I had thought to write a substantive introduction to these papers and proceedings, but have decided that a balanced survey of issues would be superfluous and might detract from the overall impact of this record. Those who follow the course of events in Southern Africa may discern in these pages the result of an attempt to bridge the gap between academic and political discourse. They are less likely to find new information than potentially useful insights arising from the clash of divergent opinions. Readers who are less familiar with conditions in Southern Africa may find that great issues are introduced more clearly through diversity of opinion than by any other method.

There is very wide agreement, with which I fully concur, regarding the abhorrent and unacceptable character of apartheid and regarding the inevitable demise of minority rule in South Africa. There is, however, honest disagreement regarding the best way for Americans and others to assist in effecting change. Differing motives for recommending disengagement may also sometimes confuse the issue. Disengagement can reflect such diverse policies as neutralism, non-cooperation, dissociation, intervention, or withdrawal. It can reflect a desire to induce change by positive steps or an acceptance that little can be done, but that the disengager will at least not be implicated or involved in a detested situation. To some it is the isolation of the disengager that is the goal; others appear to be propounding as-full-as-possible isolation of South Africa.

Southern Africa is now witnessing the struggle of the black majority for independence and majority rule. The growing revolt against white minority rule has taken different forms in each country.

There are a number of intellectually and morally defensible approaches to cultural exchange with South Africa. A position from which I wish to disassociate myself is that cultural relationships with South Africa can be justified on grounds of the moral justness of its present society, or as a defense of “white Christian civilization,” or that South Africa, however wrong on some counts, represents a “bulwark against Communism.” Those who would advocate or defend cultural exchanges with South Africa primarily on these grounds will have to make their own brief. Indeed, I have long ago stated my conviction in writing that the very term “white Christian civilization,” as used by the late Prime Minister Strijdom of South Africa, is a contradiction in terms.

Cultural exchange is a familiar commodity in the marketplace of international relations. But it is important to bear in mind that it comes in two brands—the authentic and the spurious.

Most Americans do not seem to appreciate that we are in a state of emergency in South Africa. They think that we are interested in spending money and time preventing a revolution instead of breaking down the structure of apartheid. They think that we are interested in living with apartheid, in accommodating ourselves to it. They do not believe that we will ever be able to demolish the structure.

Southern Africa is one of the three areas of great regional tension now affecting the conduct of world diplomacy. As our obsession with Southeast Asia diminishes. Southern Africa and the Middle East assume more importance. Because of the generation of peace being negotiated with China and the Soviets (and not in spite of it), we shall grow increasingly mindful of the continuing violence in these areas. Local problems move to the fore as the threat of world war appears to subside. Matters of unfinished business will not be neglected; we have seen them sprout up in Canada with regard to language, in Britain with regard to religion, and in Southern Africa with regard to race.