South Africa: Part of the Axis of Evil. How would George W Bush deal with Apartheid South Africa?

[Declan]

In this ATL, Apartheid South Africa manages to continue existing up until the early 2000s. As hinted by the title, at the very least, existing in the year of 2002. As for the POD to get to this point: assume a mixture of brute force and better disruption of ANC activities mean the country avoids a civil war(but still remains quite a bit chaotic) in conjunction with reformers like De Klerk never achieving power. So South Africa in the 2000s would be ruled by leaders who support apartheid, probably similar to PW Botha, or to John Vorster in terms of how supportive of the system they are. By the late 80s South Africa was a world pariah, and it would definitely remain the same at least in this ATL, if not becoming even more isolated.

Going towards Bush now. One major foreign policy drive of his administration, second only to the GWOT was the idea that America needed to curtail the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMDs) with respect to international pariahs. His administration highlighted three main countries in this campaign: North Korea, Iran, and Ba'athist Iraq. The most infamous point of this drive, that summarized it all, was the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Behind the scenes in the 70s and 80s, was South Africa's development of WMDs; particularly nukes. The government decided to develop nukes as a last resort against any encroachment by communist forces on South Africa's border, or against an uprising. While the US did have some evidence South Africa had WMDs, the issue was never brought up due overarching cold war politics. However with the USSR dead, it's likely by the 90s, the issue of WMDS would be raised by the West, adding to the condemnation South Africa already had upon it.

So Apartheid South Africa in the 2000s would be a pariah state, armed with WMDs: pretty much exactly what Bush railed against. So the question I'm posing is how would Bush deal with South Africa? Would he, as the title suggests, include South Africa as part of the Axis of Evil?

 

[Kohlticus Euraleth]

If they're not acting counter to American interests, why would he? That part has as much to do with the descriptor of "Axis of Evil" as anything else.

 

[Seandineen]

Mandela unreleased would have passed. Perhaps a reward for the Zulus could allow the system to survive. P.W Botha for all his stubbornness abolished the pass laws, and gave Coloreds and Indians a vote. We would need HNP type rulers to last this long.

 

[walmart]

The Axis posted a threat to US allies or were targets to be overthrown. A surviving Apartheid South Africa doesn't fall into this camp even ignoring the issues of a continued survival.

 

[Declan]

If they're not acting counter to American interests, why would he? That part has as much to do with the descriptor of "Axis of Evil" as anything else.

One of the US' interests was the abolition of apartheid. While much has been said about Reagan and apartheid, Congress unequivocally was a staunch opponent of apartheid. I would imagine once he leaves office and a hardliner is still in charge of SA, US policy towards them will continue to get harsher.

Especially true for Bill Clinton when he gets office. Activists like Jesse Jackson wielded a strong influence over the Black vote in America, and were key figures within the Democrat party. Obviously they desired maximum pressure on South Africa. In this ATL it's not unimaginable that they would twist Clinton's hand into putting Apartheid higher up on the list of US foreign policy issues.

So, by the time Bush gets there, I would say relations between America and South Africa woud be utterly poisoned. Furthermore, I don' t think Bush would take the risk of descalating with SA, given it might tank his approval ratings. All in all, this means that South Africa is operating against US interests.

The Axis posted a threat to US allies or were targets toe overthrown. A surviving Apartheid South Africa doesn't fall into this camp even ignoring the issues of a continued survival.

Hard to argue that, in a post cold war era, the US wouldn't have wanted the Apartheid government toppled.

Regardless, the West was making allies with South Africa'neighbours. Said neigbours being part of the the reason why South Africa pursed WMDs to begin with. By the turn of the millenium, the US had reconciled with Angola and Mozambique had joined the Commonwealth.
So you have two ardent enemies of South Africa who have now become allies of the West.
The US would see South Africa's WMDs as a threat to its new allies.

 

[raharris1973]

One of the US' interests was the abolition of apartheid. While much has been said about Reagan and apartheid, Congress unequivocally was a staunch opponent of apartheid. I would imagine once he leaves office and a hardliner is still in charge of SA, US policy towards them will continue to get harsher.

Especially true for Bill Clinton when he gets office. Activists like Jesse Jackson wielded a strong influence over the Black vote in America, and were key figures within the Democrat party. Obviously they desired maximum pressure on South Africa. In this ATL it's not unimaginable that they would twist Clinton's hand into putting Apartheid higher up on the list of US foreign policy issues.

So, by the time Bush gets there, I would say relations between America and South Africa woud be utterly poisoned. Furthermore, I don' t think Bush would take the risk of descalating with SA, given it might tank his approval ratings. All in all, this means that South Africa is operating against US interests.

From a modern South African point of view, modern South Africa hates America's guts as a corporate and strategic entity. ANC-ruled South Africa has a strong sentimental preference for Russia* and China, "who talked the helping talk, and walked the helping walk" and 'meant it' by actually giving them guns and supporting front-line Marxist states, even though the ANC's armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe was the tiniest portion of the overthrow of Apartheid recipe.

ANC elites and supporters may acknowledge or even appreciate some of their progressive allies in the west, black and maybe white, but just as individuals and activists. They seem to be in strange agreement with western right-wingers that those people aren't 'the real America', which is white supremacy aligned in their view.

*latest reflection, stance on Ukraine.

 

[kholieken]

One of the US' interests was the abolition of apartheid. While much has been said about Reagan and apartheid, Congress unequivocally was a staunch opponent of apartheid.

In this ATL it's not unimaginable that they would twist Clinton's hand into putting Apartheid higher up on the list of US foreign policy issues.

Republican Congress is much friendlier to SA. Pat Buchanan, David Duke, etc would support apartheid. Congress would hinder and blunt Clinton anti-aparthed policies.

Hard to argue that, in a post cold war era, the US wouldn't have wanted the Apartheid government toppled.
The US would see South Africa's WMDs as a threat to its new allies.

US accept Israeli Nuke. Post-Cold war US might treat SA as important resource supplier. Businessman like Musk and Thiel would support cooperation between SA and USA., they can donate enormous amount of money to pro-apartheid congressman. SA would become place of investment with pro-business policies and cheap labor.

 

[athgtq16129]

Is Namibia/South West Africa independent or still under South African rule?, and what would the situation of the Bantustans be? did SA ever hinted at a determined date for when all or most Bantustans would be declared de-jure "independent"?

(note: KaNgwane was apparently supposed to be given to Swaziland/Eswatini rather than becoming a de-jure independent Bantustan, but I am not sure if QwaQwa was supposed to be given to Lesotho though)

 

[Nelson Mikeson]

One major foreign policy drive of his administration, second only to the GWOT was the idea that America needed to curtail the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMDs) with respect to international pariahs. His administration highlighted three main countries in this campaign: North Korea, Iran, and Ba'athist Iraq. The most infamous point of this drive, that summarized it all, was the "Axis of Evil" speech.

Bush's opposition to WMD and the "Axis of Evil" are overblown, his focus was always the War on Terror and the "Axis of Evil" was brought up just to minimize his planned invasion of Iraq as part of a larger fight against global WMD development(probably trying to draw upon Reagan's "Evil Empire"), but as it turned out, the invasion stopped no WMD program and Bush did nothing substantial to prevent Iran and North Korea from developing WMDs and he is likely to do the same(nothing) with a surviving Apartheid South Africa.

Speaking of, if Apartheid South Africa manages to shut itself off North Korea-style, it would definitely fall to civil war by the 2000s. And if the Afrikaneers still have those nukes, well...

 

[Vespasian]

If the US Congress still applies stiff sanctions on the Apartheid Regime in the 1980s, how does it mitigate the gush of capital that left South Africa?

I actually don’t know how this scenario works, especially given the multitude of crises that hit South Africa by the late 80s/early 90s that were caused by Apartheid.

 

[Declan]

We would need HNP type rulers to last this long.

Don't even need to go that far.
The Konservative Party should have been enought to keep things going.

 

[Seandineen]

Treuchiant wanted to make an internal settlement-type deal with Kaizer Mantanzima, and Lucas Mangope.

 

[ECavalier]

Even if you don’t think very highly of Bush’s political acumen the ‘Axis of Evil’ was mostly a product of his advisors and speech writers, at least some of whom will see the benefit of giving the concept more bipartisan appeal by including SA.

 

[Fodedor_de_Casadas]

The Axis of Evil was an instrument of US foreign policy to crush the countries which both: could be isolated (that's why China or Russia weren't on the Axis) + threatened US interests. But it could also serve as an internal policy thing to get black voters to vote for Bush.

Besides, even if Apartheid South Africa wasn't really defying US interests in a systematic manner, they could be used as a red herring here, a means to legitimize the whole "Axis of Evil" concept for the international community.

 

[raharris1973]

The Axis of Evil was an instrument of US foreign policy to crush the countries which both: could be isolated (that's why China or Russia weren't on the Axis) + threatened US interests. But it could also serve as an internal policy thing to get black voters to vote for Bush.

Besides, even if Apartheid South Africa wasn't really defying US interests in a systematic manner, they could be used as a red herring here, a means to legitimize the whole "Axis of Evil" concept for the international community.

Kinda like how pro-Israel hawks maybe didn't really care about North Korea, but including North Korea, not linked with terrorism issues on the US minds at the time was sort of a way to say, 'hey, our Bush Doctrine isn't anti-Islamic'/

 

[Garrison]

One of the US' interests was the abolition of apartheid. While much has been said about Reagan and apartheid, Congress unequivocally was a staunch opponent of apartheid.

The problem is that a large part of the reason for the collapse was the end of the Cold War. As long as that was going on the USA, UK, and others were never going to take any meaningful action, see Thatcher's 'a tiny little bit' comment when asked about the rather pathetic sanctions that were agreed. Once the cold war is over Apartheid South Africa is done, it is not going to last another decade with no outside support from the west and a serious sanctions regime in place after Clinton is elected.

 

[Historywatcher0]

A lot of the GOP would polarise themselves to be Pro South Africa and call anti-apartheid people 'woke'. Reagan wasn't an aberration he was merely step one to many of them.

Also, Israel would eventually likely deepen ties, given its own further right-wing turn.

 

[Fodedor_de_Casadas]

Kinda like how pro-Israel hawks maybe didn't really care about North Korea, but including North Korea, not linked with terrorism issues on the US minds at the time was sort of a way to say, 'hey, our Bush Doctrine isn't anti-Islamic'/

Yes. It would be an even better excuse, specially when you consider that the people that could defend Apartheid SA are very different from the likes of which would defend Libya or North Korea.

 

[walmart]

By the turn of the millenium, the US had reconciled with Angola and Mozambique had joined the Commonwealth.

US interest in Angola and Sub-Saharan Africa in general has been quite limited since the days of the cold war. American relationship with the MPLA is in no way comparable to it's relationship with either South Korea or Saudi Arabia, this assuming the MPLA still hangs on like in otl. The commonwealth is neither a political bloc or alliance. So you would have a South Africa sanctioned by the west for domestic reasons but not posing a threat to American allies or interests.

 

[KuboCaskett]

A lot of the GOP would polarise themselves to be Pro South Africa and call anti-apartheid people 'woke'. Reagan wasn't an aberration he was merely step one to many of them.

Also, Israel would eventually likely deepen ties, given its own further right-wing turn.

The whole "woke" thing wouldn't be until the late 2010's; and other than that sure, there would be those in the GOP that support the Apartheid regime, and those that don't, up until something goes wrong with SA and the US gets involved.