2.5 Disinvestment and Sanctions PDF

## 2.5 Disinvestment and sanctions In November 1962, the United Nations had attempted to impose far-reaching sanctions and economic isolation on South Africa. It had not been successful, largely because it lacked the support of many Western countries. States such as Britain and the United States we...

## 2.5 Disinvestment and sanctions In November 1962, the United Nations had attempted to impose far-reaching sanctions and economic isolation on South Africa. It had not been successful, largely because it lacked the support of many Western countries. States such as Britain and the United States were hesitant to impose any form of economic sanction on South Africa because their companies had a strong economic interest in remaining in the country, where they were able to earn large profits and returns on capital. Some countries also argued that the United Nations was interfering in South Africa's internal affairs. Despite the efforts of the anti-Apartheid movements, therefore, little progress was made for many years in imposing sanctions on South Africa. In 1977, however, a set of principles known as the Sullivan Principles was put forward to help guide Americans who wanted to change the policy of American companies investing in South Africa. These were drawn up by Reverend Leon Sullivan, who was a member of the board of General Motors, a large American company with a subsidiary in South Africa. The Sullivan Principles stated that, as a condition of doing business, all American companies had to treat employees equally and make sure that they provided a racially integrated environment for their workers, both inside and outside the workplace. As even an integrated end-of-year party in a restaurant would have conflicted with Apartheid legislation, it was difficult for American companies to stay in South Africa and follow the Sullivan Principles. Many American companies elected to remain in South Africa because the Sullivan Principles were a guideline rather than a regulation. However, there were companies who followed the principles and disinvested from the country. The significance of the Sullivan Principles was that they were the first real attempt, in the United States, to encourage sanctions against South Africa. The Republican Party in the United States consistently opposed sanctions against South Africa. It chose to follow, together with Britain, a policy of 'constructive engagement'. This meant that it tried, through diplomatic means, to persuade South Africa to change its policies. After opposition to the Tricameral Parliament became evident in South Africa, however, the United States Congress took a stronger view. Harsher sanctions bills were passed through Congress every year in the period from 1986 to 1988. Some of these laws forbade further investment in South Africa, and companies doing business in South Africa were taxed both in South Africa and in America. American companies started to withdraw from South Africa and there was less trade between the two countries. In 1986 there was a split between Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth over sanctions against, and disinvestment from, South Africa. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, opposed sanctions against South Africa and the final decision was that individual members of the Commonwealth must decide for themselves what economic policy to take with regard to South Africa. Although the sanctions and disinvestment policies took some time to get going, by the late 1980s they had become very successful. Together with certain international developments such as the end of the Cold War, they pressurised the South African government to begin negotiating the end of Apartheid with the African National Congress and other liberation movements. ## 2.6 The Release Mandela campaign Nelson Mandela had been arrested in 1962, and since the end of the Rivonia Trial in 1964, had been in jail with a sentence of life imprisonment hanging over his head. The state hoped that he and the other Rivonia triallists would remain in prison and eventually be forgotten by their supporters. This was not the case, however. In October 1963 the United Nations adopted a resolution calling on South Africa to release all its political prisoners. The ANC in exile constantly reminded people of Mandela's existence and agitated for his release. The Release Mandela Campaign that eventually became so powerful had been started by Ahmed Kathrada before the Rivonia Trial (Kathrada was another activist sentenced to imprisonment at the Rivonia Trial). The campaign continued to grow in intensity until Mandela was finally released in February 1990, as part of the reforms initiated by President FW. de Klerk. It had finally been successful and Mandela's supporters all over the world rejoiced in his new-found freedom. ## 2.7 Role of the international trade unions International trade unions, such as the Norwegian Action Movement and the European Confederation of Free Trade Unions, also influenced their own governments to take action against and isolate the Apartheid government. They did this through constant negotiation and their refusal to handle South African goods. In many countries, particularly Scandinavia, Denmark, Britain and most African countries, trade unions were in close touch with the anti-Apartheid movements. Like the disinvestment policies and sanctions of many governments, the influence exerted by trade unions gained pace by the end of the 1980s. This helped to bring about more rights for workers, and wide-ranging changes towards democracy in South Africa, in the early 1990s. ## Unit 3: Support for the anti-Apartheid struggle in Africa – Frontline States (e.g. Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) This unit looks at the ways in which the Frontline States in Africa supported the anti-Apartheid struggle. The Frontline States were those states that bordered South Africa and had until recently been under colonial rule. They were Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. As African states gained their independence from the colonial powers and formed the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963, so they increased their opposition to South Africa and its racial policies. While colonial powers or white governments remained in control in southern Africa, the success of the newly-independent states was limited. Portugal controlled Angola and Mozambique, the white government of Ian Smith controlled Zimbabwe (then called Rhodesia), and South Africa controlled Namibia (then South West Africa.) Matters changed after 1974, when a change in the government of Portugal led to Angola and Mozambique obtaining their independence. Zimbabwe became independent in 1980. This led to more pressure being placed on South Africa in the region. The Frontline States were the main grouping behind the creation of a joint economic power-grouping in the region, the South African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC). This body aimed to counter the influence of South Africa, which was the economic powerhouse of the region. At the same time, South Africa was attempting to create an 'anti-Marxist coalition' of southern African states. It wanted to form a regional bloc of countries that would include South Africa, the homelands, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi and possibly Mozambique. But because Zimbabwe and Mozambique were unwilling to participate in this bloc, the coalition was never fully implemented or successful. Prime Minister P.W. Botha strengthened the South African army and police forces considerably to counter ANC guerrillas coming into the country from neighbouring states. There were air strikes by the South African Air Force against targets in places such as Mozambique and Botswana. Accusations and counter-accusations were levelled by the South African government and its neighbours. The general effect was to destabilise neighbouring states, so that it was in their best interests to remain on good terms with the South African government. A good example of this was the signing of the Nkomati Accord between South Africa and Mozambique in 1984, when the South-African-backed movement, RENAMO, threatened to topple the FRELIMO government in Mozambique. Another example, early in 1986, was South Africa's economic pressure on Lesotho, which led to a change of government in that country. The victorious government under General Justin Metsing Lekhanya was more sympathetic to South Africa than the previous government of Chief Jonathan. The African states were caught in a dilemma – they hated South Africa's racial policies, but feared the retribution that might follow should they take too hard a line against the country. The death of Samora Machel in an aeroplane crash under mysterious circumstances in 1986 increased their concern. Internationally, the Frontline States maintained sanctions against South Africa as best they could. In co-operation with the other bodies mentioned earlier, they also agitated for meaningful sanctions against, and the isolation of, South Africa. Although they were not a match for South Africa in military terms, they supported ANC guerrilla activity against the Apartheid government and constantly asked for international intervention to ensure a change of government and policy in South Africa. ## Chapter 18: The beginning of the end **Unit 1: The South African economy in trouble: South Africa felt the bite of international sanctions, disinvestment as well as boycotts that coincide with internal mass resistance** ### 1.1 International sanctions, disinvestment and boycotts As we saw earlier, international sanctions eventually played a key role in isolating South Africa economically. Anti-Apartheid feeling internationally continued to grow, and with it came disinvestment by large firms such as Barclays Bank and Kodak. Boycotts of South African goods increased and South Africa's export trade suffered as a result. The South African government needed international investment to keep the country's economy afloat. It was worried that if the economy crashed and many jobs were lost, South Africa might face major economic and social unrest from the African majority, who were the people most likely to suffer from job shortages. ### 1.2 Internal mass resistance Along with the damage to the South African capitalist economy caused by international sanctions and disinvestment, internal mass resistance – which included huge protest marches – had, by 1990, placed South Africa in an explosive situation. Mass resistance inside South Africa thus forced the Apartheid government to re-think and evaluate its future. As time went on, more and more people came to believe that only a new political order would be able to correct South Africa's economy. The government now came to accept that it must start negotiations with the world's most famous political prisoner – Nelson Mandela.