South Africa: Information And Tools

SOUTH AFRICA:  INFORMATION AND TOOLS

The following piece includes basic information on the structure of Apartheid and the history, geography and socio-economic conditions of South Africa.The main article suggests ways to make and counter arguments in regard to divestment.

compiled by Andrew Boyd

1. U.S. INVESTMENTS HELP THE ECONOMY AND GIVE BLACKS JOBS- WHAT'S THE HARM IN THAT?

Economics and politics are not separate. What helps the South African economy, helps Apartheid. According to the Senate Subcommittee on Africa: "The net effect of American investment has been to strengthen the economic and military self-sufficiency of South Africa's apartheid regime." Furthermore, U.S. corporations, with the help of the U.S. government and the CIA, supply weaponry and advanced technology directly to the South African government and armed forces.

Control Data Corporation has sold equipment to the South African police. IBM has supplied computers to the Department of Defense and to the government to help streamline racist population controls. General Motors and Ford manufacture trucks used by the police and military. Secret GM contingency plans prepared in 1977 indicate that the company would cooperate with the government "in the event of civil unrest" and that "vehicles may be taken over for Civil Defense purposes." Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and Standard Oil of California supply oil to South Africa in violation of of an international oil embargo while Fluor Corporation has provided $4.2 billion worth of coal-oil conversion plants to help South Africa achieve energy self-sufficiency.

2. WE ALREADY HAVE THE SULLIVAN PRINCIPLES. AREN'T THEY GOOD ENOUGH?

The Sullivan Principles call for non-segregation in the work place and fair employment practices. They make no demand for change in the fundamental structure of Apartheid, no demand for black political rights. Furthermore, signing the principles in no way guarantees that they will be honored. Many companies signed simply to deflect criticism at home. U.S. corporations employ fewer than 1% of all working people in South Africa, so even if the principles were practiced they would affect an insignificant number of workers. Black trade-unionists describe the principles as a "toothless package," "just good cosmetics for the outside world," and a "piece-meal reform that allows this cruel system of apartheid to survive."

3. WHAT RIGHT DO UNIVERSITIES, CITY COUNCILS, OR STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE TO MAKE FOREIGN-POLICY DECISIONS OR TELL CORPORATIONS WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE DOING?

It is legal. The Attorney General of Maryland in a ground-breaking opinion, stated that there is no conflict between divestment legislation and the U.S. Constitution, federal law and federal foreign affairs power.

It is our responsibility. The New York 1984 report on "City Policy With Respect to South Africa" stated that, "The issue is the relationship between the City's finances and an unjust system...It is simply not accurate to say that South Africa's governmentally supported policy of massive and sustained discrimination is none of our concern."

And if we don't, who will? Few corporations are likely to withdraw from South Africa until there are economic reasons to do so. Institutional investors and pension funds hold a key to this withdrawal because of their economic power. State and city governments, trade unions and churches must act in concert and use their economic power to pressure for corporate withdrawal.

4. WONT DIVESTMENT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO BLACK SOUTH AFRICANS?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu: "Those who invest in South Africa should not think they are doing us a favor; they are here for what they get out of our cheap and abundant labor and they should know that they are buttressing one of the most vicious systems."

Nobel Peace Laureate and ex-president of the ANC Albert Luthuli: "The economic boycott of South Africa will entail undoubted hardship for Africans. We do not doubt that. But if it is a method which shortens the day of bloodshed, the suffering to us will be a price we are willing to pay."

Steve Biko:  "The argument is often made that the loss of foreign investment would hurt blacks the most. It would undoubtedly hurt blacks in the short run, because many of them would stand to lose their jobs. But it should be understood in Europe and North America that foreign investment supports the present economic system of injustice. We blacks are perfectly willing to suffer the consequences! We are quite accustomed to suffering."

5. WONT DIVESTMENT HURT THE YIELDS OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTMENTS?

Not at all. It has been proven again and again that divestment is good investment. Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis: "It has been our experience that divestiture makes not only a strong moral statement against apartheid but divestiture has proven to have had no significant impact on our pension earnings. Timely and careful divestiture can result in net increases in pension earnings."

Connecticut State Treasurer, Henry Parker: "Connecticut has been able to earn money by selling the holding of socially irresponsible companies."

Member of University of Wisconsin Trust Fund: "Divestment of South Africa related stocks has not hampered or limited our ability to find suitable sources of investment."

6. WHAT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC METALS AND MINERALS WE GET FROM SOUTH ÁFRICA? WHAT WILL WE DO WITHOUT THEM?

When the black majority comes to power, we will still be able to get our precious metals. However, we will have to pay a fair price for them-a price based on decent wages for mineworkers, a price based on the social needs of the impoverished majority, a price that will help pay for health, education and housing for those who never had it.