. No doubt Gordon was disappointed by the US response to Liberty’s multi-million dollar convertible bond issue. Initial indications were that investors there would contribute as much as $200 million. Then came expectations of bond rate increases and the unexpected announcement that South African Finance Minister Derek Keys would be resigning.

Although there was disappointment about the US, response from Europe and the Far East was very encouraging. Gordon and his team did particularly well with Japanese and Hong Kong investors – unexpected given the previous lack of interest in South African bond or equity investment on this front. But it is not his style to linger over the thought that something didn’t quite work out according to his original plan. Failure is not something he denies; he merely has no grasp of that concept as it refers to his life. Invariably Gordon turns situations to his account. It is merely a matter of patience and adjusting the time frame. If it didn’t seem to work out yesterday, relax, regroup and then, five years down the track, investors will be looking back on a deal that seemed inspired. In the early 1960s, Gordon was looking for a big brother for his fledgling Liberty Life insurance group. He turned to two obvious players on the South African scene – mining and industrial group Anglo American, and the big Afrikaans insurance group, Sanlam. They turned him down. So he turned to the Guardian Royal Exchange (GRE) of London. In 1964 GRE acquired a 75 per cent controlling stake in Liberty Life.

Fourteen years later Gordon approached his own lead bank, Barclays, to help purchase the shares. But managing director Bob Aldworth wouldn’t finance the R21 million of preference shares needed to help fund the R29 million deal. Gordon got support from two of South Africa’s other major banks, Standard and Nedbank. GRE was paid Rl.25c a share for 22 million Liberty Holdings’ shares, being the bulk oftheir stake. The shares are currently listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) at over R250 a share. The GRE did remain with almost 5 million shares, so all was not lost and the Liberty investment is still the largest in its portfolio. Although Nedbank played a small role in this transaction the relationship potential between it and Liberty was restricted because of its association with South African insurance giant Old Mutual. There were no such restrictions on Standard, and the 1978 deal marked the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship between the two. Crucial to that beginning was Standard’s acquisition of a 25 per cent stake in Liberty for R2 million. Having determined that this was indeed a useful ally who could participate and support Liberty’s long-term growth strategy, five years on Gordon sold Standard another 25 per cent – this time for R85 million. The increase over the five year period seems staggering but on the basis of the current market valuation of Liberty Holdings, the R85 million looks like a give-away as their stake is now worth well over R3 billion ($857 million). The group’s current market capitalisation is just short of R22 billion ($6.28 billion). Standard also acquired joint control of the Liberty Life Group which has a current market capitalisation of over R22.5 billion ($6.42 billion) on the JSE and more than £3 billion in London. It was not to be a one-sided relationship. Over the years, Liberty built up a critical stake in Standard’s holding company, Standard Bank Investment Corporation (SBIC). By the end of financial 1993 this was 39 per cent. Gordon used a similar strategy to develop his UK business in what was regarded as a fairly hostile environment for a South African insurance group. In 1980 Liberty acquired an 11 per cent interest in Sun Life Assurance. There was little doubt Gordon’s entry into the London market was greeted with some hostility. The general anti-South African sentiment of the 1980s did little to improve Gordon or Liberty’s acceptability. But in the early 1990s Gordon secured a formidable ally in French insurance giant Compiegne UAP. Together they secured control of Sun Life. Motivation behind the UAP tie-up was similar to that of SBIC. Gordon brought onside a powerful player whom he could trust to support his ambitions. This is all the more critical when playing in a region far from home base. If this is the sort of modus operandi, it suggests that despite Liberty’s powerful asset base any play on the US insurance industry will involve some sort of partnership with a local it suggests despite the immense strides Liberty has taken since 1974 Gordon still recalls with great fondness the re-purchase of control from GRE. He describes it as “the best deal I’ve ever done”. To put this in perspective, it is worth noting that in the process of building up an insurance group with RI06 billion ($30.28 billion) of assets under its control, Gordon has also played a major part in revolutionising South African shopping patterns. In 1970 Liberty invested R15 million into Sandton City shopping centre. Situated in Johannesburg’s northern satellite town of Sandton, the upmarket convenience centre was the first of its kind in South Africa. This was soon followed by development of the sprawling Eastgate shopping centre to the east of Johannesburg.

Gordon seems determined to precipitate the same sort of revolution in UK shopping patterns. Transatlantic, which is the holding company for his UK operations, has a 75 per cent stake in Capital Shopping Centers (CSC) whose R4 billion ($1.14 billion) of assets comprise seven major regional shopping centres. CSC was listed on the London Stock Exchange in March this year. Gordon is evidently bullish about long termn prospects for the shopping centers and the CSC share price. “From an initial listing price of 206p,” he says, “it is currently at 224p which is well ahead of the property sector index performance.” He points out that CSC has a comprehensive lead on any competitors and believes the move towards regional shopping centers will get a firm boost from Sunday shopping which was recently given the go-ahead by the British parliament. Gordon is coy about plans for the next major phase in the group’s development but does not deny too vehemently persistent market speculation that it will take place in the US. “It’s a big market which I think will be a very interesting one,” he says. “It is a natural market for us to look at. I think there are a lot of opportunities if the right one came our way.” But he believes the US industry has got into a lot of problems and needs to sort itself out. This, and increasing interest rates, is likely to result in some good buying opportunities. A1thOUgh he has a short four years before retirement, Gordon has no intention of blotting his track record with a rushed move on the US. He is adamant: “We won’t rush in.” Right now he believes the best strategy is for Liberty to build on its recent marketing trip and increase the group’s profile in the US. “One day I would like to see Liberty listed on the NYSE,” he says. In the process the Liberty team is lifting the profile of South Africa among fund managers. The trail blazing US trip in July will have made it that much easier for other South African groups to gain acceptance from a US audience. It is no coincidence that Liberty was the first South African group to make a major play on international investors. A reflection of the esteem in which it is held, by the business community and by government, was the Reserve Bank’s decision that Liberty should blaze the trail for South Africa ahead of a government fund raising exercise. Not at all that bad for the 27 year old accountant who, back in 1957, walked the streets of Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town in search of backers for a dream to create a new and substantial insurance group. It took nine months to raise the statutory minimum of R100 000 needed to start writing business. Those who had invested R1 000 in 1958, and stayed in, were looking at an investment worth over R100 million by 1993. For thousands of others who weren’t lucky or perceptive enough to get in on day one but got in later and stayed a good part of the course, fortunes have also been made. The size of the return may vary. One thing does not: nobody has lost money following Donald Gordon.

Anne Cotty is financial journalist, based in Johannesburg

South Africa, The Journal of Trade, Industry and Investment
Publisher, David Altman
Writer, Anne Cotty

 

Jon Swift asks Ernie Els: what are your favourite golf courses in South Africa? Els obliges.

When Ernie Els broke through at Oakmont to win the US Open title, the amiable young South African announced to the world that not only was he a great golfer in the making but that he was capable of taking on the toughest courses in the world and coming out on top. But behind the steely determination which saw Els triumph in a three-way play-off is an endearing love affair with the game. For among the layouts Els rates as his favourites in South Africa, there is not one – with the possible exception of Port Elizabeth’s Humewood in a stiff wind and Phalaborwa’s Hans Merensky Club in an enerb’Y-sapping heat wave – that cannot be played and enjoyed year-round by the average golfer. It is also evident from his choice of favourite courses that the intrinsic enjoyment of walking around a piece of sculptured countryside is as important to the young champion as the score at the end of the day. Glendower Country Club is his favourite course. “The layout is beautiful and peaceful and provides a great walk around a bird sanctuary,” explains Els, “but it is also where things really started for me.” It was as a 17 year-old amateur in 1989 that Els first made his mark, finishing second in the South African Open on the lush Glendower layout east of Johannesburg. “Every hole provides a challenge without being impossible to play,” comments Els. “The good shot will be rewarded and the stray shot punished. It’s what a course should be like.” His next choice is perhaps predictable _. his home course, Fancourt Country Club on the Cape Garden Route and close to his holiday home at Herald’s Bay. “A lot of time and thought has gone into the layout of each hole,” says Els. Sentiment also plays a part in the selection Els has next on his list – Houghton Golf Club, the long established layout on the fringe of Johannesburg’s business district. “It really is one of the best layouts in South Africa,” says Eis who won his first South African Open title there in 1992. The layout designed by one of Els’s boyhood idols is next on his list – the Gary Player Country Club at Sun City. “It’s very long even for a big driver of the ball from the back tees,” says Els. “But off the front, it’s a good test and there are some really great holes, like the 9th with its island green. I also like the feeling of being out in Africa. And that’s something anyone can find out quite quickly if you spray a tee shot.” The next choice on the US champion’s list shows the tall young superstar’s lack of bias to a layout where he has not always performed up to his talents – the Country Club in Durban. “Just a beautiful course,” says Els. “Close to Durban, but out on the course, you could be miles from anywhere. It’s a layout you have to think about and it always demands accuracy. But because it’s not all that long, it gives every player who uses his head a better than even chance.” Els’s next choice is one of the most popular and well-used courses in South Africa – Wanderers Golf Club. Like Houghton, Wanderers is within easy reach of the Johannesburg and Sandton business centres and is the venue where he won the South African PGA title for the first time in 1992. “Again, there’s something for every type ofplayer,” says Els. “The layout is open enough to give yourself a chance and the greens true enough for anyone to make the putt if you read it right.” Humewood in Port Elizabeth is next on the list and again a course where Els tasted triumph in 1992, the momentous year on the South African professional circuit where he swept all before him. “Humewood is always a challenge,” he says. “We have so few true links courses in South Africa.

South Africa, The Journal of Trade, Industry and Investment
Publisher, David Altman
Writer, Jon Swift

As Galileo established in science and the Impressionists demonstrated for art, how one sees the world depends on the lens through which it is viewed. This insight is critical to comprehending the basis for a successful relationship between Americans and South Africans. The fascination which the South African story holds for Americans is easily understood. Seen through the lens of American civil rights history, apartheid in South Africa seemed like legalized racism. The white right with its military garb and threats of violence in pursuit of its goal of a “volkstaat,” an Afrikaner white state, were the soldiers of bigotry, ready to win their version of civil war. Alternatively, tapping into a different myth, the Zulus of the Inkatha Freedom Party led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, an “authentic” figure lionized by American intellectuals and conservatives in the 1980s, appeared to be a uniquely African creation.

Unfamiliar with the demographics and political leanings of South Africans, including millions of Zulus who contradicted their “tribal” affiliation and supported the African National Congress, Americans saw the increasingly hostile IFP/ANC confrontation as a story of primitive conflict like those depicted in Tarzan movies. None of these cartoonish characterizations was appropriate, and rarely were the images transmitted from South Africa via popular media sufficiently nuanced to explicate the story as the South Africans might tell it. Thus, the surprise at the peaceful election outcome so different from what was expected based on the stereotypical American views of the actors. But once the lens is adjusted, it is apparent that the American creation of a race-based paradigm in which whites and blacks are polar opposites is part of what was exploded by South Africans in their April elections.

Surprising everyone but themselves, white and black South Africans defied “conventional wisdom” and stood together, legally equal for the first time, waiting patiently to change their lives. For white South Africans it was a change which relieved them of a heavy burden of guilt and freed them from the sense of shame constantly reinforced by their country’s status as moral pariah. For black South Africans, the overwhelming majority, the change represented universal acknowledgement of the reality which had sustained them for so long during the dark apartheid era. It was public affirmation of their private knowledge that the country belonged to them and that the force of history would guarantee the eventual restoration of their rights, notwithstanding the efforts by a frightened, determined minority to alter the certain outcome. Thus, in place of the bitterness and alienation, recrimination and animosity, found in horrific circumstances elsewhere such as Bosnia and Rwanda, in South Africa there is a sense of relief and a confident commitment to a shared future. It is imperative for the flourishing of the American-South African relationship that Americans transcend the limitations of an inapt approach to the relationship from a position of knowing superiority, based on employing the wrong lens.  While Americans may serve for some period as the senior partner in the relationship, it will have an assertive, rambunctious junior partner, eager to assume an ever more significant role. And, always pursuing an independent path, proud South Africans will gladly accept the advice and expertise proffered by their American friends, for whom they have the deepest respect, but will make up their own minds about how to solve their problems. This is the prerogative they have the right to exercise as citizens of a sovereign state, and as democratic equals.

This notion is reflected in the words of South African deputy president Thabo Mbeki in addressing the trade relationship at a conference on investment in South Africa, sponsored by the United States Information Agency in Atlanta, Georgia in June: “We are looking forward to a relationship with the United States, a relationship of equals – a relationship defined by negotiated agreements such that both sides find that what comes of those agreements is mutually beneficial.” These words are as valid for the relationship between each nation’s people. With a non-distorting lens in place, those seeking business and investment opportunities in South Africa will understand that they must bring as much to the table as they seek to take away.

And that the resources must have relevance and lasting value for the South Africans, from whom Americans may learn lessons about how those resources may be applied to the benefit of all.

South Africa, The Journal of Trade, Industry and Investment
Publisher, David Altman
Writer, Gail M. Leftwich