Era of Borderless World Challenges South Africa
John Battersby, writer of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor
IN his speech to the joint US Congress Oct. 7, elder statesman Nelson Mandela proclaimed that the concept of a global village had become a reality that no nation-state could ignore.
This new reality, he said, had to become the cornerstone of a new world order in which poverty and injustice could be replaced by democracy, peace, and prosperity.
"The world is one stage and the action of all inhabitants part of the same drama," President Mandela said.
"Does it not then follow that each one of us as nations, including yourselves, should begin to define the national interest to include the genuine happiness of others, however distant in time and space their domicile might be?"
Congress applauded the speech as a landmark statement on the growing economic and political interdependence of nations. "It was the best, most eloquent and effective definition of the new world order ever heard," said Rep. Richard Gephardt (D) of Missouri.
But the message resonated differently back in South Africa, where a flood of black immigrants was entering from neighboring countries in search of a better life.
Mandela's more vocal constituents are demanding tighter controls at the border, illustrating the dilemma his ideal faces across the globe: how to reconcile the noble ideals of universal democracy and human rights with the more specific interests of nation-states and broader trends sometimes driven more by the need for efficiency than justice.
In the new world order that Mandela envisages, the national interest is coming into ever more frequent conflict with social and economic factors operating across frontiers. International borders are increasingly challenged by the rise of ethnicity, transnational financial markets and trade blocs, and new information technology. South Africa wrestles with human rights and immigration
These developments in the ordering of international affairs beg the question: Why should human rights remain in the straightjacket of national boundaries?
Mandela's comments were directed at the United States in his quest for foreign aid and investment in a continent largely left behind by the industrialized world. His vision was all the more remarkable for having emerged from a country where apartheid and its legacy have kept South Africa trapped in a time-warp, isolated from global trends toward democratization and human rights.
The dilemma he faces is that he has taken his concept of human rights and economic justice way beyond that of his constituency. In South Africa, intolerance toward black immigrants is growing, as is the militancy of a black trade-union elite and the residual culture of resistance that complicates the reversal of apartheid-era rent and service boycotts and advocates mass protest.
The problem was highlighted at an Oct. 7 conference of the South Africa Political Studies Association near Johannesburg. What was remarkable about the conference was that the academics divided more or less along racial lines when it came to the issue of how to deal with immigrants from black-ruled states.
White political academics took the liberal line that South Africa cannot deny rights to black immigrants merely because they fall within different national boundaries of an interconnected region. Immigrants, the argument went, like South African citizens, have a right to life, and contribute to the national welfare through their involvement in the informal economy, doing jobs that black South Africans are not prepared to do.
The black political scientists at the conference disagreed sharply. As long as some 50 percent of black South Africans have no formal jobs, the country cannot afford to allow black immigrants to take coveted employment opportunities away from them.
Their solution was tougher immigration policies, tighter policing of the borders, and repatriation of illegal immmigrants already inside the country. …