Dr. M.: I am not a Marxist, and I know that you Americans shudder when you hear redistribution of wealth. But it's happened here in South Africa before. When the "Nats" took power in 1948 from Smuts' United Party they (the Afrikaaners) began a concerted effort to redistribute the wealth. The entire civil service was padded with Afrikaaners, to get a government contract you had to be Afrikaaner, special schools and services were established for the Afrikaaner. Redistribution of the wealth does not necessarily imply Marxism.

Us: What should Americans that sympathize with your aspirations do?

K: First and most important, you must not recognize the regime in Salisbury (Rhodesia) or that in Namibia (South West Africa).

Us: Why not? These were democratically elected regimes.

Dr. M.: Look, when will you Americans learn? You've lost Asia and you haven't learned. You've lost most of Africa and you have't learned. Why don't you get on the side of the winners for once? Why can't you learn to stop these mistakes and be with the victors in Southern Africa?

Us: How severe a blow would the survival of Zimbabwe Rhodesia and Namibia be to your aspirations?

K: Very severe. It would set any change back for a long time.

Dr. M.: No it won't, there will be change here shortly.

Us: In your lifetime?

Dr. M.: Of course, of course.

Us: I'm afraid most Americans will find it difficult not to support the democratically elected regime in Zimbabwe...

Dr. M.: Democratically elected? Who was democratically elected? Nkomo and Mugabe were left out of the vote.

Us: Or perhaps refused to participate?

Dr. M.: That's not really true. They will participate in an all parties conference. Until they are represented in Zimbabwe there will be war in Zimbabwe. As long as there is war in Zimbabwe, there will be instability in the region. As I've said, instability is conducive to change...

Us: Let's forget Zimbabwe a minute and talk about divestment. Should Americans divest their holdings in corporations doing business in South Africa?