...> But
> although ostensibly sovereign, they were amongst other things not
> economically viable without SA - all of them, as I recall, were enclaved
> entirely within SA.
Not quite. Ciskei and the main fragment of Transkei had coasts so were not enclaved. Bophuthatswana I think has fragments that bordered on Botswana. Only Venda was fully enclaved, to allow RSA to control the original RSA boundary in the NE.
Of the non-independent Bantustans, I think Kwazulu has coastal fragments...
This is a minor quibble though.
The fact that they were "not economically viable without SA" does not seem to be a valid argument. How many of the world's 200 plus countries would be viable without any of the others, and able to maintain their current level of development? And many of the smaller countries of the world depend very heavily on one or two others for their existence. Given their agreements with bordering states, which of Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino or Bhutan is truly independent, or at least as independent as the France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy or India? How viable are PNG/Nauru/Niue without Australian/NZ aid?
And if landlocked Lesotho, fully enclaved in RSA is independent and viable (or at least politically acknowledged to be so by other countries), on what objective basis was coastal Transkei, of similar size, not so?
IMO the decision to classify the 4 'independent bantustans' as puppet states due to their enclavity, or economic reliance on RSA is a political decision: subjective, not objective. North Korea would seem to remain 'viable' only due to political support and energy from China and Russia, and food aid from the US... So why is it recognised as a 'real 'country, but not Transkei? Or Bhutan given India conducts its foreign affairs? Or the Holy See given the Chinese, representing 1/6 of the world's population, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council doesn't recognise it?
If the Ukraine and Belorussia had UN seats from 1945-1990, and were therefore 'legitimate countries' what makes Transkei less legitimate?
I'm not saying the bantustans were not heavily if not fully dependent on the RSA, and therefore effectively puppet states. I am just arguing that there is no firm and significant divide between them and other states that are recognised as 'real/legitimate'. I take issue at how the dividing line is drawn on the continuum of independence/sovereignty/viability, as there seems to be little questioning of the 'pretence' of the bantustans, while equally if not more unviable states are recognised as 'legitimately sovereign'.
While it may be necessary to draw a line on the continuum of independence, this is not being done is an objective way, but politically, so that states dependent on 'bad South Africa' are not legitimate, a categorisation made purely on political motives (and perhaps somewhat patronisingly to the inhabitants of those states), while states equally or more dependent on 'good countries' are legitimate/real/valid and worthy to hold UN votes, have our diplomatic recognition, etc.
--
Dr Brendan Whyte,
School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies,
University of Melbourne, Vic 3010, AUSTRALIA
[log in to unmask]
|