Cameron questions Thatcher's South Africa policy

David Cameron has won some banner headlines this morning for repudiating Margaret Thatcher's South Africa policy.  As posted on Thursday, ConservativeHome is supportive of the Tory leader's international development policy and it is difficult to get excited - one way or the other - about his reflections on the Thatcher governments' opposition to sanctions.

David Cameron won't be judged on policy towards apartheid-era South Africa, however.  His generation of politicians will be judged on the problems of their own time.  Everything else is political positioning.  One of the biggest problems - indeed, moral outrages - of our time is the loss of life in Darfur.  The news from this desperate region of Africa remains bleak.  I found this on the Coalition for Darfur blog from just four days ago:

"More than 200 women have been sexually assaulted in the last five weeks alone around Darfur's largest displaced camp, Kalma, an alarming trend that is yet another sign of the region's plummeting security situation.  The situation is so dire that about 300 women convened a meeting in Kalma on Aug. 7 to plead for more help from the outside world - particularly from African Union troops mandated to protect civilians."

I wonder what the Conservative leader of 2020 will make of what David Cameron did - or didn't do - about Darfur?  Did the Leader of the Opposition make it impossible for Tony Blair to ignore this human tragedy by constant campaigning on the subject?

Amnesty International, the Darfur Union and the anti-genocide Aegis Trust are organising a demonstration outside of the Sudanese Embassy on 17th September.  It would be a good opportunity for Mr Cameron to begin raising the Darfur crisis.

Comments

[alan]

You may not get excited about Cameron's attitude to Maggie's
South African policy but, in a nutshell, he is condoning urban terrorism!

The Tory party 'anthem' will now be Cher's 'If I could turn back time'

The country is tired of Blair's apologies for historical events for God's sake, Cameron, have you got a mind of your own?

[Ted]

I'm unsure on whether full economic sanctions would have been as effective as the mix of engagement & increasing isolation as corporates withdrew investments under investor pressure. The laager mentality would have been re-inforced and political trend would have been to extremes.

Instead we had a visionary in President de Klerk who recognised that with the Cold War over the protection offered to South Africa by the West's geo-political interests was gone. He was also fortunate in that Nelson Mandela, by his isolation in prison, still retained the non-racist ideals of the 50's rather than the more extreme politics many of the later generation had adopted. Mandela wasn't one of those who saw necklacing of opponents as an acceptable response.

It was also a domestic settlement rather than a foreign imposition; so the men of goodwill sought a compromise.

In Darfur though we have a clash between a Government and separatists, between Arab & Black African, involving greed/ownership of land, resources & oil wealth. Civilians are again the victims and rightly their suffering has to be addressed but there needs also to be a working towards a settlement of the underlying political & racial issues.

Putting in a peace keeping force, as in Lebanon, is no solution unless the issues that started the conflict are resolved, otherwise we have the UN or AU in place for decades (look at Cyprus, Korea, Lebanon or even Bosnia & Kosovo). Progress in South Sudan was through negotiation assisted by outsiders but in the end involved compomises between the parties. In Darfur there seems to be little political will to drive this same resolution.

Again there are geo-political issues as the Sudanese Arab government gets support from the more fundamentalist islamic states, China looks to gaining oil resources, Sudan's neighbours play for their advantages, some supporting the rebels. We need more than fine words from Cameron but also hard policy on how to achieve the basis for a resolution.

As HM Leader of Opposition he can do little but pressure the Government. The British Government is not viewed as neutral by the Sudan Government so its something where we need to work with EU states and get a strong united EU engagement (and I say that as a Euro-sceptic).

[John G]

Maggie's policy of constructive engagement with South Africa was very much the right one at the time and it received enthusiastic support among the Tory rank-and-file

I am sure there are others here who recall patiently queueing at Blackpool to enjoy the hospitality of the apartheid-era SA ambassador, then one of the highlights of the Tory conference.

This, of course, was at a time when the far-right Federation of Conservative Students was urging "Hang Nelson Mandela" so let's not try to rewrite history. One of the leading FCS figures is now writing DC's speeches!

Realities have changed and I'd like to hear David talking seriously about the very real Darfur problem, not about past history.

What next? Are we going to spend time condemning the pre-war Tory policy of appeasing the Nazis?

[Arthur]

Tory Hq's new address.

Conservative and Unionist Party
C/O The Minstry of Truth
Winston Smith Building
1984 Orwell Square
Airstrip One.

If anyone would like to apply for the position of.
Re-writer of History of the above party, who is also an expert in airbrushing techniques, please apply to the above address. Cameron sycophants especially welcome.

[David Banks]

I can't believe we are questioning the wisdom of Mrs T's policy on SA. It was the right thing to do.

[Alison Anne Smith]

He'll be saying we should re-open the mines next.

[John G]

True David. We are running the risk of being accused of blatant hypocrisy.

Margaret Thatcher was only reflecting the views of the Tories of her day, many of whom thought Apartheid was rather a "good thing". Very few Tories opposed it, although Robert Adley MP for Christchurch was one of them.

After one of those SA Ambassadorial parties I travelled in a cab with a well-known Tory MP and his wife. Their views were no doubt well-oiled by excellent SA wine but let' say they would have put Alf Garnett to shame. Actually there was nothing surprising about that at the time.

We live in a different world now and need to adopt a different style.

Speaking of which I have been informed that one of the former leaders of the FCS is now working as an apologist for the Sudan government. If true this is appalling.

[G-MaN Wild]

The South African government at the time were shooting and murdering black people everyday to keep them supressed. They were a terrorist state as such, and any dialogue with them should of been first and foremost about the end of their disgusting attitudes towards the native people of that land. Cameron is right in retrospect to look back with some regret.

[Simon]

Apartheid was a repugnant law. I was a YC who spent my weekends standing outside South Africa House holding an anti apartheid banner in a peaceful demonstartion.

Some facist nutters attacked us one day and we were helpless and our own police joind in against us.

I respect Maggie for so much but on SA she was wrong. Helping the SA regime was every bit as sick as those who helped the Nazis. I have since been to SA and seen for myself the true horrors of apartheid. And no I am not exagerating.

As for whether Mandela was a terrorist! Of course he wasn't. If my government passes a law saying I am a second class citizen, says where I can sit, decides where I can go and who I can marry and then uses the police I pay for to enforce the law with terror and violence then I too would take up arms.

[Paul Davis]

Well bloody said Steven.

[Paul Davis]

Well bloody said Simon.

[G-MaN Wild]

Here Here Simon.

[Kevin]

Simon is a Tory with common sense.

Well said. I bet he attracts criticism from readers who just do not understand the horrors of apartheid.

[John G]

Apartheid was a repugnant law. I was a YC who spent my weekends standing outside South Africa House holding an anti apartheid banner in a peaceful demonstartion.

Very commendable Simon.

But what were you doing about the many other YCs who were regularly enjoying hospitality inside SA house.

During the 1980s there was a virtual open house there for YCs and FCS. I recall attending one of those junkets at the invitation of a senior YC. There were several hundred guests there with superb wines and canapes in one of Herbert Baker's magnificent reception rooms.

Were you not aware of this?

[Simon]

I can honestly say John I was not aware of free for all invitations. In fact I only attended one conference.

If YC's and FCS people were accepting free hospitality then as an optimist I only hope they like Mr Cameron have seen the error of the parties ways.

Well done DC.

[buxtehude]

Cameron does the easy things - a press release about history.

He's incapable of doing anything difficult - like addressing Darfur.

[John G]

I can honestly say John I was not aware of free for all invitations. In fact I only attended one conference.

Then you were somewhat outside the YC/FCS "culture" of the time which was aggressively pro the Maggie line on SA.

Although officially supporting the gradual dismantling of apartheid through constructive engagement there was little to distinguish between the outward approach of the "libbos" with their pro-Savimbi badges and the Monday Club white supremacists.

Those who opposed them were - well - not so gently put to rights on the matter.

That's the truth about the way we thought then. We can't rewrite history.

Yes I was on the pro-SA right then. It's only the rediscovery of my Christian faith that truly taught me to see the black man as a brother in Christ.

[Simon]

John

I clearly was not in the 'culture' you describe. Had I been invited you would have seen me leave pretty quickly.

What I can say is how fantastic it is that the disgusting aprtheid regime has collapsed. SA will have many problems for many years as a result of that regime.

I do not think Cameron is trying to rewrite history. Far from it. But it is perfectly correct to admits errors and learn from history.

Yes I wish eh would say something on Darfur but hey I wish Blair would do something for Darfur. More people die every day in the Congolese Civil War than in the middle east and our politicians and newscaters ignore this terribly bloody conflict.

DC has made a start but for people to turn on him because he too condemns a regime as disgusting as apartheid-SA and the way the West propped it up is as opprtunistic as they accuse him of being.

If anyone still thinks Mandela a terrorist or the National Party as right or slightly misguided may I suggest a trip to Jo'Burg and a visit to the apartheid museum.

[John G]

Apartheid was indeed wrong and misguided, but it is important to put it into perspective.

The crimes of the former SA regime pale into insignificence beside those still being committed in the Congo and elsewhere throughout the continent.

Your view is doubtless distorted because as (I assume) a white man you feel that you are in some way associated with Apartheid in a way that you are not associated with the crimes of the Congolese. It's a false perspective.

And you have already admitted your fundamental - and deeply unconservative - problem.

You are an optimist.

[Simon]

No John you have me wrong and I may add you are more than a tad insulting.

I do not associate myself with apartheid regime because I am white. I do not associate myself with it at all.

I would say that the Congolesian crimes are as bad as the apartheid crimes because murder is murder to me.

I am also a Conservative who marched against the Iraqi war and for fox hunting. I do not believe all Conservatives have to think the same - it is a common set of values that bind us together.

I thought Clinton and the French refusing to intervene in Rwanda was wrong and that poor nation is still suffering to this day. I was in Rwanda last year and to see how the genocide touches every aspect of life is still deeply disturbing.

I remember Clintons aide being asked in 1994 why the UN would not inetrvene in Rwanda when the law says they MUST if genocide was being committed. The White House response was that it was not genocide but 'acts of gencide'. The reporter replied 'How many acts of genocide constitute genocide."

The truth is in the world we live in today a black murder is not as shocking as a white or arabic one. I believe in equality and that to me is the same in life as it is in death

[Solon]

On what basis does David Cameron purport to apologise on my behalf for views I may or may not have held 20 years ago?

Ridiculous.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"He's incapable of doing anything difficult - like addressing Darfur"

Totally agree Cameron should be making statements about how he will try to resolve present day problems rather then making headline grabbing soundbites regading the past. When did he join the party anyway ?

[Mill]

Cameron is repositioning the Conservative Party and tries to get rid of the roadblocks which hinder him reconecting with ethnic minorities and other groups the Party lost hold of. Although people see the benefits of the Thatcher era, they also see the misjudgements. That's why they voted New Labour in. It is arrogant to think the past election defeats were a misjudgement of the electorate. They lost trust in the Conservatives, and Cameron is gaining it back by showing he is different. Society has changed and so should the Conservative Party. By saying that Maggie had it wrong on apartheid he sends a clear signal: we conservatives care about the black community. About Africa. We have changed.

[John G]

I do not associate myself with apartheid regime because I am white. I do not associate myself with it at all

Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I meant that because you are white you feel some quasi-personal responsibility for Apartheid.

Agree with you 100% on Iraq. Most Tories I know were totally opposed to the war.

Like you I want to see action on Darfur but I'm just wondering whether this irrelevant diversion is a smokescreen to hide inaction.

I don't blame David. I blame those who are advising him.

[Solon]

"Although people see the benefits of the Thatcher era, they also see the misjudgements. That's why they voted New Labour in."

No, they voted Labour in because Major ballsed up the economy and because our backbenchers were perceived to be on the make and unable to keep their trousers buttoned.

Labour are still in becuase the economy still hasn't gone south in any meaningful way.

The Cameronite "Big Lie" that we're not in power because people think we are too right wing must be challenged.

[John G]

because our backbenchers were perceived to be on the make and unable to keep their trousers buttoned.

Too true Solon.

As far as blatant immorality is concerned little has changed, and simply pushing forward a few female and black millionaires to join the white millionaires in parliament changes nothing.

While the poor old grassroots have been kicked in the teeth Alan B'stard MP is alive and well and living on the Tory benches.

[Alison Anne Smith]

"Repositioning "the Party by coming up with current issue solutions would have more credibility than rubbishing the past which can not be altered. I fear he will lose more votes than he will gain.

[David]

As the Tory Party puts its past into the shredder, when can we expect for DC to throw off the belief in the Monarchy.

[Alison Anne Smith]

Too many Old-Etonion chum's families would suffer thankgoodness. So the Queen is safe I think.

[changetowin]

Too many Old-Etonion chum's families would suffer thankgoodness. So the Queen is safe I think.

What a silly comment.

[eugene]

Far from condoning the ex South African government, the country is the most developed in Africa. This was achieved largely by cheap labour and repression. Not good at all. However, all South Africans today look across the landscape of Johannesburg and see sky scrappers, millions of proper houses, motorways, railways and airliners from every imaginable place landing every minute at a top class airport. I wonder at what level of development the country would be at if the ANC took over in 1960?

[TomTom]

What is David Cameron's opinion on Kashmir ? He seems to want to revisit the past and provide commentary on policies of previous Conservative administrations - I thought he might wish to comment on Kashmir.................

and if not Kashmir, does he propose visiting Buenos Aires to discuss the Falklands, Madrid to discuss Gibraltar, or even Botany Bay to discuss the English Magistracy ? I was very disappointed that he has not commented on Admiral Byng, and he has failed to refer to Lord Haw Haw being executed for treason although a US Citizen; and he has not even discussed using up Britain's gas reserves to generate electricity

[Alison Anne Smith]

I looked up "changetowim" on tinternet and its a pro Union organisation in the States... that would be turning are party on its head !

ps Brighton are losing 1-3 to Crewe hence nothing else to do on a Sunday pm than argue on Conservativehome !

[Andrew Kennedy]

Has David Cameron made any policy announcements on Zimbabwe? The repressive and violent rule of Mugabwe and his ZANU PF government ? The brutality of the so called War Vets ? The persecution of Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC ? The redistribution of white farm land or the famine that will surely follow ?

Once again all we get are cheap headlines aimed at impressing the Guardianista liberal establishment while repudiating the most successful and radical Conservative
leader of our generation.

[Alison Anne Smith]

Changetowin & "our" party....I really should preview before I post !!

[Gildas]

"The redistribution of white farm land or the famine that will surely follow ?"

Mugabe and chums have actually admitted this was a mistake and are thinking about inviting the farmers back. At this point it is game set and match to Mugabe - because it was never about the white farmers at all.

By focussing on them first, Mugabe created a climate where the bien-pensants of the west didn't care, because in their heart of hearts you know many leftists approved of the white farmers being evicted. Once the smokescreen was established, Mugabe could get on with his real goals - destroying the last remnants of democracy and destroying his black oppposition.

Of course, as Darfur shows, he needn't have bothered. The only thing that would fix Darfur or Zimbabwe is sending troops or guns - neither of which we are willing to do.

"Amnesty International, the Darfur Union and the anti-genocide Aegis Trust are organising a demonstration outside of the Sudanese Embassy on 17th September"

Amnesty International, being affiliated to IANSA, is an organisation that is all in favour of disarming ordinary Africans to leave them at the mercy of warlords and their own governments. Friends of Darfur should be more picky about the company they keep.

[John G]

The fact is that Thatcher's policy of Constructive Engagement was the correct policy at the time, which means it was the correct policy tout court

changetowin and others forget that the aim of this policy (Favoured by Reagan also) was not the continuance of apartheid but its phasing out.

Since nobody, least of all former SA Nationalist Party politicians now defend apartheid this is a ridiculously soft target. What next? A keynote speech denouncing Hitler?

David Cameron's advisers and speechwriters need to be carefully monitored.

[Gildas]

Thatcher's SA policy was right at the time. It allowed SA to continue to have a functioning economy by the time of transition to majority rule. It was in no way (no matter what the more exotic fringes of our party or the left thought) pro-Apartheid.

There was also the small matter of there being bigger fish to fry back then - SA held the line against a lot of Communist subversion in Southern Africa.

That said, Cameron criticising it now is no big deal. History won't be written based on what David Cameron thinks, but on the facts - so the practical impact of Cameron's repudiation of a policy that was rendered moot over a decade ago is a few positive headlines.

[John G]

Good point Gildas. It's easy for all of us -myself included - to forget that this aspect of past history must be sen in the context of the Cold War.

That's why it was often imperative for us to hold our noses and support "our bastards" in the interests of Western security.

[changetowin]

changetowin and others forget that the aim of this policy (Favoured by Reagan also) was not the continuance of apartheid but its phasing out.

John,

Find we one comment I have made about this issue or withdraw your comment. I can do little about your unpleasant views on some issues, but I will ask you not to misrepresent mine (especially when I have not even made a comment).

[Alison Anne Smith]

"withdraw your comment. I can do little about your unpleasant views on some issues, but I will ask you not to misrepresent mine "

...oh no you've got s/him rattled !

[Michael Ehioze-Ediae]

Guys,

I suspect that you under-estimate the effects of apartheid on not only the lives of south africans but on africans as a whole.

secondly, you under-estimate the hosility that minorites feel towards the party.
If a party that believes in equality and justice and campaigned for sanctions against Iraq and Zimbabwe cannot see that it was immoral to oppose sanctions against south africa, then we have a problem.

Let me put it like this,In the last century, the white man's cause was the defeat of Hitler and the black man's cause was the defeat apartheid.

If this party is to move forward, you have to be contrite enough to admit past mistakes or risk repelling the groups you wish to attract.

An apology may be insignificant to some, but to others it is vital.

[Arthur]

Was that the Mrs Thatcher, who accepted the Lancaster House agreement, negotiated by the Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, which led to Rober Mugabe coming to power. Was that the Mrs Thatcher who said she. 'Would never negotiate with that blood stained Marxist terrorist, Robert Mugabe'
Was that the Mrs Thatcher who said. she would have no 'truck with those who supported Robert Mugabe, like Julias Nyrere of Tanzania,' a year before she led the dancing with Julias Nyrere at the Commonwealth Conference, just in case I've got the wrong one!

[Fred Baker]

Will David now deal with Israeli Apertheid?

"Against Israeli Apartheid
Desmond Tutu & Ian Urbina

Divestment from apartheid South Africa was fought by ordinary people at the grassroots. Faith-based leaders informed their followers, union members pressured their companies' stockholders and consumers questioned their store owners. Students played an especially important role by compelling universities to change their portfolios. Eventually, institutions pulled the financial plug, and the South African government thought twice about its policies.
Similar moral and financial pressures on Israel are being mustered one person at a time. Students on more than forty US campuses are demanding a review of university investments in Israeli companies as well as in firms doing major business in Israel. From Berkeley to Ann Arbor, city councils have debated municipal divestment measures.
These tactics are not the only parallels to the struggle against apartheid. Yesterday's South African township dwellers can tell you about today's life in the occupied territories. To travel only blocks in his own homeland, a grandfather waits on the whim of a teenage soldier. More than an emergency is needed to get to a hospital; less than a crime earns a trip to jail. The lucky ones have a permit to leave their squalor to work in Israel's cities, but their luck runs out when security closes all checkpoints, paralyzing an entire people. The indignities, dependence and anger are all too familiar.
"

[John G]

...oh no you've got s/him rattled !

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[John G]

If a party that believes in equality and justice and campaigned for sanctions against Iraq and Zimbabwe cannot see that it was immoral to oppose sanctions against south africa, then we have a problem.

No point in dwelling in the past. Anyway, Cameron can't apologise for the rest of us and if you wanted an apology for the policy itself you'd have to ask Baroness Thatcher.

It's like the people who bang on endlessly about slavery and the slave trade. They should remember that it is thanks to the British and other European nations that this evil institution (started by Africans and Arabs) was brought to an end.

Let's talk about now, and someone has rightly raised the issue of Israel "apartheid". Once I supported Israel just as I supported SA but that's all changed now.

We must call Israel to account at the bar of civilised world opinion.

[John]

If the SA government were 'holding the line, against communist subversion' they were woefully ineffective. Angola,Mozambique both fell to communist backed 'liberation movements'. Thatcher during her time in opposition gave false hope to the Rhodesian regime, of Ian Smith. I remember well at the '78 conference her clapping her hands off when a delegate, praised Ian Smith and our 'Kith and Kin' in Rhodesia, her support was self evident, the representatives cheered the speaker to the echo. Do not re-write history here. If you had leant on the bar of any Conservative Club in this country, during the period of the apartheid regime, and you had stated that you suppported Nelson Mandela, you would have been lynched. Dennis Thatcher, was fulsome in his praise of the SA regime, at every opportunity. Mark Thatcher thought apartheid so repugnant he went to live there. Members of the FCS, took every opportunity to rile any leftists, by singing 'Hang Nelson Mandela'. It had nothing to do with the 'cold war' it had a lot to do with racism. The sort of racism that led a member of the Cheltenham Conservative Association, to oppose John Tatlors adoption as a candidate, 'Because he's a f******g n****r. There are some posters to this site who are in denial about Tory Party members attitudes to non-white people, its dis-honest.

[John G]

Indeed. Let's put the message up in flashing letters six feet high.

YOU CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY!

[Oberon Houston]

Interesting visit, and interesting to read the thread above. He would have more impact if it was backed up with more relevant views on, as you say Ed,

Algerian Civil War
Casamance Conflict
Chadian-Sudanese War
Second Congo War
Somali Civil War, including Somaliland's claim for independence
North-South Conflict in Sudan
Conflict in northern Uganda
Ivorian Civil War
Zimbabwe's political crisis, all of which have recieved very little constructive intervention from any nation or collection of nations - including the African Union.

Africa to many contries is viewed as a hopeless case, however if we took a more constructive attitude towards this continent we could eventually build very positive and rewarding relationships with many countries whose population are needlessly suffering in their millions.

[Disillusioned]

Leftist apologists for the USSR and Cuba never look back with regret…(Indeed the far left today continues to turn a blind eye to the disgusting censorship and persecution in Cuba). Anyway I can only presume Cameron is ignorant of Thatcher’s plea to P.W. Botha that South Africa end apartheid and release Mandela...And er how is it that the left opposed sanctions against Iraq but not against South Africa? And it’ll obviously be the left leading the campaign against sanctions for Iran…

[Jack Stone]

We were wrong about apartheid and I am glad to see David Cameron as got the courage to admit it.
Apartheid was Africa`s eqvalient of Nazism and we should have opposed it one hundred per cent. When faced with such evil there can be no such nonsense as the so called constructive engagement.
Personally I always tought that Margaret Thatcher looked as if she was tryng to give the South African`s support rather than encourage them to change and that is something we as a party should be deeply ashamed of.

[tapestry]

It is usually best not to define your politics by reference to other peoples' wars. One's own are hard enough to comprehend.

[changetowin]

Let's play the ball - not the person. I've warned you on that before, Mr G.

Posted by: Editor | August 27, 2006 at 12:56

OK. No problem.

Posted by: John G | August 27, 2006 at 13:00

Thank you.

Posted by: Editor | August 27, 2006 at 13:05

Meanwhile on another thread

...oh no you've got s/him rattled !

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Posted by: John G | August 27, 2006 at 17:30

John,

We may disagree politically, but I really don't see why you are taking such delight in being personally unpleasant and inventing views that I didn't express. Given your political views I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. Can't you take the Editor's advice to heart?

[changetowin]

By the way, I write this not just because John has annoyed me by attributing views to me that I never expressed. I also think that forums like this only really work if all participants feel that they are afforded some degree of personal respect. Without that we will just descend into name-calling and get away from the issues. We must disagree on issues, but avoid nasty personal attacks.

[Simon]

Dear Changetowin

At 12.56 John was misrepresenting me by saying that I was white so tehrefore I felt guilty for the repugnant apartheid.

[John Coles]

Say what you like about Mr Cameron's views, reading this thread you realise that he has a great talent for estranging Tories who have been party members for a little longer that he has.

[kingbongo]

I note with interest that the BBC yesterday, in the guise of Sandy Toksvig, were praising holidays to the Sudan as a great opportunity to get in before the masses arrive. Apparently it's a bit like Greece or Spain in the 50's.

I can only imagine that all this Darfur stuff is overrated and there is absolutely no genocide, mass rape, deliberate starvation and intimidation or anything else vaguely nasty going on. Or is it the left's usual blindspot over these issues when committed by People's Republics?

Simon - I think you expressed your case very well and I totally agree with you.

I think Mrs T operated in a different world from what now pertains and my memory of the time is very much that SA was seen as an important ani-communist ally and the ANC was seen as a communist organisation (not far off the truth) who would invite the soviet navy into Simonstown.

I think it was wrong to ever believe in apartheid as a solution to any perceived problem and I am afraid that many members of the Conservative party did. I left the YCs partly because of this. I think for many YCs and FCS though it was anything to wind up the lefties and that is so easy to do they could have picked many more suitable topics. I'm afraid the fact they didn't means many of them have something to be ashamed of now.

[Editor]

kingbongo: "I can only imagine that all this Darfur stuff is overrated and there is absolutely no genocide, mass rape, deliberate starvation and intimidation or anything else vaguely nasty going on."

Am I missing some warped attempt at humour here?

[Old Hack]

What next - denounce Israel and support Hamas?

What Margaret Thatcher did for South Africa was right for the time. The ANC of the day was a violent Marxist revolutionary group.

Who is Cameron to second guess her calls as PM? He would be fortunate to be half the leader she was.

[Chris Hughes]

The very first comment over at the Observer's site to Cameron's article was by "Mike1" who said:

It's too late now, you twat.

Sums things up quite nicely

[Jarod Weaver]

I think David Cameron's remarks on South Africa prove that all the above comments are correct. South Africa's policies in that era were repugnant, but as Lord Tebbit says, it was a different era, and different nuances existed, i.e to say that Thatcher condemned Mandela as a terrorist automatically made her a supporter of apartheid entirely misses the point. No one, and I mean no one has ever accused Lady Thatcher of being a racist. What David Cameron is doing here is far more sinister. He is using his so-called "modernisation" of the party to rubbish thatcherite conservatives such as myself purely for his own "clause 4" moment. This man will do anything he can to insult people like me, (been a party member for 15 years, recently sent back my card!) I supported cival partnerships, I have had a letter printed in the Guardian, condemning racism in all parties, and yet as a fan of Margaret Thatcher, Dave implies that I have no future in the "modern, compassionate conservative party". Damn straight.

[John G]

We may disagree politically, but I really don't see why you are taking such delight in being personally unpleasant and inventing views that I didn't express.

Changetowin you really are an extraordinarily touchy fellow. I can assure you that I have not "got it in for you".

In fact I haven't a clue who you are.

What is your opinion on this issue then?

[John G]

I think for many YCs and FCS though it was anything to wind up the lefties and that is so easy to do they could have picked many more suitable topics. I'm afraid the fact they didn't means many of them have something to be ashamed of now.

There's some truth in this.

Does the name of David Hoile mean anything to anybody?

[John G]

Jack Stone - Apartheid was Africa`s eqvalient of Nazism and we should have opposed it one hundred per cent.

So Jack; what were you doing to oppose it?

I assume you were a Tory - then as now.

[TomTom]

Apartheid was Africa`s eqvalient of Nazism

So now you are an apologist for Nazism are you Jack Stone ? It had to come out I suppose - people like you and Guenther Grass try to minimise what Nazism was...........if it was only like apartheid perhaps the 38 million dead Europeans will come back to life and the 45 years of Soviet Occupation will be eradicated from half Europe.

[Tony Barton]

As I lost relatives in the Holocaust and had others who lived very happily in South Africa before the present shambles, I consider that remark by Jack Stone to be totally ignorant and disgusting.

The South Africans did not murder 6 milliion blacks. On the other hand some of the black African states have done their best to emulate the Nazis.

Mr Stone's remark is an insult to the victims of Nazism.

[John G]

At 12.56 John was misrepresenting me by saying that I was white so tehrefore I felt guilty for the repugnant apartheid.

I wasn't suggesting that you supported apartheid. I was suggesting that the reason you marched against apartheid but not against Black African atrocities could have been that you were particularly distressed that apartheid had been caused by white men like yourself.

It's a plausible explanation, but if it's incorrect maybe you could explain why you demonise "white" above "black" misdeeds.

I'm also now delighted that apartheid has gone but I see no point in dwelling on past history.

I want to hear more about Darfur.

[Jack Stone]

The National Party treated the majority populaton of South Africa like they were less than human. When I say that they were Africa`s Nasi`s it isn`t to minimise the horrours of Hitler it is to emphasise the horrors of Apartheid.
You go and tell the people of Soweto and elsewhere in South Africa that the National Party weren`t so bad after all and they will rightly be outraged.
Let`s not pick and chose between the extremists of the right and left about who were the most evil and agree that extremism of whatever quarter always leads to evil being committed by men and women on there fellow citizens.

[John G]

The National Party treated the majority populaton of South Africa like they were less than human.

The National Party's approach differed only in degree from that of the United Party and, indeed, from the general attitude of Europeans towards "natives" throughout the period of the British Empire, all the other Europen empires, and of course our American friends notably, but not exclusively, in the Deep South.

It's a period of human history during which racism was the "default position". Somebody had to be last to change and in this case it happened to be SA. The final years of the National Party regime actually reflected tremendous credit on reform-minded politicians and upon the Afrikaaner people themselves.

In contrast, the Nazi adventure was a uniquely evil phenomenon resulting in millions of deaths and the devastation of a continent. It is grotesque to attempt to compare the two.

I asked Jack Stone what he did to oppose apartheid, and I'd be genuinely interested to know something about his experiences as an anti-apartheid Conservative.

We haven't had an answer yet.

[Selsdon Man]

We should remember that the ANC was a terrorist organisation. Mr Cameron should recall the necklacings, glorified by Winnie Mandela. Innocent blacks who opposed Mrs Mandela's rule of terror were murdered by having burning tyres placed round their necks.

I opposed apartheid and the ANC whilst, like many others, in FCS. If the ANC had taken power whilst Mrs Thatcher was in power, there would have been a bloodbath.

[kingbongo]

Editor

I was attempting, though clearly failing spectacularly, to show that so far as the BBC is concerned Sudan is nothing more than undiscovered Greece, there was no mention of the unfolding disaster in the South.

I hadn't meant to upset anybody and I apologise. Irony can be misused.

It is the BBC that is warped; this has to be one of the most inappropriate pieces of radio I can ever remember hearing. As you know more about Darfur than most a complaint to the BBC about the Excess Baggage programme broadcast on 26 August might be in order.

[Editor]

Thanks for your clarification kingbongo. I'll listen in to the programme and probably do as you say.

[William Norton]

This announcement should be seen the light of two facts:
* At this stage in the electoral cycle, DC is trying to persuade a middle-ground group of voters that the Conservative Party has changed and is now worthy of their support.

* The Cold War is over.

I can see no problems with this announcement. DC might get an ear-bashing in private from Lady Thatcher, but that probably goes with the job....

[Tony Barton]

It's obvious that Cameron has totally wimped out on Darfur.

Hence this utter drivel about Thatcher's policies of eons ago.

I read today that some former South African Nationalist Party minister washed the feet of a black bishop associated with Mandela.

Will this be Cameron's next move? I ask myself.

[Yet Another Anon]

Maybe it would have been best to be neutral and be critical of the apartheid system and the ANC also, the sanctions that were put in mostly actually hit the townships leaving the regime largely unaffected - in fact a lot of it seemed to be about penalising cricketers for touring the townships, Sports sanctions don't achieve much in my opinion unless you want to restrict sports as things in themselves - South Africa is a mineral and fuel rich country so even a blockade would have had limited effects, short of direct military action it is hard to see what would have made much difference, the National Party under Botha had been moving in the right direction although slowly and maybe it was right to leave them to it rather than possibly destabilising the National Government leading to the AWP coming in and reversing things and maybe going for an even more extreme form of apartheid.

[TomTip]

INTESRESTING TO NOTE THAT ISRAEL WAS APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA'S STRONGEST ALLY, A FRIENDSHIP CEMENTED WITH THE ULTIMATE GIFT - NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Think about it: a nation born from the horror of Nazism, going on to aid and abet the most brutal and institutionally racist regime of the late 20th century.

Anyone interested, see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

[Malvolio]

That's true about Israel and SA.

Are we going to hear DC call for sanctions against Israel next?

[Yet Another Anon]

Think about it: a nation born from the horror of Nazism, going on to aid and abet the most brutal and institutionally racist regime of the late 20th century.
What about Idi Amin's regime in Uganda, that certainly had quite a vicious racist side notably with regard to Asians and Jews?

It's easy to forget as well that at the same time as Harold Macmillan was making his Winds of Change speech that much of the Deep South of the USA had very similar policies to those prevalent in South Africa and that they had had a far longer record of such positions and yet there was little international criticism of them.

[Malvolio]

Personally I'm sick of these bleats from Cameron and the other hoodie-huggers.

I'm proud to say that when I was at uni I went on an official FCS trip to SA. It was a great country and from what I could see the blacks were very well treated.

I have a cousin in Cape Town who tells me that the place is now a total mess. Pity Cameron didn't say that to Mandela who, by the way, was a convicted terrorist.

[Malvolio]

Good sense from The Sunday Telegraph following this from Pik Botha - a major force in the ending of apartheid.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/03/ntory203.xml

Careful, Mr Cameron

The great thing about gestures is that they can be empty. When he disowned his party's attitude to apartheid-era South Africa, David Cameron scored an easy PR success, aligning himself with Nelson Mandela against Margaret Thatcher.

Yet the idea that Mrs Thatcher was sympathetic to apartheid is a travesty. Throughout the 1980s, she was pressing Pretoria, publicly and privately, to release Mr Mandela and legalise the ANC. True, she was opposed to sanctions (because they mainly hurt black South Africans), and was reluctant to treat the ANC, which she saw as dangerously close to Moscow, as the sole voice of the anti-apartheid opposition.

But, as Pik Botha tells this newspaper today, it was Britain's influence, which rested in no small measure on trade and investment, that helped push his party into holding free elections.

Not that any of this will trouble Mr Cameron. One thing he has learned from Tony Blair is that voters care more about tone than substance. Everything he has done to date, appearing with Friends of the Earth, talking about trade justice and social exclusion, attacking big business, has been part of a coherent strategy. With an administration as unpopular as Mr Blair's, he reasons, there is no need for the Opposition to set out detailed policies. Instead, it should remove barriers to entry, giving people as few reasons as possible to dislike it.

So far, the strategy has worked: the Tories are up in the polls. But a smiling face only works as a substitute for policy when the electorate does not expect to vote you into power. When an election looms, the voters will want to know what they can expect from a Cameron government.

He does not have to make policy commitments immediately, but whatever he says, he must be careful not to upset the core Conservative vote. The No Turning Back group has made a powerful case for a policy that is close to the hearts of most voters: tax cuts. Mr Cameron should not dismiss that aspect of "Old Conservatism" out of hand any more than he should alienate those who still laud Lady Thatcher.